House of Commons

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 21 November 2012

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

1. What assessment he has made of the potential effects on jobs in Scotland of Scottish independence.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

The UK Government firmly believe that Scotland is, and always will be, better off in the UK. The UK Government are undertaking a programme of analysis to evaluate how Scotland contributes to, and benefits from, being part of the UK.

[Lindsay Roy]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he explain why there is so much concern among those working in the defence and supply chain industries in Scotland over the future of their jobs?

[David Mundell]

I can advise the hon. Gentleman that, as of April, there were 15,880 regular armed forces and Ministry of Defence civilian personnel based in Scotland, and an additional 40,000 people employed in defence-related industries in around 800 companies. Not one of those people could guarantee their job under an independent Scotland.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

The SNP’s commitment to a nuclear-free Scotland will presumably mean the end of Trident, the end of the Vanguard submarines that carry it and the end of Rosyth. Am I right in thinking that that affects something like 6,500 jobs in Scotland? Does the Minister think that these jobs would be replicated elsewhere, or would those people simply lose their jobs, thanks to an SNP Government?

[David Mundell]

I can advise my hon. Friend that by 2020, there will be 8,000 jobs based at Faslane, following the recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Defence of an additional 1,500 jobs. There is absolutely no certainty about what would happen to anybody employed in the Ministry of Defence or the defence industries in Scotland under an independent Scotland.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The list of recent investment and job announcements in Scotland has been quite remarkable, particularly in the renewables sector. The Minister will know there were £2.3 billion-worth of completed projects to July this year, and that there is a future pipeline of £9.4 billion with many thousands of jobs attached. Each of those investment decisions has been taken in the sure and certain knowledge that the referendum is coming and independence is likely. Why does the Minister think that these investment decisions continue to be made, and why is nobody listening to his scare stories?

[David Mundell]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. These investments are taking place despite the uncertainty, not because of it. I tend to agree with the chief executive of Aggreko, who said yesterday in giving evidence to a parliamentary Committee that the supposed benefits of independence were “small and tenuous” and unlikely to arise, while the dangers were “large and serious”.

[Stewart Hosie]

The Minister mentions uncertainty, but the only uncertainty we have seen is the massive increase made in the North sea supplementary charge with no discussion with the sector, and the uncertainty for employees now that this Government are making it easier to sack people. Is it not the case, as Douglas Sawers of Ceridian said when he made a significant investment earlier this year, that in the event of independence, the Scottish Government’s approach will be to make Scotland more, not less, competitive? Is that not the truth? Instead of scare stories, we are going to move to independence with a Government who will make Scotland more, not less, competitive?

[David Mundell]

When the people of Scotland make a decision on independence in the referendum, they must be sure that that decision is a long-term one. Independence is not for Christmas 2014. If the hon. Gentleman looked at the Institute for Fiscal Studies report, he would see that it says that an independent Scotland would face much harder decisions than the rest of the UK in the longer term.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

13. The Minister will be aware that 30,000 Scots are employed by UK Government agencies to work as civil servants in Scotland, including in the Department for International Development, which has 450 staff members in East Kilbride. What would happen to those jobs if Scotland voted for independence, and has there been any clarity on that from the SNP?

[David Mundell]

There has been no discussion between the SNP, or indeed the Scottish Government, and the UK Government about the future of defence-based jobs, civil service jobs or any other jobs in Scotland. The people in those jobs would face, as would everybody else, great uncertainty if Scotland were to become independent.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

2. What role the Electoral Commission will play in the referendum on Scottish independence.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

11. What role the Electoral Commission will play in the referendum on Scottish independence.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)]

The agreement reached between the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments recognises the importance of the independent Electoral Commission and that the referendum should be based on the normal rules for referendums held across the UK.

[Bob Blackman]

It is clearly important for all parties to respect the independence of the Electoral Commission. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the SNP Administration in Scotland were to ignore the commission’s advice, that would taint the whole process and call into question whether the referendum was fair?

[Michael Moore]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the expertise and experience of the Electoral Commission, which is indeed a highly respected institution. I do not think that it would be in the interests of the Scottish Government or any nationalists to pit themselves against the commission’s advice.

[Karen Lumley]

Does my right hon. Friend share the concern that the referendum question submitted to the Electoral Commission by the Scottish Government is weighted in favour of a positive outcome?

[Michael Moore]

I understand the concern that people feel about the formulation presented by the Scottish Government, but I think that, given its great experience, great expertise and trusted status, the Electoral Commission is in the right position to carry out the right procedures. I am ready to stand by its advice, and I hope that the Scottish Government are too.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Secretary of State accept that while the Electoral Commission may be a trifle wishy-washy on occasion, it is necessary for an impartial body to decide important questions such as the question of the question? The alternative is for separatists to be both referee and player, and it is simply unacceptable for the party that is on one side of the argument to decide the rules as well.

[Michael Moore]

I entirely agree with the eminent Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee. He and his colleagues have been conducting a series of investigations of that issue and others relating to independence. I believe that the referendum must be seen to be fair to both sides. We cannot possibly have folk calling the outcome into question at the end of the process, which is why we have laboured long and hard to secure a referendum that is legal, fair and decisive. I hope that the Scottish Government will accept the Electoral Commission’s advice.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

Given that any proposal to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds is unlikely to take effect until the spring of 2014, will the Electoral Commission provide advice on how all those young people will be able to register and vote in any referendum?

[Michael Moore]

The hon. Lady has raised an important point about the potential extension of the franchise. It will be for the Scottish Government to present detailed proposals, but I imagine that the Electoral Commission will be closely involved in the guidance that is provided for all voters as we approach the referendum.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Yesterday, the gentleman who gave evidence to the Select Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) on behalf of the Yes Scotland campaign for separation refused to state categorically that his campaign would abide by the advice of the Electoral Commission. What sanctions can be imposed on a Government, a Parliament or a campaign that blatantly refuses to take the commission’s advice ?

[Michael Moore]

I understand my hon. Friend’s anxiety, but this Government and their predecessors have always followed the advice of the Electoral Commission, and I would expect the Scottish Government to do so as well.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State has just asserted yet again that no Government have ever ignored the advice of the Electoral Commission, and has implied that the Scottish Government might. Far from ignoring the commission’s advice, the Scottish Government have yet to receive it. Meanwhile, the right hon. Gentleman’s Government have rejected the Electoral Commission’s advice on the desirability of referendums on council tax in England. Will he now put the record straight?

[Michael Moore]

I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and help him to calm down. As the Electoral Commissioner John McCormick said on television just the other weekend,

“For every referendum that has taken place, the Electoral Commission’s advice and question has been accepted.”

As for the issue of local government referendums, none has taken place. We have already said that we have reflected on the Electoral Commission’s advice, and I shall be presenting proposals on that question very shortly.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

3. What steps his Department is taking to promote businesses in Scotland around the world.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

12. What steps his Department is taking to promote businesses in Scotland around the world.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)]

The Government are committed to promoting United Kingdom businesses, including in Scotland, around the world. Brian Wilson, the former Trade Minister, is currently carrying out a review of Scottish exporting and has been appointed a UK business ambassador with special focus on Scotland.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that, as well as promoting business, we need to support businesses at this time when access to finance is so difficult? What steps is he taking to work with the devolved Government to ensure that there are prompt payments in the supply chain, and in particular that the public sector pays private sector suppliers in a timely fashion?

[Michael Moore]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government are committed to ensuring that private sector suppliers are paid on time so they can sustain their businesses, and I am happy to work with the Scottish Government, or anybody else in the public sector, to ensure that everybody adheres to best practice.

[Alun Cairns]

What action is the Secretary of State taking to ensure there is no conflict between Scottish Development International and UK Trade & Investment when they use public money to try to attract companies either side of the border by offering bigger carrots?

[Michael Moore]

My hon. Friend underlines the importance of trade for the Scottish and UK economies. Scotland’s exports are worth some £22 billion, but to put things in perspective, that is half the value of what we sell into England, Wales and the rest of the UK. SDI has 21 offices in 13 countries, whereas UKTI has 162 offices in 96 countries, and 270 Foreign and Commonwealth Office consuls operate in 170 countries. That network offers a great opportunity to Scottish business to get the best out of the United Kingdom. It is important that we work together, and it is clear that we are stronger together and would be weaker apart.

[Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

As we have seen, the work undertaken here has an impact on Scottish businesses both at home and abroad. May I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to the troubles that Scottish businesses are currently experiencing, however? Unemployment is now higher in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. Recent research by the Fraser of Allander Institute reveals another challenge for the Scottish economy and Scottish businesses: it found that welfare changes in Glasgow alone will remove £115 million from the local economy and lead to the loss of almost 2,000 jobs across Scotland. What does the Secretary of State plan to do about that?

[Michael Moore]

I share the hon. Lady’s analysis in this respect: there is a huge mess that has to be cleared up, and there are significant challenges and some deep-seated problems in the Scottish and UK economies, as well as real problems on our doorstep in Europe. Every time she comes to the Dispatch Box, however, she tries to duck Labour’s responsibility for the mess we inherited, and she simply cannot do that. We are determined to ensure that through welfare reform we make work pay, by supporting the most vulnerable and helping people into work. We are also determined to put money back into the pockets of low-income and middle-income Scots; from next April, 162,000 will be taken out of tax entirely, and 2 million will have seen their tax bills reduced.

[Margaret Curran]

Perhaps I can draw the Secretary of State’s attention to some of the comments made by his Liberal Democrat colleagues, who I do not think share his enthusiasm for his welfare changes, and ask him to focus on the loss of jobs that they will cause in Scotland. Perhaps he should focus a little more on that. The truth is that the Government’s policies are hitting Scotland hard, and the Secretary of State must start addressing the work his Government are doing in Scotland. Earlier this month in a letter to me, the Secretary of State revealed he is not on a single one of the Cabinet Committees dealing with either the economy or welfare. The last time I questioned the Secretary of State we had no action on food banks, and now there is no action on Scotland’s economy. It would seem that he does not understand the impact of the welfare changes in Scotland. When are you going to start doing your job in relation to the Scottish economy?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am certainly doing my job, but I think the hon. Lady is referring to the Secretary of State, and we will now hear about how he is doing his.

[Michael Moore]

Once again, we are going to take no lessons from the Labour party about the state of the United Kingdom economy. We have a plan that will make sure we deal with the mess it left us, and that gets us back on the right track and gets us sustainable growth—unlike Labour, which has no plan whatever.

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

4. What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the referendum on Scottish independence.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

5. When he last met the First Minister to discuss the planned referendum on Scottish independence.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)]

I have discussed the referendum with the Scottish Government on a number of occasions, most recently on 15 October, when Scotland’s two Governments reached agreement on the process to ensure that there is a legal, fair and decisive referendum.

[Mr Amess]

Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the arguments for separation is based on the false premise that it would be good for the Scottish economy? Does he agree that separation would be good for the English economy but not for the Scottish economy?

[Michael Moore]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that Scotland is stronger as part of the United Kingdom economy. We would be weaker if we were outside it, primarily because it gives us access to this huge single market which takes twice as many of our exports—if we can call them that—as anywhere else in the world; it has the resilience to absorb huge financial catastrophes, such as the bank collapse; and it gives us the clout internationally to be at the top table, where all the key economic decisions are made. That is far better for Scotland.

[John Robertson]

Does the Secretary of State agree that last week we saw an example of what happens when people do not listen to the Electoral Commission—the debacle of the police commissioner elections, with a turnout of less than 10% in some places and empty boxes? Will he talk to the Scottish Government to ensure that a similar debacle does not happen in Scotland?

[Michael Moore]

Funnily enough, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on the example he uses, but I am in complete agreement with him on the principle that we should listen to the Electoral Commission and follow its advice.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I was not particularly going to ask about this issue, but I am happy to ask the Secretary of State—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady might let Mr Wishart have a go then. Come on, let’s hear him.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Thank you for clearing up that confusion, Mr Speaker.

Can the Minister confirm that following the Edinburgh agreement, which all parties agreed to, the referendum on independence is now exclusively a matter for the Scottish Parliament and that this House has no further role in it?

[Michael Moore]

I know that the hon. Gentleman always wants to denigrate the Parliament of which he is a part, and I wish he would stop doing that, but I point out to him that a rather important part of that agreement is that we will pass the section 30 order, which will transfer the powers to the Scottish Parliament. Importantly, that will involve debates in this place and in the other place, as well as in the Scottish Parliament. We are all part of this debate, and all Scots will be part of that political process.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

When the Secretary of State next meets the First Minister will he share with him the powerful call of President Clinton and Secretary Albright when they visited these shores reminding us that what binds us together is far more powerful than any distinctions in identity?

On economic co-operation, was the Institute for Fiscal Studies not right to point out that if we want to diversify the Scottish economy away from our dependence on oil and gas revenues, we need not only a shared currency and interest rate, but a powerful and strong fiscal union which benefits Scotland? That is the likely result in terms of our shared prosperity in the future.

[Michael Moore]

The hon. Gentleman makes two important points. One is that when senior international figures look at the issue confronting Scots—the most important political decision in 300 years—time and again they say that they think Scotland would be better off as part of the United Kingdom. Secondly, the report he highlights is significant as it shows the strength of Scotland’s economy as part of the UK, both in terms of its opportunity and in reducing the risks attached to it. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Far too many noisy private conversations are taking place—mainly on the Opposition Benches at the moment. Let us hear from Mark Pritchard.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

6. What recent assessment he has made of the benefits to Scotland of the UK’s membership of NATO; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

Scotland is stronger in defence terms as part of the United Kingdom within NATO. NATO is the bedrock of our national security, and the UK is one of its largest contributors. There is no guarantee that an independent Scotland would gain automatic membership.

[Mark Pritchard]

What discussions has my right hon. Friend held with the Scottish Government on their dialogue with NATO, given that so many within that Government are anti-nuclear and NATO is a pro-nuclear alliance?

[David Mundell]

It is not clear whether the Scottish Government have had any dialogue with NATO about prospective membership and it is quite clear that membership could not be guaranteed. As the NATO Secretary-General said, the

“door does not open…just because you stand in front of it.”

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Rosyth dockyard in my constituency works for the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Navy. Will the Minister clarify whether, if Scotland were a separate country, regardless of its NATO membership, Rosyth dockyard would get work from the Royal Navy?

[David Mundell]

Many UK defence contractors benefit from contracts that are exempt from EU procurement rules for national security reasons, meaning that they have to be placed or competed for within the United Kingdom. Many such contracts have been awarded in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and there is no guarantee that they would be awarded in an independent Scotland.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is an inherent contradiction in saying that one thinks that nuclear weapons are an obscenity while at the same time wishing to join an alliance based on both conventional and nuclear deterrence? Are not those two positions wholly irreconcilable?

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Some honourable former members of the Scottish National party, such as MSPs Jean Urquhart and Mr Finnie, agree with him and they could not reconcile their positions. Many SNP MSPs continue to sit in government in Scotland, however, despite being unable to reconcile those two positions.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

7. What recent assessment he has made of the economy in Scotland.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)]

The UK Government have reduced the deficit by a quarter and we are taking important steps to promote growth. Cutting corporation tax, accelerating infrastructure projects and establishing the funding for lending scheme are just some of the range of measures being implemented.

[Ian Murray]

Does the Secretary of State agree with the recent assessment of the Institute for Fiscal Studies that in the event of a separate Scotland the economy will not be sustainable in the long term?

[Michael Moore]

I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman. We will have much stronger opportunities if we continue as part of the United Kingdom than we will if we go our own separate ways.

[Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)]

Vion has put up for sale McIntosh Donald, a meat processing factory at Portlethen in my constituency that employs 600 people. Will the Secretary of State emphasise to any potential buyer north-east Scotland’s excellent reputation for high-quality meat production and the importance of the factory in a route to market for that excellent product?

[Michael Moore]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. These have clearly been difficult months, particularly for those employed by Vion at Hall’s in West Lothian, and now we have the sale of the rest of the group. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and other Scottish colleagues to discuss the implications, and encourage everybody to see the potential in the company. I hope that we will sustain the jobs that are in it.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Vion’s decision to cease operations in Scotland also affects up to 400 people in my constituency in Cambuslang. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is intolerable for the company to refuse to provide those 400 people, who are obviously very anxious about their future, with meaningful information? Will he make contact with the company to remind them that they should be ensuring that their employees get clarity about their positions as soon as possible?

[Michael Moore]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point and I shall certainly take it up on his behalf and add to his efforts with the company. I will be happy to meet him in due course to discuss it further.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

8. What steps the Government are taking to widen access to superfast broadband in Scotland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

The UK Government are committed to delivering the best superfast broadband network in Europe by 2015. As part of that, the Scottish Government were allocated more than £100 million to support broadband improvements. It is now the responsibility of the Scottish Government to deliver on this investment by the UK Government.

[Mr Reid]

I am pleased that the Government have allocated more than £100 million to Scotland for rural high-speed broadband. Will the Minister do all he can to encourage the Scottish Government and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to get a move on and use that money to bring high-speed broadband to the rural parts of Argyll and Bute as soon as possible?

[David Mundell]

I most certainly will encourage the Scottish Government and all other agencies to get on with deploying rural broadband. My constituents are as concerned about it as the hon. Gentleman’s.

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

I am very concerned, as everyone is, about all of Scotland getting superfast broadband. Is the Minister aware that BT is going to use fibre optics in West Lothian, and has just announced that it is going to roll out copper wire into Bo’ness and parts of my constituency? Copper wire is last century’s technology. Will he intervene and talk to BT about rolling out fibre optics to all parts of Scotland, so that superfast broadband is a reality for everyone?

[David Mundell]

I am happy to arrange a meeting involving myself, the hon. Gentleman and BT to discuss that issue.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

In what appears to be a break with the constant scaremongering in this session, may I ask the Minister whether he agrees that broadband coverage percentages should be based on local authority area rather than national area?

[David Mundell]

What I think is that the Scottish Government, having been given £100 million by the UK Government to roll out broadband, should get on with it in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and elsewhere.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 November.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

Before I list my engagements, the whole House will wish to join me in sending our sympathies and our condolences to the family of Captain Walter Barrie, of 1st Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland. He was described as a fantastic, engaging and professional soldier. He will be truly missed by all who knew him. Our nation must never forget his service and his sacrifice. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

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

[Tristram Hunt]

May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Captain Barrie and all our soldiers working so heroically in Afghanistan?

In Stoke-on-Trent, libraries are closing, teachers are being laid off and youth clubs are shutting their doors. Given that public funds are so precious, does the Prime Minister really think it was a good use of taxpayers’ money to waste £100 million on the farcical police and crime commissioner elections in November?

[The Prime Minister]

I think it is good that, right across the country, we are now going to have local law and order champions, who will stand up for the public and ensure that we get a good deal from the police. I have noticed that Labour has two criticisms of the police and crime commissioners: on the one hand it said we spent too much money; on the other hand, it said that we did not spend enough money promoting the elections. I am prepared to accept one criticism or the other, but not both.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

Yesterday the British Government borrowed money from international investors at record low levels, saving taxpayers millions of pounds. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is more evidence that our economic plans are working?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which is that because of the fact that we have a credible plan to get on top of debt, to get on top of deficit, to show how we will pay our way in the world, we have record low interest rates, which were described by the shadow Chancellor as the key test of economic credibility.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

May I start by joining the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Captain Walter Barrie, of 1st Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland? He showed the utmost courage and bravery, and all our thoughts and condolences are with his family and friends.

May I also express my deep sorrow about the loss of life and suffering in Israel and Gaza in recent days, including the latest appalling terrorist attack on a bus in Tel Aviv? There is widespread support on both sides of the House for the agreement of an immediate and durable ceasefire in Israel and Gaza, so will the Prime Minister set out, in his view, the remaining barriers to that ceasefire agreement now being reached?

[The Prime Minister]

May I say how much I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the appalling news this morning about the terrorist attack on a bus in Tel Aviv? May I also express our deep concern about the intolerable situation for people in southern Israel and the grave loss of life in Gaza?

The right hon. Gentleman asked specifically what more we can do to help bring this ceasefire about. I think that all of us, right across the European Union, and in America and beyond, need to be putting pressure on the Israeli Prime Minister and all those who have contacts with Hamas, to de-escalate, to stop the fighting, to stop the bombing; and that is exactly what I have done. Over the weekend, I spoke twice to the Israeli Prime Minister and once to the President of Israel—my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is working very hard on this as well—to persuade both sides that we need a ceasefire. Beyond that, obviously what we need is proper discussions about the future of Israel and Palestine.

[Edward Miliband]

I agree with the Prime Minister: he is right to say that any such ceasefire deal can be turned into permanent peace only if there is a resumption of meaningful negotiations towards a two-state solution. This week has shown us once again that there is neither peace nor a peace process, and the reality is that the international community bears some responsibility for the abject failure to have those meaningful negotiations, nine years on from the promise of the road map for peace. Can the right hon. Gentleman set out for the House what steps beyond the hoped-for ceasefire need to be taken to pressure both sides into meaningful negotiations?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree that we need a process to be put in place and we have to do everything we can to persuade President Obama that this should be a leading priority for his second presidential term, but I make this point: of course we all want this process and we all want this peace, but in the end peace can come about only by Israelis and Palestinians sitting down and talking through the final status issues—they have to discuss borders, Jerusalem and refugees. In the end, as President Obama is fond of saying, and I agree, we cannot want this more than they want it. We have to encourage them, provide the framework and push for a process, but in the end we need courageous leadership from Israelis and Palestinians to talk through those final status issues.

[Edward Miliband]

That is completely right, but we have to use every means at our disposal to pressure both sides into those negotiations, because the reality is that confidence that there can be a two-state solution is dwindling month by month. There will be an opportunity to support the cause of the two-state solution at the UN General Assembly later this month by recognising enhanced observer status for the Palestinian Authority. The Opposition support that because we believe it will strengthen the moderate voices among the Palestinians who want to pursue the path of politics, not the path of violence. I urge the Prime Minister to consider adopting that position in the days ahead.

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the first part of what he said: confidence is dwindling that there is time left for a two-state solution. That is why there is such a sense of urgency in the international community—this could be the last chance for peace, because the facts on the ground are changing. Frankly, I think it is so much in Israel’s interest now to push for the two-state solution, so we should keep up the pressure.

On the potential vote at the United Nations, our view, which I know the Foreign Secretary set out for the House in some detail yesterday, is that the Palestinians should not take it to the UN in the short term, and we have urged them not to do that. Clearly, if they do so, we will have to consider the right way to vote. The point is this: we will not solve this problem at the United Nations; it will be solved only by Israelis and Palestinians sitting down and negotiating. Indeed, there may be dangers in pushing the issue too early at the UN in terms of funds for the Palestinian Authority being cut off and all the other consequences, so let us get negotiations going, rather than discussions at the UN.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

If the Prime Minister wants to send a clear message that Scotland and England belong together and have a better future together, should he not be doing his best to make sure that the principal road from London to Edinburgh is a modern dual carriageway and does not become a country lane?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend makes a very attractive spending bid for the autumn statement. Although my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is not here, I am sure that Treasury colleagues were listening closely.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Q2. The Prime Minister claimed that universal credit will “bring about the most fundamental and radical changes to the welfare system since it began”. Given the Government’s propensity for omnishambles, can he guarantee that the second phase of universal credit will be implemented in April 2014 and not delayed?

[The Prime Minister]

Universal credit is a good reform and I thought it was welcomed across the House because it puts in place proper work incentives for people at all levels of income, and is also highly progressive in channelling money to those who need it the most. I can tell the hon. Lady that universal credit is on time and on budget and, indeed, a pilot scheme is to start shortly.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

The person responsible for the murder of Becky Godden-Edwards, whose mother is my constituent, has not been brought to justice because important incriminating evidence was excluded from the court process. Will my right hon. Friend join our cause in calling for a thorough review of code C of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, so that such terrible situations will not occur in future?

[The Prime Minister]

I will look very carefully at what my hon. Friend raises and the specific case he mentions. I will also look at the issue of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. It is always important that all information that possibly can be put in front of a court is put in front of a court, so that it can reach the correct decision.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

Q3. Cuts in front-line policing, together with cuts to police pensions and conditions in service, have led 96% of the police force to believe that this Government do not support them. Does the Prime Minister think that that is a problem and, if so, what will he do about it?

[The Prime Minister]

This Government strongly support our police service and what it does. These are people who go out every day and put their lives on the line to keep the rest of us safe. Frankly, whoever was in government right now would have to be making cuts to police budgets, but if we actually look at what is happening in policing, we see that the number of neighbourhood police has gone up, the percentage of police on the front line has gone up, the number of police in back-office roles has gone down and, crucially, that crime is down and satisfaction with the police is up.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Q4. So that people do not have to wade through hundreds of bamboozling tariff plans, will the Prime Minister confirm that this Government will legislate to ensure that people can access the best deals, which the Leader of the Opposition failed to do as Energy Secretary?

[The Prime Minister]

I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that, having stood at this Dispatch Box and said that we wanted to ensure that people got access to the lowest tariffs, that is exactly what we have achieved. If Opposition Members have doubts about this, let me quote a Labour shadow Energy Minister, who said this about our change:

“It also means some of the most expensive deals would have to go...Being able to reduce the number of tariffs for people is going to help people get a clearer picture of what is happening and that can only be a good thing.”

That is the sort of endorsement that I welcome.

[Edward Miliband]

The Government promised that there should be no rationing in the NHS on grounds of cost alone. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he has kept that promise?

[The Prime Minister]

The promise that we have kept is that we said that we would increase NHS spending every year under this Government, and in England that is what is happening. In Wales, of course, there is a massive cut in the NHS, because it is run by Labour.

[Edward Miliband]

First of all, there are 7,000 fewer nurses in the NHS than when the Prime Minister came to power, according to the figures published this morning. I asked him a specific question about the promise made a year ago by the then Health Secretary—the Prime Minister sacked him and he is now the Leader of the House—that there would be no rationing on the grounds of cost alone, but the president of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists said recently—[Interruption.] Government Members should listen, because he said that

“PCTs are not following government guidelines.”

Half of health commissioners are restricting access to cataract surgery. [Interruption.] I do not think that the Prime Minister should ask the former Health Secretary for help, because he got rid of him from the post. Can the Prime Minister tell me why, for the first time in six years, the number of cataract operations actually fell last year?

[The Prime Minister]

What I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that, under this Government, the number of doctors is up, the number of operations is up, waiting lists are down and waiting times are down. That is what is happening because we took the responsible decision. He quotes primary care trusts, which, of course, we are abolishing and putting the money into front-line services. That is what is happening under this Government. The Opposition and he believe that increasing spending on the NHS is irresponsible; we think it is the right thing to do.

[Edward Miliband]

Once again, the Prime Minister has no clue about the detail—he has no idea what is actually happening out there on the ground. To give him credit, he did make history this week, because he now has his very own word in the “Oxford English Dictionary”: “omnishambles.” The reality is that the reason people are suffering on the ground is that he has wasted billions of pounds on a top-down reorganisation of the NHS that nobody wanted and nobody voted for, just like he wasted millions of pounds on police commissioner elections. He does not listen, he is out of touch and last Thursday the people of Corby spoke for the country.

[The Prime Minister]

Last Thursday the people of Humberside spoke for the whole nation. [Hon. Members: “More!”] Happily, there is more, because the former Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, said that this

“is not just about the police. This is a referendum on everything this…government has done…On the health, on the education, on the local authorities”,

and people took the first opportunity to kick him out.

I think that it is the leader of the Labour party who made history this week, because he told his conference that he wanted to be Disraeli; he told Radio 4 that he wanted to be Margaret Thatcher; he came to this House and said that he was more Eurosceptic than Bill Cash; and then he went to the CBI and said that he loved Europe even more than Tony Blair. He has impersonated more politicians than Rory Bremner, but this time the joke is on him.

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

Q5. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a free press is one of the cornerstones of a true democracy, and that any attempt to muzzle newspapers, such as those of the excellent Kent Messenger Group in my constituency, should be strenuously resisted?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I join him in expressing my admiration for the Kent Messenger Group and all that it does. The problems there have been in our newspaper industry have not concerned regional and local titles, which perform an incredibly important function in our democratic system. However, we all have to wait for the Leveson report, study it carefully and respond to what it says.

[Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

Q6. Allow me to present a tale of two companies. The first is Red Hot Comics in my constituency, which employs seven people and pays every penny of the tax that is due, on time. Its main competitor, Amazon UK, brings in revenue of up to £4.5 billion, and yet last year it paid less than £1 million in tax. Will the Prime Minister follow the example of the French Government, who have issued a back claim for unpaid tax against Amazon, or will he allow us to draw our own conclusions about whose side he is on?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about ensuring that companies make fair contributions and fair tax payments in our country. We have put an extra £900 million into the Inland Revenue to ensure that we get companies and individuals to pay their taxes properly. Yesterday I announced that one of the key priorities of the G8, which I will be chairing from January and which, I am pleased to announce, will meet in County Fermanagh in Northern Ireland next June, will be to get proper international agreement so that companies pay their taxes properly.

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

May I highlight for my right hon. Friend a free school that will be opening in one of the most deprived wards in Wolverhampton next year? It will provide a real ladder for social mobility for young people. It is a great, tangible advert for what this Government are doing in education, and he is more than welcome to visit.

[The Prime Minister]

That is a very kind invitation. I recently held a meeting at No. 10 Downing street for all the 78 free schools that have been established over the past two and a half years. We are making good progress. I want many hundreds of free schools to be established between now and the next election. It is of note that, whereas the last Government managed 200 hundred academies in 13 years, we have managed 2,000 in two and a half years. We want to give the academies and free schools agenda the biggest boost that we can.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

Q7. When he next expects to visit Central Ayrshire.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I look forward to visiting Scotland soon and will obviously look carefully at whether I can visit the hon. Gentleman’s constituency of Central Ayrshire.

[Mr Donohoe]

I thank the Prime Minister for his response. A few months ago, he came to Troon in my constituency and he was going to give me the opportunity to take him around. One of the areas I was going to take him to was the Troon shipyard, where I served my apprenticeship many years ago—in fact, when he would probably still have been in short trousers. Outside the door of the shipyard on a Thursday was a man called the tallyman, who was a loan shark. He charged half a crown, which is 12.5p, per £1 each week on a loan to a shipyard worker. Today, we are hearing all about these—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May we have a question? One short sentence. Now.

[Mr Donohoe]

Mr Speaker, you hold one of the great offices of state, as does the Prime Minister. What is he personally going to do to drive these sharks out of our economies?

[The Prime Minister]

I enjoyed my visit to Troon. I made the offer to the hon. Gentleman at that time that I would happily share a platform with him to defend our United Kingdom, but for some reason the invitation got lost in the post. I therefore make the offer to him again.

The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point about payday loans. We have seen the preliminary report by the Office of Fair Trading. We need to take action, and that is why we are giving the OFT a new power to suspend a consumer credit licence with immediate effect when there is an urgent need to protect consumers. The report shows that many companies are not sticking to the guidelines, and that is not acceptable.

Engagements

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent Experian study which shows that Milton Keynes is the area of the UK best placed to lead economic growth, with a forecast growth of 3.1% a year?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is a great spokesman for Milton Keynes and has welcomed me there many times. It has a successful economy based largely on small and medium-sized enterprises. One thing we need to do, in Milton Keynes and elsewhere, is to get the housing market moving again. I am convinced that that is an important part of driving recovery in our economy.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Q8. Many young apprentices receive very low wages—the youngest only £2.60 an hour. Is it fair for the Prime Minister to take housing benefit from young people who cannot live with their parents but are trying hard to build a future for themselves?

[The Prime Minister]

The Government strongly support the growth in apprenticeships, and we have seen something like 1 million new apprenticeships under this Government. I know that housing benefit is a very important issue, but there is a problem, which needs proper attention: we seem to give some young people a choice today, in that if they are on jobseeker’s allowance they can have access to housing benefit, but if they are living at home and trying to work they cannot. We need to recognise that in many cases we are sending a negative signal to young people through our welfare system.

[Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Is it still the Prime Minister’s intention that this should be the greenest Government ever?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, it is. It is this Government who, in record time, have established a Green Investment Bank that is now in Edinburgh and starting to make loans.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

Q9. I am sure the Prime Minister agrees with me that a Government spokesman describing the report by the Children’s Commissioner into child abuse as “hysterical” was extremely unhelpful. Victims of abuse already find it difficult to come forward, including those who were abused by Cyril Smith in Rochdale. Will the Prime Minister now help these victims by publishing all the police files on Smith, and ensure that a police investigation takes place into all the allegations and any cover-up?

[The Prime Minister]

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, the issue that is being examined is very serious, and we need to study carefully the interim report that has been produced. It has some extremely disturbing findings and we need to give every encouragement to the Children’s Commissioner to ensure that a final version of the report is produced. The specific issue raised by the hon. Gentleman concerns very serious allegations about a former Member of this House. I understand that Greater Manchester police have today confirmed that they will investigate any allegations of sexual abuse involving the late Sir Cyril Smith from 1974 onwards.

I say to the hon. Gentleman and all Members of this House, particularly in the light of what has happened over the past few weeks, that if anyone has information or facts they should take them to the police. That is the way we should investigate these things in this country.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

Q10. Businesses are helping to cut the borrowing deficit by paying tax on their profits. Some multinationals, such as Starbucks and Amazon, appear to be paying low amounts of UK corporation tax. Does the Prime Minister think that that part of the tax code needs investigating?

[The Prime Minister]

I think it does need investigating. I have asked the Treasury to do that and it is looking as hard as it can at what can be done. There are clearly things that one can do nationally, and that is worth examining. Because we live in a competitive global economy where companies can move their capital, headquarters or money around, we need greater international agreements. We have come to a very important international agreement with Switzerland that will recover billions of pounds of tax for our country, but we need to work hard. That is where the G8 can help to ensure we get a fair share of tax from companies, especially given that Britain is doing its bit to cut rates of corporation tax so that they are some of the most competitive in the world.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Q13. The Prime Minister quite rightly praised the wonderful work of London’s emergency services during the Olympics, Paralympics and Her Majesty’s jubilee. Does he share the concern of the London public about the number of fire stations that are threatened with closure, in particular the one in Clapham Old Town in my constituency? Will he join the campaign to save that fire station, and does he agree that it is not right to choose a fire station for closure simply because it is on very expensive land?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously this is an issue for the Mayor as well as for the Government, but I will look closely at what the hon. Lady has said. Hon. Members must recognise that the most important thing is the time it takes the emergency services to get to an incident. As constituency MPs, we are naturally focused on the bricks and mortar items—whether ambulance or fire stations, or other facilities—but what really matters for our constituents is how quickly the emergency services get to them and how good the service is when they do so.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Q11. Does my right hon. Friend share my deep disappointment, and that of many hon. Members on both sides of the House, that the Church of England yesterday failed to make proper provision for women bishops? It was a sad day for our national Church and our national character, particularly given that 42 of 44 dioceses voted overwhelmingly in support of women bishops. Is the dangerous consequence of that vote not the disestablishment of the Church of England but simply disinterest?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise and knowledge. On a personal basis, I am a strong supporter of women bishops and am very sad about how the vote went yesterday. I am particularly sad for the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, because he saw this as a major campaign that he wanted to achieve at the end of his excellent tenure of that office. It is important for the Church of England to be a modern Church that is in touch with society as it is today. This was a key step it needed to take.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Q12. The Prime Minister promised that his start-up loans scheme would provide 2,500 loans to young entrepreneurs to get their business ideas off the ground, but only 43 loans have been granted. Why has he not delivered on his promise?

[The Prime Minister]

The start-up loans initiative is a very strong one. I want to look at putting even more resources into it, because there is a major demand. At well as start-up loans, we have the enterprise allowance scheme. That was originally available only after people had been unemployed for three months, but under this Government it will be available from the first day of someone being unemployed. In the 1980s, many people used an enterprise allowance scheme to start up their first business and get their foot on the first rung of the ladder. Those are the sorts of people we want to help.

[Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Drapers’ academy, which is in the most deprived ward in my constituency? It is sponsored by the Drapers’ Company and Queen Mary college, London. In only its second year, it has become the fastest improving school in the country, and is a wonderful example of the Government’s academy scheme.

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly join my hon. Friend in that. One strength of the academy programme is in getting sponsors such as the Drapers’ Company, and other businesses and organisations, behind a school and helping to change its culture and improve it. That is why we set a new target last week for academies taking over failing primary schools. We do not think that academies should be restricted to secondary schools; we want to see sponsored academies taking over primary schools where results are not good enough. All hon. Members can now focus on this: because of effective academy sponsors, some schools in inner-city areas are doing better than schools in some of the leafy shires and suburbs. We can use that change to drive up aspiration and achievement right across our education system.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Following the Prime Minister’s answer to the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) a moment ago, and given that the Church of England is the established Church, will the Prime Minister consider what Parliament can do to ensure that the overwhelming will of members of the Church and of the country is respected?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly look carefully at what the right hon. Gentleman has said. The Church has its own processes and elections. They might be hard for some of us to understand, but we must respect individual institutions and the decisions they make. That does not mean we should hold back in saying what we think. I am very clear that the time is right for women bishops—it was right many years ago. The Church needs to get on with it, as it were, and get with the programme, but we must respect individual institutions and how they work, while giving them a sharp prod.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

The cut in this country’s EU budget rebate, which was agreed by the last Labour Government, is now costing taxpayers £2 billion every single year. Will the Prime Minister please confirm that in the forthcoming budget negotiations he will not agree to any further reduction in the rebate?

[The Prime Minister]

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. The rebate negotiated by Margaret Thatcher is an incredibly important part of Britain’s position in Europe and making sure that we get a fair deal. It is absolutely extraordinary that the last Government gave away almost half that rebate, and we have never heard one word of apology or regret for the fact that however hard we fight in Europe—and I will fight incredibly hard this week for a good deal—they have cut away our footing by giving away half the rebate.

[Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on his very wise decision to bring the G8 summit to County Fermanagh and confirm the enthusiasm with which that decision has been received in Fermanagh. Does he think it will be possible to bring further similar prestigious events to Northern Ireland in the future?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly look at that. It really is the right decision for the G8 to be based in Northern Ireland and at Lough Erne on 17 and 18 June. I was talking with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister yesterday about this, and it would have been unthinkable 20 years ago to have such an event, with so many world leaders coming to Northern Ireland. It will be a great advertisement for Northern Ireland and everything that its people can achieve. I hope that it will also be the harbinger of further events to come.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that the United Kingdom’s retention of its triple A status, when France lost its triple A rating this week, shows that the UK retains the confidence of international markets because of the difficult but necessary decisions that we are taking?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Because we have set out a clear plan, we are able to have low interest rates and international confidence, which is line 1, paragraph 1 of the proper growth plan for the UK.

Welfare Reform Act

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

The petition states:

To the House of Commons,

The Petition of members of the National League of the Blind and Disabled and of residents of Teesside,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that the Welfare Reform Act and the abolition of the Disability Living Allowance will adversely affect disabled people, including disabled workers at Ayresome Industries on Teesside. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to review and reverse welfare reform and cuts to service that disproportionately hit disabled people.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001135]

Emergency Life Support Skills in Schools

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

In advance of the debate tomorrow, I received a petition from residents of the United Kingdom. The original petition organised by the British Heart Foundation received 124,665 signatures.

The petition states:

The Petition from residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that knowing how to stop bleeding, open an airway or perform CPR is an essential part of a young person’s education; and the Government should take steps to ensure that there is a new generation of life savers across the UK.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make emergency life support skills a part of the curriculum to be taught in all schools

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001136]

Point of Order

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

12:31

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that it is not a convention of the House of Commons for the Second Church Estates Commissioner to make a statement to the House, but in the light of the extraordinary decision of the General Synod of the Church of England last night not to have women bishops, is it possible to have a statement from the hon. Gentleman setting out what the Church intends to do next, and what this means for the continuing discrimination in the other place with only men being eligible to sit in the House of Lords as Church of England bishops?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. She is right to say that it is no part of the convention of this House that the Second Church Estates Commissioner makes statements to the House. The right to make a statement of the kind that she has in mind is reserved to Ministers. The hon. Lady may however wish to explore whether the Minister for Women and Equalities has any responsibilities in relation to this matter, and whether there are avenues by which she may pursue this issue. It is certainly open to the Minister for Women and Equalities to make a statement to the House. In the meantime, I would simply say that very strong voice to opinion in this House has been given today on both sides. I will leave it there for today.

BBC (Audit Arrangements and Publication of Invoices)

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

12:33

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the British Broadcasting Corporation to publish all invoices for amounts in excess of £500 each quarter; to allow unrestricted access to the Corporation’s accounts by the National Audit Office; and for connected purposes.

I wish to state at the outset that I am a friend, strong supporter and advocate of the BBC. My original request for this Bill stems back to May, and was preceded by protracted communications with the previous director-general, Mark Thompson, seeking to gain voluntary agreement on this Bill’s intentions. The events of recent weeks have nothing to do with my motivation in seeking to bring about greater transparency in how the licence fee is spent, although some issues that have arisen help to demonstrate the need for more openness, along with the need for a cultural shift to respond to demands from the public. The first element of the Bill would require the BBC to publish all invoices for more than £500 on a quarterly basis. That would bring the corporation in line with local authorities and, although it would meet the aspirations of the Government’s public transparency agenda and the Efficiency and Reform Group objectives, it should not be interpreted as political interference. The Bill merely follows public expectation.

The licence fee is the UK’s biggest regressive tax: the poorer one is, the greater the proportion of one’s income is spent on it. That places a strong moral obligation on the BBC to demonstrate that it is using money in the most prudent manner. Under the Bill, the BBC would allow the public to see exactly how their money was being spent, and that would encourage participation and scrutiny. That would lead to innovation, procurement and, ultimately, savings. The BBC would be better informed, and new opportunities could lead to better feedback and a change in its priorities. Naturally, the BBC’s special independence must be protected with appropriate safeguards, but they need to be set as an absolute minimum and seen as the exception rather than the rule.

There are several examples of questionable expenditure that could be cited: business consultants, retirement dinners, accommodation charges, and the cost of sending 100—or even, in 2008, 175 staff—to cover US elections. I am sure that all hon. Members have enjoyed BBC hospitality in some way or another, but we need to know how much money is being spent. One constituent asked me how much was spent on after-show parties, after a successful series or even after every episode of “Strictly Come Dancing” or similar programmes. There are concerns about how some journalists compete personally and refuse to share resources. Why does the BBC pay to advertise through other media, when it already reaches nearly all the population? It is not that these activities are necessarily wrong, but the public have a right to know how much they cost.

Publication of invoices would also provide an ongoing report on how many people are paid through personal services companies in their efforts to reduce income tax liability. The National Audit Office was originally refused access in this area, yet on 2 May BBC News was all too keen rightly to expose the fact that Ed Lester, the former chief executive of the Student Loans Company, was paid through such an arrangement. The irony is that that has been standard practice in the BBC for many years; it is just that it has been hidden.

Public statements made by senior BBC figures suggest that the organisation would be among the strongest supporters of the Bill. Unfortunately, there has been significant evidence of a lack of action on those statements. Sir Michael Lyons and later Lord Patten have continued to resist unrestricted access for the Comptroller and Auditor General. There is a series of correspondence between the Secretary of State and the chairmen on gaining an agreement on the extent of access. The case of personal service companies is an example, because we still do not know the details of the policy.

BBC talent is another area that needs investigation. It has become a catch-all title that extends well beyond known personalities, arguably in an effort to block publication of more newsworthy data. I simply do not accept that there should be a blanket ban on the publication of BBC talent details. In this day and age, it is difficult to believe that the NAO does not have unrestricted access. How many other bodies are allowed to dictate the terms and timing of audit investigations and publications?

It is to the credit of the previous Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport that he secured a significant agreement earlier this year dramatically to improve the CAG’s access. However, there continues to be no right of access—it remains by agreement only. Nor does it cover the whole scope of NAO activities. The correspondence suggests that respective BBC chairmen frustrated the calls by the Secretary of State, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the Broadcasting Committee in the other place. Restrictions remain, and the time has come to legislate.

Current arrangements mean that the BBC must agree to the area the NAO wishes to investigate. The NAO needs to give 12 months’ notice of its plans, which can only be amended at stated quarterly intervals. This is hardly unrestricted access; nor does it allow investigations into controversial news developments to take place. Recent concern surrounding the terms of departure of the director-general have led to calls for the NAO to investigate. Unfortunately, the agreement means that it is powerless to look into such matters. Even after the Secretary of State said in the House that the NAO would investigate, the latter stated that it could not do so immediately unless the BBC Trust referred itself for such scrutiny.

The publication arrangements are also worrying. By contrast to the NAO, which reports to Parliament and the public, the BBC reports to the BBC Trust, which then considers the matter and responds. That is followed by a BBC management reaction, with rebuttals, and it is only then that the NAO investigation is passed to the Secretary of State for publication. The BBC decides on the timing. I am absolutely sure that all other bodies would welcome such a privileged position in relation to auditing. It puts considerable power and influence over reporting in the hands of the BBC, compared with every other body. That situation has been questioned by the Select Committee and the Government, and efforts have been made to improve the situation.

Over recent years, there has rightly been increasing demand for greater transparency from the public. Some bodies, including this place, took longer to recognise it. Now all details are published, including potential conflicts of interest. It is important that the BBC, like all bodies, responds to these demands and reacts to the Bill by voluntarily publishing invoices of £500 and over, and opening all elements of its operations to the NAO. That would underline the special role that the BBC plays in our nation.

In closing, I suggest that the BBC could go even further by voluntarily publishing registers of interest of key people to highlight potential conflicts of interest, and it could truly embrace the spirit and the letter of the Freedom of Information Act. Unless the BBC responds positively, I fear that it could be the subject of future legislative demands.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Alun Cairns, Mr David Amess, Mr Richard Bacon, Guto Bebb, Stephen Barclay, Dan Byles, Philip Davies, Robert Halfon, Dr Phillip Lee, Ian Paisley and James Wharton present the Bill.

Alun Cairns accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2013, and to be printed (Bill 92).

Opposition Day

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[10th Allotted Day]

Security in Northern Ireland

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

12:44

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House extends its deepest sympathy to the family of Prison Officer David Black, whose murder represented an attack upon society as a whole; condemns the violence of the various republican terrorist groups now active in Northern Ireland; and calls on the Government to work closely with the Northern Ireland Executive in providing the fullest possible protection to members of the prison service and the security forces generally, and to ensure that all necessary resources and measures are deployed to combat the threat from terrorists in Northern Ireland.

At the very outset of this debate I want once again to place on record, on behalf of my hon. Friends, and I am sure everybody in this House, our heartfelt and sincere condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Prison Officer David Black—an innocent public servant going to work when he was brutally gunned down in cold blood by despicable criminals. His death will leave a massive void in the lives of his wife and children that will never be filled. We continue to think of Mrs Black and her children; our thoughts and prayers are with them. There is no doubt that Mrs Black’s call at the time of her husband’s murder for no retaliation was an example of immense courage and bravery, which, as I said in response to the Secretary of State’s statement at the time, stood in stark contrast to the darkness in the hearts of her husband’s killers. We will remember him and his colleagues, and all those who have died in the service of defending Northern Ireland. It is our duty to do all we can, as far as possible, to ensure that this kind of violence is thwarted and defeated.

There is no doubt about the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland over recent years. As the Prime Minister has said, his announcement yesterday that Fermanagh would host the G8 summit next June would have previously been unthinkable—he said it would have been unthinkable 20 years ago, but I think it would have been unthinkable even 10 years ago. It is an immense opportunity for Northern Ireland to showcase its talents and the opportunities that we can provide to a worldwide audience. It is a momentous event. We warmly welcome the announcement and thank the Prime Minister for taking that step, which is a mark of the progress we have made. Another was the visit by Her Majesty to the Irish Republic last year and the diamond jubilee celebrations that took place in Northern Ireland, where for the first time in decades—I think maybe for the first time ever—Her Majesty was able to be greeted by thousands of ordinary people in Belfast and move about in an open-top vehicle without the massive security that would normally attend any kind of event involving Her Majesty. Again, that is an indication of the progress that has been made.

There is also the ongoing work that happens every day at Stormont and throughout Northern Ireland—parties working together, alongside the First and Deputy First Ministers, with Ministers representing a number of parties doing the day-to-day work of government, committed to working for and on behalf of all the people of Northern Ireland. It is important to put on record the gains that have been made through devolution in Northern Ireland. Even today, my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) has tabled early-day motion 752, which draws attention to other significant achievements for Belfast and Londonderry, which is now recognised as the fourth best city in the world to visit, according to the “Lonely Planet” guide, and will be the UK city of culture next year. These are immense strides forward in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to everyone, right across the community and across all parties, who has played a part in bringing about that progress and, of course, to successive Governments as well.

But Mr Black’s murder showed us that, despite the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland, there remains a crazed and fanatical republican element that is determined to try to drag our community backwards, into the darkest days of the past. Just last Monday a viable explosive device, which police said was designed to kill and maim, was discovered near my constituency off the Ballygomartin road. The device was found near a local school—Springhill primary school—and if it had gone off, the consequences, in terms of loss of life or serious injury to innocent civilians and schoolchildren, would have been very serious indeed. The device is thought to have fallen from the vehicle that belonged to its intended target, either a police officer or a soldier.

That incident, coming after the murder of David Black, shows that we are in a very serious situation indeed. Nor do we forget the murder of Constable Ronan Kerr in April last year, or the murder of Constable Stephen Carroll in March 2009, which came just two days after the killing of Sappers Patrick Azimkar and Mark Quinsey at Massereene barracks. All those murders were carried out by so-called dissident republicans. There have also been many attacks and incidents that have been successfully thwarted by the excellent work of the police, through intelligence and co-operation with other elements of the security forces, including those in the Irish Republic. These murders all demonstrate the intent of the republican groups and the greater degree of planning and organisation that is now evident.

It is sometimes easy, especially from the perspective of those on this side of the Irish sea, to believe that everything in Northern Ireland is now sorted out.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would agree that it would be helpful if the Government were to sanction the publication of the inventories of the weapons that were decommissioned by loyalist terrorists—because that is what they were—and republican terrorists, supervised by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, so that the people of Northern Ireland and of the United Kingdom generally could compare what is claimed to have been decommissioned with what we reckon still to be available out there to enable dissident republicans to carry out yet another ghastly murder. I join the right hon. Gentleman in condemning the murder of the prison officer and in giving the greatest praise to his wonderful family, who have shown themselves to be beacons of dignity.

[Mr Dodds]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. She raises an issue that has been raised a number of times by Members from Northern Ireland and elsewhere about the decommissioning process. We have said on previous occasions that it would be useful for the process that we are engaged in if the public were allowed to know exactly what was decommissioned by the various terrorist groups in Northern Ireland. I remember attending meetings with the decommissioning body, along with other hon. Friends, at which we sought clarification as to the circumstances in which that information would eventually be released. My understanding was that a judgment would be made at a suitable juncture when the entire decommissioning process was finished. It was certainly the intention of General de Chastelain, who was then the chairman of the decommissioning body, that the information should be released in due course. It would be helpful if it were released, for the reasons that the hon. Lady has given.

We were among those who wanted the greatest possible transparency for the decommissioning process. Indeed, we pressed for it to be made clear to the public, through video evidence and photographs, exactly what was being decommissioned. Famously, however, the republican leadership refused to abide by that at the time. Unfortunately, their refusal to accept that reasonable argument, which was designed to reassure people in Northern Ireland that what was happening was real and sincere, delayed the introduction of devolution by some considerable time. It raised doubts about the sincerity of the republican movement.

I was making the point that people can sometimes fall into the belief that everything has been sorted out and settled, so far as Northern Ireland is concerned. The events that I have been describing, including the tragic murder of David Black, have served to remind everyone that massive challenges remain. I know that the Ministers and shadow Ministers who are here today do not hold that belief, but it is important that we should debate the issues here today and consider them carefully. We need to take note of the progress that has been made, as well as making it clear to the people of Northern Ireland that there is no complacency and no sense of the challenges being underestimated.

The criminals want to take the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland back to the days of death, bloodshed and mayhem, but all of us in Northern Ireland and here, throughout the country, are determined that they will not succeed. After the death of David Black, the First Minister said:

“The Assembly and the Executive will not fall or collapse—far from it. We are united in condemnation and reinforced in our determination to create a stable, shared and peaceful society.”

He was absolutely right in his assessment. Those evil people will not succeed. Such terrorism did not succeed in the past, and it will not succeed now.

It is important to make the point that the violence that was carried out in the past, over 30 or 40 years, by the Provisional IRA was just as despicable, unnecessary and evil as the violence that is being carried out today by the so-called dissidents. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) that the violence that was carried out by other groups, on the loyalist side, was terrorism. It is important for the sake of the victims that we do not get into a mindset of thinking that all the violence today is terrible while the violence that took place in the past was part of a conflict in which there could be grey areas and justifications. The violence that was carried out by the Provisional IRA, and others, for 35 years was just as evil as the violence that is being carried out today. It was never justified then, and it is not justified now.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. A few days ago, I attended the remembrance service to mark the 25th anniversary of the Enniskillen bomb, and nothing could have made the point that he is making more clearly than that. The unnecessary nature of that act still lives with us today. I echo his assertion that we must never forget those people either.

[Mr Dodds]

It was excellent that the hon. Gentleman and colleagues from the Northern Ireland Select Committee were able to be in Enniskillen to join the First Minister and other elected representatives, the families of the victims and members of the community in County Fermanagh on that solemn occasion. There are many reminders: we are coming up to the anniversary of the Ballykelly bombing as well. These events serve to remind us of the callous, evil and despicable nature of the violence that was carried out against the people of Northern Ireland and against the security forces.

It is worth remembering what happened in Enniskillen in 1987. One of those who was killed was a close personal friend of mine. Enniskillen is the town where I grew up and went to school, and I knew many of the people who were involved in that incident. The fact that now, 25 years on, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is able to announce the gathering of the world’s leaders for a G8 summit in that same county of Fermanagh is a fantastic illustration of the progress that has been made, and a fantastic vindication of the courage and steadfastness of the ordinary people who stood against the terrorists and were determined that they would not succeed in tearing down the fabric of their society.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I should like to pay tribute to the ongoing courage and steadfastness of the people of Northern Ireland, especially the officials there. We do not quite understand how the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen and Ladies who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland live with a certain threat. They have to go outside their house and check their car, for example, and they can never be certain what is going to happen. That tension is there in their lives all the time. I hope that when they come over here, that tension lessens, but the people of Northern Ireland never get rid of it. This House must always understand that the tension remains: we want it to go, but the only way of achieving that is by continuing developments towards peace.

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman has enormous experience, having served in Northern Ireland. He and his colleagues who served in the armed forces have helped to contribute to bringing about the peaceful circumstances of today. He is right to remind us of the continuing issues that many people, including members of the security forces, have. I shall come on to deal with the issues affecting prison officers in more detail shortly. Members of those forces in our constituencies have come to our offices and have spoken to us about their worries about their personal security. The hon. Gentleman is right that members of the police service and people who are connected in any way with the security forces might be seen as some kind of target by these dissident terrorists. We all live daily with these kinds of threats or potential threats. People often say, “Well, there’s no specific intelligence out there to indicate that any particular individual is at risk”, yet we have discovered—we know from the recent tragic events—that that does not necessarily provide any reassurance at all. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments.

The victims, to whom we referred earlier, continue to live with the scars and wounds of the violence inflicted on them—and they will carry those wounds to their graves. It is important that we never forget the sacrifice of the innocent and the victims and their families and the loved ones left behind.

Coming on to the issue of personal security, prison officers and their families are living every day with the threat of murder and injury hanging over their heads. During the worst of the violence in the Province, more than two dozen prison officers lost their lives to terrorists. This was a deliberate strategy by republicans and loyalists to win concessions for their prisoners serving time for terrorist-related offences. Just as the murder of those officers was met with widespread and near-universal revulsion in the community in the past, so will this latest attempt to intimidate and suborn the forces of law and order.

On personal protection for prison officers, police officers and their families, we have some serious concerns about the present personal protection arrangements—the maintenance of protection equipment, for instance, in the homes and other places where members of the security forces have those arrangements in place. The arrangements must be robust enough to ensure the security of those who work in our prisons and in our police service. This is an area in which the Government have a duty to act. The Northern Ireland Office and the Secretary of State oversee the home protection scheme, which prison and police officers avail themselves of, and it is within their power to ensure that the fullest possible protection is afforded to those officers. I encourage them to do everything in their power in that regard.

[Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that under the special purchase of evacuated dwellings scheme in Northern Ireland—I accept that this is mainly a devolved matter, but it touches on national security issues— we have prison officers, police officers and others who have had to leave their family home and move to alternative accommodation? They are being seriously disadvantaged because the value of their home has reduced significantly, particularly if they purchased it at the height of the property boom. They now face the prospect of losing a lot of money. Should we not be looking to find ways of compensating those people who, through no fault of their own—it was because of a security threat—now find themselves out of their home and facing a substantial loss?

[Mr Dodds]

My right hon. Friend raises an important issue, which I know has been raised in the context of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I know that the Minister for Social Development, whose Department administers the SPED scheme in Northern Ireland, has also been looking at this issue. As my right hon. Friend rightly pointed out, members of the security forces were told that they had to move. The criteria for qualifying under the SPED scheme have a quite high threshold, so people are granted support only in the most extreme circumstances where their life may be in danger. People often find themselves with negative equity—a problem not of their own creation.

A wider issue connected with the SPED scheme, about which I have been concerned for some time, is the fact that the money spent on the scheme comes out of the Northern Ireland housing budget. I think that is something that needs to be looked at. SPED is a security-related measure, so it needs to be looked at in that context rather than being seen as a housing issue. The specific matter raised by my right hon. Friend has, I think, been the subject of some discussion between the Minister of Justice, the Chief Constable and the Minister for Social Development. It is certainly an issue that we need to continue to raise on behalf of our constituents.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The SPED scheme is clearly intended to help those who are in particular trouble. As a result of the tragic murder of David Black, a number of prison officers from my constituency who were worried about the SPED scheme came to see me. I hope that in the response to this debate the Government will outline how the SPED system can be sped up—how it could work faster, to a time scale that people need. Secondly, can some consideration be given to people who have to move out of their houses quickly—the costs of buying a new house, getting a new mortgage, and so on? Many aspects of the SPED scheme need to be sorted out. Perhaps the Government will give us some response on that today.

[Mr Dodds]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue, as it is a real practical outworking and consequence of the security situation in Northern Ireland. The issue has not arisen only in the past few weeks or only following the tragic murder of David Black; it has been an issue for some considerable time. People have been told about security issues by the police. As the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) mentioned, Members of this House have been spoken to about personal security issues. For obvious reasons, we are not going to go into the detail, but these are serious issues. It is entirely wrong that people who qualify under the SPED scheme and find themselves having their house purchased in order to move should face terrible financial consequences, given that their lives are at risk and they find themselves in that position through the fault of terrorists and through no fault whatever of their own.

I know of a number of prison officers who have been told that they qualify for the Prison Service’s protection scheme and measures but who have been refused other protection offered by the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Executive. There is clearly an issue, and I seek the reassurance of the Secretary of State—I am sure she will be able to give it—that there is no question of resources or money forming any part of any decision to deny any police officer or prison officer the protection that they need to be given under any scheme to ensure their personal security. We would all agree that we should pay tribute to all those who do such sterling service, but it has to go beyond just paying tribute to them. When things happen, we should take cognisance of their concerns and as far as possible avert any kind of threat to them. That applies, of course, right across the board.

The issuing of licences to carry personal protection weapons has been raised with me and other colleagues, along with the refusal to renew those licences for people who have legitimate and well-founded concerns about their personal security. There has been a tendency for that to happen in recent years. A week or two ago, a man came to my office and told me that although he had been informed that he was under threat, his personal protection weapon licence was being withdrawn, which he found incomprehensible. He was told that because he was no longer serving, the threat had been reduced. However, although there is no intelligence relating to him suggesting the existence of a specific threat, he feels that he is under threat and in danger, and has given the example of his neighbour David Black, who was murdered.

One can understand how that man feels. He has gone through all the proper processes and is now forced to consider legal action, at his own expense, so that he can try to secure the minimal protection that would afford him peace of mind and enable him to sleep in his home at night. The Police Service of Northern Ireland needs to pay close attention to such issues. When appeals are considered by the Northern Ireland Office, the Secretary of State and other Ministers have a role to play. I know that the Secretary of State will also pay close attention to those issues, because they are of real concern to people and we have raised them in the past.

The people of Northern Ireland have suffered for too long as a consequence of the acts of terrorists down the years. Those of us who know our history are aware that the Provisional IRA, which wreaked so much havoc in our country for so many years, started out as a splinter group. It is easy nowadays to dismiss groups that are currently active as “splinter groups”, “small groups” or “micro-groups”, but it should be borne in mind that the provos originated as a breakaway movement from the official IRA. If we are not to condemn a further generation in Ulster, we must act swiftly and decisively, now, to bring those people to book.

A short time ago, the Home Secretary announced that the level of threat from dissident republicans here on the mainland of Great Britain had been reduced from “substantial” to “moderate”. In Northern Ireland, it remains “substantial”. At that time, in the House, I expressed the fear of many people that the announcement might have been premature and somewhat counter-productive. I said that given the recent experience of intelligence reports, or the lack of them, people needed to be reassured that there would be no reduction in security, and no complacency on the part of the security forces. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would tell us whether the Government have sought or received any new assessment in the wake of the murder of David Black, and whether they are satisfied with the current threat level assessment overall.

Many people seemed surprised by the announcement that the various dissident groups had united to form an umbrella group which styled itself simply “the IRA”. That was the group that claimed responsibility for the murder of David Black. In a speech in September 2010 entitled “The Threat to National Security”, Jonathan Evans, the director general of the Security Service, noted that the largest dividing lines between the various republican dissident terrorists groups at that time were based on

“marginal distinctions or personal rivalries”.

It is now clear to many of us that those marginal distinctions and personal rivalries have, to some extent, ceased to exist, and that the groups are starting to coalesce, which is an extremely serious development. I understand that the “IRA” group which has claimed responsibility for the murder of David Black appears to consist of elements of the Real IRA and other factions based in the Lurgan area, and that is certainly very serious.

The Secretary of State must conduct a review to establish whether the proscriptions that already apply to the various terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland apply to the newly formed umbrella group. If they do not, the Government must move to apply them without delay. If it is proved that a person is involved in such activity, that person should face the full rigour of the law, and should be in no doubt that he or she will spend a very long time in prison.

Many inhabitants of Northern Ireland are greatly concerned when they hear of an incident, hear that certain people have been questioned and arrested—and have been continually questioned and arrested in connection with similar offences—and then hear that, unfortunately, they have either been released after a few days, or have not been convicted when brought to trial. Those living in the area in which such people operate, and in Northern Ireland generally, are well aware of the serious threat that is posed.

Of course we must be conscious of the rule of law and of due process. However, bearing in mind the efforts that are made to remove people from the United Kingdom, here in London or elsewhere, because they pose a threat to national security, many of my constituents ask me what real efforts are being made—proactively as opposed to reactively, following a terrible event—to get to grips with individuals who are known by the police, and indeed by everyone, to be involved in serious acts of terrorism and criminality and the organisation of terrorist acts. That is another issue that the Secretary of State should address.

The apparent closer organisation of dissident terror groups in Northern Ireland adds greatly to the challenges facing the PSNI and the security forces. All necessary resources must be made available to the Chief Constable to combat the terrorist threat. Early in 2011, the Government announced the provision of an additional £200 million for the PSNI budget to enable the police to counteract the dissident republican terrorist threat, and at the same time the Northern Ireland Executive provided an extra £45 million for security purposes. That money was received very gratefully by the police, and I assure the House that it has been critical to ensuring that more people have not been murdered at the hands of terrorists. However, the police will face a range of challenges in the months ahead. The Chief Constable has expressed concern about what the forthcoming comprehensive spending review will mean for the delivery of front-line policing services. I urge the Government to look favourably on any future request for additional resources, beyond the block grant allocation. The Chief Constable has made no call for extra money so far, but the Government should not be surprised if such a call is made in the future.

The circumstances faced by the police in Northern Ireland are way beyond the day-to-day challenges and problems faced by any regional police force in England, Scotland or Wales. The rate at which officers are leaving the force is higher than expected. The PSNI is losing, through retirement, a great deal of the experience and expertise in key fields such as crime investigation and counter-terrorism that are so crucial in counteracting terrorism. As a consequence of the faster than expected retirement rate, a new recruitment campaign will be launched next year, but it will obviously take time to plug the gaps caused by the loss of senior and experienced officers.

A judicial review of the use of managed services contracts by the PSNI is currently under way. If it succeeds, it will pose an enormous risk to the capacity of the police service. I believe that binding the hands of the police in such a way risks the incurring of massive costs, perhaps amounting to between £50 million and £60 million a year. The PSNI has been forced to employ agency staff, as a direct result—in my view—of the Patten report, which had the effect of driving years of experience and expertise out of the police service and creating a massive void in talent and skills within the organisation. The Auditor and Comptroller General has acknowledged that the police in Northern Ireland face a major challenge because of a loss of talent which is without precedent in any other public sector body.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

As my right hon. Friend knows, increasing numbers of PSNI officers are resigning from the service. That is a trend at present, rather than a spike, but more officers now join and spend just a few years in the service, rather than a lifetime. Instead of dedicating themselves to a career, many of them now get out after a short time. That makes it more difficult for the PSNI to serve the public properly.

[Mr Dodds]

I agree. That trend is clear in many of our local areas, even among senior officers. My constituency of Belfast North faces big policing challenges: as well as addressing the security threat, our PSNI officers have to police protests against parades and civil disturbances such as those we saw over the summer. Increasingly, we are seeing senior police officers staying in the area for a relatively short period of time. Just when they have started to get to know the area and its issues and various personalities on all sides they are moved on somewhere else, and a new officer comes in and that process starts all over again.

Having said that, I pay tribute to our police officers at both senior and rank-and-file level. They do a very good job in very difficult circumstances, but they need to be backed up with the assurance that whatever resources are needed to combat the threat of terrorism will be given to them. They must be assured that they will not have to scrimp and save, because the public in Northern Ireland are entitled to the ordinary benefits of policing as well. Northern Ireland faces serious issues to do with not only the troubles, but drugs, burglary and community policing. Our constituents must not suffer in those regards because resources are diverted to tackle terrorism.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

On the issue of crime in general, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as a consequence of our history of paramilitary activity, racketeering is a particular problem in Northern Ireland, as many people who have moved away from their paramilitary past have not moved away from its associated criminality?

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Lady and I both represent Belfast constituencies, so we know very well the problems that remain. She is right to highlight the link between criminality and people who were formerly heavily engaged in paramilitary activity. That has been an enormous problem. Although many people formerly involved in paramilitary organisations are today making genuine efforts to move their communities forward, unfortunately others try to have a foot in both camps. We must ensure that the full rigour of the law comes down upon those who want to have it both ways, but we should help those who have genuinely changed.

There is no doubt that the overall security situation is very different now from what it was 25 years ago. However, although the dark days of the past have gone, it would be reckless to ignore the significant challenges we face. We must therefore debate these matters, as we are doing today. I look forward to hearing from the Secretary of State, and I commend the motion to the House.

13:24

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), who made a very considered speech in which he set out some of the serious concerns that are felt about security in Northern Ireland. I welcome his emphasis on the positive achievements as well, however, and the steps that have been taken to transform the security situation for the better over recent years.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman and his Democratic Unionist party colleagues for providing the House with this opportunity to debate what is a very important subject not only for Northern Ireland, but for the entire United Kingdom. Sadly, it is inevitable that our debate this afternoon has been overshadowed by the despicable murder of Prison Officer David Black as he drove to work one morning after 30 years of dedicated service to his community. As the right hon. Gentleman said, that act of brutality serves to remind us all of the continuing threat posed by the individuals who reject the principles of democracy and consent, and instead seek to pursue their aims by violence and murder. In answer to the questions the right hon. Gentleman put to me in his speech, the UK Government’s efforts to combat that terrorist threat remain resolute.

I know that all Members in the House today will continue to keep the family, friends and colleagues of David Black in our thoughts as they seek to cope with their devastating loss. I join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the dignified and courageous response of Mrs Black. I also want to update the House on the investigation. Of course, I can share few details with colleagues in this public forum, but the news this morning is that two further arrests have been made and searches have been carried out in the Coalisland area. I repeat the appeal I made previously in my statement to the House: anyone with information on this crime or any other terrorist activity in Northern Ireland should come forward and contact the police as a matter of urgency.

As well as being a personal tragedy, this cowardly murder represents an attack on the wider community. Yet contrary to the ambitions of the so-called dissidents, such attacks serve only to strengthen the determination of the vast majority in all parts of the community to move forward and to see violence and terrorism left behind as part of Northern Ireland’s past, and not its future. I also join the right hon. Gentleman in praising the response of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister who were resolute in their condemnation of Mr Black’s murder. Similar condemnations came from the rest of the UK, the Republic of Ireland and the United States, demonstrating the widespread revulsion at what happened that morning on the M1 motorway. They also demonstrate our unity of purpose in ensuring that these terrorists will never succeed in wrecking the progress that has been made, or in dragging Northern Ireland back to its troubled past.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that in acknowledging the tremendous dignity of the Black family in calling on the community to ensure that there be no act of revenge for the murder of David, we must also acknowledge that the family has also demanded that those who perpetrated this act be brought to justice?

[Mrs Villiers]

I, too, believe that every effort must be made to bring to justice the people responsible for this despicable murder, and I am sure the PSNI is doing everything in its power to ensure that that happens.

[Lady Hermon]

As the Secretary of State will know, with the murder of David Black, 30 prison officers have now been murdered in Northern Ireland. The Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross Foundation has a beautiful memorial garden at police headquarters in Belfast. Please will the Secretary of State support the establishment of a memorial garden for murdered prison officers in Northern Ireland? Organisations including the Prison Officers Association have long campaigned valiantly on this issue, and its chairman, Finlay Spratt, has given sterling leadership. Plans were afoot seven years ago. Such a garden would be a wonderful tribute to David Black and the other prison officers who have been murdered through the years of terrorism. It would be a fit and proper gesture and acknowledgement of the sacrifice made by prison officers through 30 years of terrible events in Northern Ireland.

[Mrs Villiers]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that thoughtful suggestion. The Minister of State and I will certainly reflect on it, and I am happy to discuss it with the Northern Ireland Executive.

The right hon. Member for Belfast North referred to the new grouping that has apparently formed in Northern Ireland from a number of different terrorist groups. My emphasis would be on the fact that however they brand themselves, these groupings are condemned across Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and the UK. The numbers involved in dissident activity continue to be small. The dissidents have almost no support, they despise the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland over the past two decades and they act in defiance of the democratically expressed wishes of the people of Ireland, north and south, who voted overwhelmingly to back the political settlement we have today. Yet it is all too clear that these disparate groupings can still cause damage and ruin lives.

[Ian Paisley]

I am not suggesting, in any way, that the Secretary of State’s words imply any level of complacency about the strength of support in the community for dissident terrorists, but in the last elections dissident republican terrorist candidates achieved 2,000 votes in the two west Belfast wards of the Falls—that is in the heartland of Sinn Fein. We must recognise that if this beast is not dealt with decisively now, it will grow. We saw that in the past with the provisionals, who were small in number but are now the largest republican party—nationalist, constitutional party—in Northern Ireland. It could happen again.

[Mrs Villiers]

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government remain vigilant on the terrorist threat; we are taking it extremely seriously. As he will see as my remarks conclude, we believe that tackling the terrorist threat effectively requires not just a security response, but a wider strategy designed to choke off any potential support for the so-called “dissident groupings”. I think there is widespread acceptance that securing a prosperous Northern Ireland and breaking down sectarian barriers is also an important way to respond in order to eliminate the terrorist threat on a long-term basis. As I say, I will come back to that subject later.

The threat level in Northern Ireland remains “severe”, meaning that an attack is highly likely. No alteration has been made to that Security Service assessment, although, as the right hon. Member for Belfast North recognised, the threat level in Great Britain has been adjusted. We remain vigilant in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain, because the terrorists have capability and they have lethal intent. This year has seen 22 national security attacks in Northern Ireland. Although some may have lacked sophistication, they all had the potential to be deadly. Many involved crude pipe bombs, primarily used to target PSNI officers or their families. The right hon. Gentleman highlighted an attack in his constituency, and another particularly reckless attack was the abandonment of a large improvised explosive device containing more than 600 lb of home-made explosive near the Irish border at Newry—the device was successfully defused, but if it had detonated, it could have led to a significant loss of life. Terrorists continue to seek access to funding and weaponry, and they have been undertaking training as well as targeting. Both republican and loyalist groupings are still involved in a range of criminal activities—mention has been made of this—to fund their activities and individual lifestyles.

[Bob Stewart]

Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to say publicly where the main sources of funding for terrorism are coming from?

[Mrs Villiers]

My hon. Friend will appreciate that there is a limit to what can be said publicly, but there can be no doubt that these criminal activities are playing a significant part in funding terrorist activities.

The republican and loyalist groupings also continue to carry out paramilitary-style assaults on members of their own community. Such attacks are sickening and show a complete disregard for the victims and their families. Terrorists also seek to capitalise on any instances of public disorder or unrest. During rioting in north Belfast on 12 July a number of shots were fired at police officers. That should be considered as nothing less than the attempted murder of police officers, who were there simply to uphold the law and protect people from all parts of the community. I would like to assure the right hon. Member for Belfast North that the PSNI gives the highest priority to protecting the safety of its officers. Indeed, one way in which the £200 million that the UK Government allocated as additional spending to counter the terrorist threat is being deployed is in enabling the PSNI to enhance measures to protect its officers. Measures to protect police officers are, of course, kept under constant review by the PSNI. The Chief Constable takes all the steps he can to protect his officers from the terror threat they face, while retaining his firm commitment to community policing.

The right hon. Gentleman emphasised the importance of the home protection scheme. As he said, the Northern Ireland Office has important responsibilities in relation to the scheme, and we keep those under constant review, too. Our scheme exists to protect people in certain occupations or positions in public life who are assessed to be under “substantial” or “severe” threat. The Minister of State considers other applications where an individual is assessed to be under a real or immediate threat, under our obligations under article 2 of the European convention on human rights. The PSNI also runs the criminal threats scheme and home security aid scheme, in addition to the Northern Ireland Office’s programme. A range of security measures are provided depending on the threat in each case—I am afraid that it would not be appropriate for me to go into detail.

[Jim Shannon]

Intelligence does not always specifically target the correct person; sometimes it does not target the person who has been the subject of a murder attempt or indeed the person who has been murdered. People have come to my office who did not have a specific threat yet travel the same road where people have been murdered or where a murder attempt has been made. Is there not sometimes a need for more flexibility in the system when it comes to assessing not only someone’s individual circumstances, but whether to issue a protection weapon?

[Mrs Villiers]

Of course in all these cases it is important to look at individual circumstances, and I recommend to anyone who considers that they are under threat that they approach the PSNI about the matter to see what mitigation steps can be taken.

PSNI officers remain the repeated focus of dissident attack planning, with prison officers targeted as well. Terrorist groupings have continued to use hoax devices, acts of criminal damage or orchestrated disorder to create fear in the community and to draw police into situations where they might be vulnerable to attack. That tactic is designed to make it harder for the PSNI to provide community-style policing. It is also, bluntly, aimed at deterring people from joining the police, particularly those from the Catholic community. Yet we should recognise that confidence levels in policing across Northern Ireland have actually risen steadily. Chief Constable Matt Baggott continues to place community policing at the heart of his approach, and the proportion of Catholics in the PSNI has gone up from 8% in 2001 to more than 30% today. The PSNI is genuinely representative of the community it serves, it is one of the most transparent and rigorously scrutinised police services in the world, and I believe that it has the confidence of a significant majority of the people of Northern Ireland. I pay the fullest tribute to the work that Matt Baggott and his officers do in exceptionally difficult circumstances. They carry out their duties with professionalism, impartiality and bravery—that is also true of the Prison Service.

[Lady Hermon]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for taking yet another intervention. She quite rightly mentioned the additional resources given to the Chief Constable Matt Baggott and to the PSNI. We are absolutely thrilled that next year the G8 summit will come to Fermanagh. That is not in my constituency, however—could the summit come to North Down next time? Although we are thrilled about that, will the Secretary of State confirm—to the relief of us all—that additional resources will be made available to the PSNI for the increased security commitment? I am sure that the PSNI will deliver on that commitment to the best of its ability, but it needs finance to do so.

[Mrs Villiers]

We are committed to ensuring that the policing and security operation for the G8 summit is a success. Of course, appropriate resources will be allocated and we will make an announcement in due course, probably in January, about the budget.

As I have said, Prison Service officers also carry out their duties with dedication and courage and I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the work they do. They play a vital role in keeping people in Northern Ireland safe from harm and the Northern Ireland Prison Service keeps arrangements for the personal security of its officers under constant review. The director general of the service, Sue McAllister, is actively considering what further measures might need to be taken in the wake of the attack on David Black and the PSNI has a programme of security briefings under way for prison officers.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way and I apologise for not being in the Chamber from the start of the debate. She explained to the House how she and her colleague the Minister of State have responsibility for the home protection scheme. She is now discussing measures to be taken by the Prison Service and has mentioned measures to be taken by the police service, and following devolution they are the responsibility of the Justice Minister and the various agencies. Will she reassure the House that, although the responsibilities are separate, every effort is being made to ensure that the effectiveness of all the measures is joined together wherever possible?

[Mrs Villiers]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I emphasise that working relationships between the Northern Ireland Office and the Justice Minister are very close and I discuss these matters with David Ford regularly, as well as with the Chief Constable. As the right hon. Gentleman said, a united effort that co-ordinates our respective areas of responsibility is crucial in combating terrorism. I have held a number of discussions about the David Black murder with the Chief Constable and the Justice Minister, and the Minister of State has been in discussions with the Prison Service, too.

The SPED scheme has been mentioned. It falls within the devolved space but I am happy to pass on the comments made today to the responsible Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive. I am sure that they will wish to reflect carefully on the comments that have been made and I am sure that they take their responsibilities in this matter very seriously.

Personal protection weapons were also mentioned. Issuing or withdrawing personal protection is a matter for the Chief Constable, as the matter is devolved, and the only NIO involvement is when someone appeals against a decision made by the Chief Constable. The director general of the Prison Service met the PSNI recently to ensure that any prison officer who feels they need a PPW can apply to the police under the normal procedures. Following concerns raised after the murder of David Black, Sue McAllister said:

“I have checked and to my knowledge no prison officer has been told that his or her personal protection weapon is to be withdrawn”.

She went on to say:

“I will certainly be making sure that any prison officer who wishes to have a personal protection weapon will be able to apply to the police service as per our procedures.”

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State referred to serving members. Will she also take into consideration those men and women who have served their country faithfully and also deserve to receive personal protection weapons in some shape or form?

[Mrs Villiers]

I am certain that in making decisions on personal protection weapons, the PSNI will have careful regard to the security issues relating to not just present members of the Prison Service but to former members. I am confident that we have a process that is rigorous in assessing those risks and I am sure that they are taken into account by the PSNI. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will also consider them in the appeals process.

[Bob Stewart]

May I remind the House that it is not just about police officers and prison officers? Sometimes people work more indirectly for the Prison Service or military; they might be a civilian driver, educate the children of people who work there or provide a service, such as cleaning an establishment. Those people are under threat, too, more often than we realise.

[Mrs Villiers]

I am confident that the PSNI will carefully consider the risks associated with anyone who applies for permission to have a personal protection weapon, whether they carry out the roles described by my hon. Friend or are involved directly in the Prison Service or PSNI.

[Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)]

I apologise to the House for not being in the Chamber earlier. I do not need to talk further on the subject of weapons in this company, but I believe that many of my former RUC colleagues feel that it is only a matter of time before the PSNI is outgunned by one set of dissidents or another. Does the Secretary of State feel that she has access to enough military resources that can be quickly deployed in the Province?

[Mrs Villiers]

The PSNI has been very clear that it has the resources it needs to combat the terrorist threat, which includes certain technical support from the military.

For our part, the Government are determined to everything we can to keep the people of Northern Ireland safe and secure. On coming to power we endorsed an additional £50 million for the PSNI. In 2010, our national security strategy included countering Northern Ireland-related terrorism as a tier 1 priority and, as we have heard, an additional £200 million over four years was provided to the PSNI to tackle the threat from terrorism.

The right hon. Member for Belfast North asked what will happen at the end of the period covered by that funding settlement. Those are matters for the forthcoming spending review, but the Government will continue to do all we can to support the PSNI and its partners in their efforts to tackle the terrorist threat. I am sure the points made in the debate today will be carefully considered when decisions are made on future spending reviews.

[Jim Shannon]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) made a very specific point about the SPED scheme moneys being drawn out of the Department for Social Development’s money. The specific issue affects Northern Ireland, but the security of Northern Ireland is a matter not just for Northern Ireland but for the whole United Kingdom. Will the right hon. Lady consider providing extra funding for the DSD in Northern Ireland to cover the movement of people from house to house through the SPED scheme?

[Mrs Villiers]

I am sure that when decisions are ultimately taken on the Northern Ireland block grant and future spending reviews, appropriate consideration will be given to the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Ministers and security advisers meet regularly to review our counter-terrorism strategy and to ensure that everything that can be done is being done. Although the threat level remains at “severe” in Northern Ireland, real progress has been made. Excellent co-operation between the PSNI and its partners has put the terrorists under strain in recent months. There have been significant arrests, charges and convictions. In fact, so far this year there have been a total of 143 arrests in Northern Ireland, in addition to a number by An Garda Siochana in the Republic of Ireland. There have also been 52 charges against those involved in national security attacks brought since January 2012, including a number for serious terrorism-related offences. In addition, 25 caches of weapons and improvised explosive devices have been seized.

We remain committed to supporting the PSNI, its partners and Justice Minister David Ford in countering the threat and preventing the so-called dissidents from causing death and destruction. I regularly meet the Tanaiste and the Irish Minister of Justice and discuss these matters, and I am in no doubt that the Irish Government and their police service remain fully committed to tackling terrorism. The relationship between the Garda Siochana and the PSNI is better than ever and it continues to save lives.

As for the question asked by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) on the disclosures about commissioning, she will be aware that the body that carried out the decommissioning process was an independent one. It chose not to publish the inventory of its work, so the Government do not actually have the information to which she referred.

[Mr Donaldson]

I was involved in the negotiations leading to the Belfast agreement, and in the legislative process here in Parliament. The Government have a statutory duty in relation to decommissioning. The legislation made provision for the publication of an inventory of the weapons that had been decommissioned at the end of the process, so I do not think the Secretary of State can simply evade the issue by saying that the commission was independent. The commission had legislative force from this Parliament and surely, therefore, there is an issue of accountability.

[Mrs Villiers]

I am happy to look at the matter that the right hon. Gentleman raised and discuss it further with him.

We are resolutely determined to bring an end to the senseless violence that can still cause such pain and loss in Northern Ireland, but as I said earlier, security measures alone will not bring an end to terrorist activity, although of course they remain essential. We also need to build a more prosperous and less divided society if we are finally to force out those violent groupings completely. Northern Ireland still faces many serious economic and social challenges after the troubles. We need to continue efforts to rebalance the economy and revive the private sector, and we must tackle sectarianism and the causes of division in society, which can fuel the discontent on which terrorists will try to capitalise.

Addressing ongoing community segregation is not just a social and political priority; it is a security priority as well. That is one of the reasons why, in his speech to the Assembly last year, the Prime Minister emphasised the crucial importance of building a genuinely shared future for Northern Ireland. The UK Government remain committed to working closely with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive in their efforts to deliver that shared society.

However, we must not forget how far Northern Ireland has come since the dark days of the troubles. As rightly highlighted by the right hon. Member for Belfast North, we have unprecedented political stability. For the most part, people go about their daily lives in a way that would have been unthinkable in the past; and in so many ways Northern Ireland is now projecting itself on the world stage for the right reasons.

This year we have seen Northern Ireland host the Irish golf open, the Olympic torch relay, the Titanic centenary events and, of course, the fantastically successful visit by Her Majesty the Queen. Next year will see the world police and fire games bring more than 20,000 competitors and spectators to Northern Ireland. Derry-Londonderry will be the UK city of culture. It will host the Fleadh which is being held in Northern Ireland for the first time. Also, as we have heard, it is now officially, according to “Lonely Planet”, the fourth best city in the world to visit.

As announced yesterday by the Prime Minister, the Government are recognising once again the transformation that has taken place in Northern Ireland by bringing the leaders of eight of the world’s largest economies to County Fermanagh. County Fermanagh will genuinely be the centre of the world in June next year. The G8 conference will showcase Northern Ireland as an inspirational setting for world leaders to discuss ambitious solutions to pressing global problems. As the First Minister said yesterday, that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago. It demonstrates a modern, confident, forward-looking Northern Ireland.

This Government in no way underestimate the severity of the ongoing security threat. We remain vigilant. The House should be in no doubt that we will do everything we can to protect the people of our country from terrorism; and we will continue to support the PSNI, the Executive and the community in ensuring that the terrorists do not succeed in their aims. The people of Northern Ireland have achieved so much over the past 20 years and they are determined to continue the hard-won progress that has been made. The overwhelming majority stand by the principle that Northern Ireland’s future will only ever be determined by democracy and by consent, and not by violence. The Government will continue to be vigilant in combating the terrorist threat as an essential part of our wider efforts to deliver a peaceful, stable and prosperous Northern Ireland, of which all its citizens can be proud and in which everyone has a genuinely shared future.

13:54

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Democratic Unionist party on bringing these important matters before the House today; I commend the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) for the very measured way in which he introduced the debate, and I thank the Secretary of State for her remarks.

Northern Ireland’s security and stability affect and are the responsibility of every Member of Parliament, from every party and every part of the United Kingdom. Yesterday’s announcement that the G8 summit is coming to Northern Ireland next year is very welcome news for everyone in Northern Ireland. Fermanagh, which I know is close to the heart of the right hon. Member for Belfast North, is a beautiful county, which I have been privileged to visit. I was last in Enniskillen for the church service at St Macartin’s cathedral on the occasion of Her Majesty the Queen’s visit to Northern Ireland to mark the diamond jubilee. But of course we also remember the horrific Remembrance Sunday killings of 25 years ago. I have also spent time in Fermanagh visiting community groups and businesses, including the Fermanagh Trust which does such good work to promote shared education in the county.

The announcement that this hugely significant event, attended by eight world leaders, will be held in Northern Ireland is proof indeed that things have changed considerably for the better. Only a short number of years ago, it would have been unthinkable that an occasion of this significance, with all its security implications, could be held in Northern Ireland. Indeed the Prime Minister, at Prime Minister’s questions today, made that very point. Given that Derry-Londonderry is also to be the city of culture next year, I firmly believe, as the Secretary of State and the right hon. Gentleman said, that 2013 can be a great year of tourism, investment and togetherness for a vibrant and confident Northern Ireland taking its place on the world stage. A huge amount of progress has thus been made, as we and the Secretary of State recognise.

However, as the motion rightly identifies, there are still those who wish to destroy the peace and progress made and take us back to the dark days of conflict. The murder of Prison Officer David Black just a few weeks ago is a stark reminder of the need for us to be vigilant and realistic about the threat from terrorism. As I said in the House of Commons in the days afterwards, it was the cold-blooded, evil murder of an ordinary, decent man, going about his ordinary, decent business.

I, and some Members who are present in the Chamber this afternoon, stood with many other ordinary, decent people in Cookstown for David Black’s funeral—the Secretary of State was there as well—and was overwhelmed by the courage and determination of his family, and by what his very proud children said at his funeral. They showed that those who murdered a husband, a father and a friend did not succeed and will not succeed. It was good to hear from the Secretary of State this afternoon that there have been further arrests by the PSNI, and that the police have taken other action, including searching properties. That is very welcome news to all of us, I think, as we would all wish to see the perpetrators brought to justice as soon as possible.

We must not, however, think that sentiments alone will ensure that no other family is bereaved and no other home, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) rightly said that day, has an empty chair and a loved one gone. There can be no complacency about the threat from the small number of people engaged in violence, and there must be total support—financial and political—from both sides of the House to help the security forces in Northern Ireland to keep the people safe. Will the Minister in his closing remarks again assure the House that those protecting the public, particularly the PSNI, the Army technical officers and the security services, have all the resources needed to tackle terrorism and the threat to national security?

Unfortunately, David Black’s murder was not an isolated incident, as the Secretary of State said. It was part of a pattern of dissident republican terrorist activity across Northern Ireland, targeted primarily at the security forces. A gun attack on police took place in west Belfast at the end of July; two pipe bombs and a booby-trap device were left at the offices of Derry city council in September; mortar bombs were found in north Belfast in October; then, just last week, what is believed to have been an under-car bomb was found in Belfast, having fallen off the vehicle of the intended target. Loyalist paramilitaries are also engaged in creating discord within and between communities: their involvement in some of the public disorder seen in Belfast this summer and continuing sectarian attacks and criminal behaviour must also be condemned and challenged robustly.

In both working-class Unionist and working-class nationalist areas, joblessness among young people is a real concern, and the Secretary of State mentioned this. Not only does it damage our young people by denying them work, opportunity and aspiration, but it makes them vulnerable to exploitation and indeed recruitment by paramilitaries. We should never underestimate the impact on the security situation of unemployment and social and economic deprivation. Only rarely does any of this make the news here in London, but it is happening and we in Westminster have a duty to take note and to act to deal with it. That is why I so warmly welcome the topic the right hon. Member for Belfast North has brought to the House for debate today.

I believe, as do the Secretary of State and all Members of this House, that the PSNI is to be congratulated on its diligence and success in preventing attacks and catching the perpetrators. The Army technical officers in the bomb disposal units also deserve huge credit for their bravery and tenacity in dealing with suspect devices. Prosecutions relating to terrorist activity have continued, but the risk to police officers, prison officers, soldiers and the entire community remains very real.

Responding to remarks I made in the House earlier this month, the Secretary of State said:

“the PSNI is completely focused on maintaining the safety of prison officers, as it is on maintaining the safety of police officers, who are sadly also targeted by dissident terrorists. I am sure that every lesson will be learned, and that the PSNI and the Prison Service will look with care at whether any changes need to be made as a result of yesterday’s tragedy.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2012; Vol. 552, c. 513.]

[Lady Hermon]

I am following closely the comments being made by the shadow Secretary of State. Will he take a moment to support publicly the calls we have heard from this Bench this afternoon for the publication by the Government of the inventories of weapons already decommissioned by republicans and by loyalists, as agreed under the Belfast agreement? To hide behind the independence of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning simply will not do. Will the hon. Gentleman please publicly endorse those calls for publication?

[Vernon Coaker]

Because of the way the hon. Lady has pursued the matter and raised it in this debate, she has already got a commitment from the Secretary of State to consider her request and to see whether anything more needs to be done. The hon. Lady had mentioned the publication of inventories several times this afternoon and the Secretary of State has—rightly, I believe—given a commitment to see whether anything further can be done to ensure that the weapons and other materiél that are said to have been destroyed actually have been. I am sure the House welcomes the Secretary of State’s commitment.

May I ask the Minister of State, who is to reply to the debate, what his assessment is of the lessons that have been learned and whether any changes are needed to ensure the highest levels of personal security for police officers, civilian police staff and Prison Service personnel? The Police Federation for Northern Ireland says that there have been 73 gun or bomb attacks since the start of this year—a startling and worrying figure—and last week its chairman, Terry Spence, said that 1,000 more officers were needed to combat what he described as a growing threat and to stop us “sleepwalking into disaster”. Following the previous Administration’s commitment, in 2010 this Government gave the police an extra £200 million, to be spread over the following four years, specifically to combat terrorism; and the Executive have provided £45 million for the same purpose. I know that, like me, the Minister of State has regular discussions with the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland and the Chief Constable. What representations has he received regarding the extension of that funding beyond 2014? What is his assessment of the call for additional police officers to meet the national security threat outlined by the PFNI chairman?

I know that there is ever-closer co-operation between the Irish Government and the UK Government, and between the Garda Siochana and the PSNI. The support of the Irish authorities in tackling terrorism is hugely important, and I commend in particular the Tanaiste, the Irish Justice Minister and the Garda commissioner for their hard work and determination. We all want that to continue.

[Mr Laurence Robertson]

On the day of the terrible murder of Mr Black, I was in Dublin and met the Garda commissioner, who reaffirmed his commitment to working with the PSNI to stamp out such action. There was an air of despondency around everyone I met in Dublin that tragic day. They really do stand with us in fighting against such incidents.

[Vernon Coaker]

The remarks of the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee are welcome and will be heard clearly both here and in Dublin. I am sure that everyone across the whole Republic of Ireland, the whole of Northern Ireland and, let us be clear, the whole United Kingdom, was absolutely horrified by the murder and supports all the efforts of the Government, the parties in Northern Ireland and the police and security services in the Republic and Northern Ireland to bring to justice those who committed that terrible crime.

In my first exchange across the Dispatch Box with the Secretary of State, during Northern Ireland questions on 24 October, I said that I wanted

“to work with her constructively and in a bipartisan way, particularly on issues relating to security.”

I asked her to

“assure the House and the people of Northern Ireland that there will be no downgrading of the Government’s commitment to combat terrorism anywhere in the United Kingdom”.—[Official Report, 24 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 907.]

The Secretary of State has reaffirmed that commitment and needs to do so constantly, because, as the right hon. Member for Belfast North said, any suggestion of a downgrading must be combated. I reaffirm my commitment to maintaining a bipartisan approach, to working with the Government on security matters, and to supporting the Northern Ireland Executive, the Justice Minister and the PSNI. This afternoon’s debate gives us the opportunity, here in Westminster, to say that tackling terrorism, wherever and whenever it occurs, should remain the responsibility and priority of us all.

14:08

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I pay tribute to the Democratic Unionist party and the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) for securing this Opposition day debate. I know that many colleagues in parties on the other side of the Chamber have far more expertise and experience than I have and that they want to speak, so I will be brief.

I join the Secretary of State and the others who have spoken so far in paying tribute to Mr David Black. His murder was a heinous crime, which calls to mind the dreadful situation many years ago, of which I have some experience. One of my uncles was a police officer; the IRA attempted to assassinate him and once actually came to his house. Fortuitously, neither the children—my cousins—nor my uncle and aunt were harmed, but it was an absolutely desperate situation. I remember so well what it was like all those years ago. Things have moved on apace, almost miraculously. I still visit my relatives in Northern Ireland and it is a very different place from what it was many years ago.

The security issue, however, is clearly still relevant, as the crime against Mr Black only a few weeks ago demonstrates. Periodically, dissident groups materialise suddenly and cause mayhem by harming, frightening and intimidating people, and, to be frank, some of the loyalist dissident groups almost have a racketeering contract over parts of the north. Things are not yet quite where we want them to be, but I want to affirm and confirm just how far they have come.

I remember being in Belfast when the troubles started. I was only 12 and, as hon. Members will be able to imagine, as a young child I thought it was very exciting. There were helicopters everywhere, guns going off and lots of noise, but it did not take me long to realise just what a dreadfully black period the whole country was going to go through. The situation now compared with then is almost miraculous. It is tremendous that it has advanced to the extent that, today, all sides in Northern Ireland, where a difficult sectarian divide involved a lot of death and pain, are sought out by other countries around the world to help them get through similarly difficult situations. That is a tribute to all the people of the north and to the UK Government for the progress that we have made.

It is striking that a number of Northern Ireland Members have reminded us of the ongoing threat, to the extent that people have had to move house. I urge the Government to keep focused on two things, along with everything else. First, there must never be any cuts in the budget, so that ample money is available to ensure that people who work in the public security services—whether they work in prisons, the police or similar—are protected in their own homes in the north. Secondly, and equally—this strong point has already been made—if they are forced out of their own homes, which is dreadful, they should not suffer financially, because that seems completely against the whole concept of natural justice. As a spokesperson for my party within the coalition, I add my wholehearted support to what has already been said on that issue. It is important that the Government keep focused.

The security angle is complicated and I know that the Government are working very closely with the devolved Government in Northern Ireland. This issue clearly is not going to go away any time soon, but I remind hon. Members—not that I have to remind Northern Ireland Members—that we are in such a different place compared with 20 years ago. If we ever allow the dissident groups, of whatever stripe, to force us into a defensive posture, that tiny percentage of people will have won. I do not think that they are worth it—they are not worth a hill of beans. We need to deal with them firmly, ensure that the security capacity is there, and keep doing what I know the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want, which is to keep going forward towards a very secure future.

14:14

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I rise in support of my honourable colleagues and this important motion. I want to tread the same fine line as previous contributors and outline the significant and beneficial progress that has been made in Northern Ireland in recent years, while balancing it with the need not to become complacent. Unfortunately, we have seen in recent days and weeks the ramifications of what happens whenever dissident terrorists are able to carry out their dastardly objectives.

The progress that has been made has been alluded to during Prime Minister’s questions today and in other locations recently. It is remarkable—there is absolutely no question about that. In 2012, there are many villages and towns in Northern Ireland where there is no discernible evidence of violence, dissension or trouble at all—none whatsoever. Unfortunately, however, as has been said, the capacity of dissident terrorists—who now come under the umbrella of the IRA—to carry out their activities cannot and must not be underestimated. The fact that those terrorists have carried out six or seven gun or bomb attacks each and every month of this year is evidence of their capacity.

The Chief Constable has said that the terrorists do not have the capacity for a sustained campaign. They are not in the same category as the Provisional IRA and it appears at present that they are not even intent on a sustained level of bombing and shooting on every day of every week of every month, for a number of reasons. They do not have the manpower—or the woman-power either—or the expertise, although they are gaining in that regard. What they are doing, however—unfortunately, Mr David Black and his family were at the receiving end of their capacity—is allowing a week, a fortnight or a month to go by and then hitting a target that they know will get a headline and generate adverse publicity. For example, they are aware that Londonderry will be the first ever UK city of culture next year, which is why they targeted the cultural offices in the city of Londonderry. They knew that that would get a headline of some magnitude.

In treading the fine line between the significant progress that has been made, which we must not underestimate, and the need to ensure that vigilance remains the watchword, I want to draw attention to the benefit that we will gain, I hope, over the next 12 months and, at the same time, ensure that the Secretary of State, the Government and the security forces at home remain vigilant to ensure that people are able to enjoy the many occasions that will come our way over the next 12 months.

Let us consider those occasions for a moment. The G8 has been announced and we congratulate the Prime Minister on, and thank him for, his work in delivering it. There will be an unprecedented arrival of people in, and attention on, Northern Ireland for all the good reasons. People will come to Fermanagh and there will be intense publicity not just for the three days that they are there, but for the weeks that lead up to it and, I hope, subsequent to their departure. That has to be and must be a force for good, and yet there is the potential—just as dissidents have targeted other occasions that were a force for good—for the dissidents’ force for evil. They will undoubtedly be looking at ways to undermine that significantly beneficial event for Northern Ireland, so we must be aware of their capacity to do so.

The Secretary of State has alluded to the world police and fire games, which will also be held in Northern Ireland next year. The potential significant benefits for tourism and inward investment as the result of many thousands of people—both participants and spectators—coming to Northern Ireland and enjoying their stay should not be underestimated. Again, dissidents will want to target that event. We cannot rest on our laurels and just think that the police will deal with any problems. Unfortunately, we must prepare for the possibility that dissidents may want to disrupt these events.

I have alluded to Londonderry being the first ever UK city of culture. There will be a whole sequence of events, starting in six weeks’ time and running throughout next year. Again, dissidents will see the opportunity to target those events. They will pick and choose the events that they want to disrupt. Thankfully, their attempts in recent months have failed, but trying and failing in the past has not deterred them from repetition. They will undoubtedly attempt to cause disruption again.

Over the next 12 to 18 months, Northern Ireland could see as much transformation again as it has seen over the past 20 years, provided that we take the necessary action to ensure that those who are intent on disrupting these events are not allowed to do so, and provided that the community rallies behind all the events, gives them total support and ensures that there is no hiding place for anyone who tries to disrupt them or attack the participants. Last year, when the Olympic torch made its way across the United Kingdom, the only location where it suffered a minor re-routeing was Londonderry. That was at the hands of several dozen dissident political protesters. There was no violence, but there were negative headlines because they targeted an event that everyone else thought was tremendous and that thousands of people were there to support. We must confront that kind of attitude over the next 14 months.

The shadow Secretary of State made an important point about unemployment, particularly among young people. Just like the Provisional IRA before them, the dissident elements are undoubtedly targeting young people who are unemployed and saying to them, “The peace process has brought you nothing. It has not benefited you with employment, in getting you out of the ghetto or in improving your lifestyle or standard of living. Therefore, join us in trying to finish the job that the provos started but could not finish.” That is the message that the dissidents sell, in different ways, to young people who are unemployed and who, in many cases, are following generations of unemployment.

I therefore encourage other Members to follow the avenue that I will be pursuing next week with Invest Northern Ireland, the Department for Employment and Learning in Northern Ireland, the Prince’s Trust and others. We are targeting unemployed young people and giving them the information on the training, skills and adaptability that they need to get into employment, so that they do not become fodder for the dissident elements that are, unfortunately, targeting our young people.

I want to close with the issue of personal protection weapons and the home protection scheme, which has been alluded to by a number of Members. David Black was not under any specific individual threat on his life. He died as a result of the dissident terrorists targeting him none the less. The day, the week and the month before that fateful day when he was making his journey along the motorway, he did not believe that he was under threat any more than many of his colleagues. I say that not to diminish the threat that he thought he was under, but to point out that he was told that he was under no specific individual threat.

That means that there are hundreds of serving and former members of the police, the prison service, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment who, because of where they live and because of their job, feel themselves to be under a certain kind of threat. I encourage the Northern Ireland Office, the Secretary of State and others to do whatever they can to ensure that those personnel have adequate protection, in the form of both personal protection weapons and the home protection scheme, so that they and their families have some form of security. They need to know that the Government and the rest of us understand the threat that they are under and will do what we can to help them in their hour of need.

14:25

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

It is good to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell).

The recent murder of Prison Officer David Black presents us with a stark warning that we cannot ignore. It shows that although society in Northern Ireland is moving forward, peace and stability are fragile commodities that need to be protected from dangerous people who go about with murder in their hearts. We cannot take our security for granted in any corner of this United Kingdom; nor can we assume that the threat of republican terrorism has passed completely into the history books.

Personal protection weapons and the assessment of risk have been raised a number of times today. I believe that there is an issue with how assessments are made that needs to be addressed by the security forces or through the Northern Ireland Office. I would like the Secretary of State to take that on board.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry referred to David Black. David Black was murdered in my constituency. I pay tribute to his family and to his wife for her courageous statement about no retaliation. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said, they also said that they wanted the perpetrators to be brought to justice to pay for their crime. As I said earlier, while we are genuine in our tributes to him and his family, there is an empty chair that will never be filled, so we must get to grips with the matter.

I believe that a different line must be taken in the assessments on serving officers in the Prison Service and the other security forces, and on those who have served the community and put on the uniform of the Crown forces for a long time. Time and again, prison officers and people from the security forces come to my office. The letters that they receive state continually: “Our assessment on you is moderate.” What does that mean? There was no specific intelligence on David Black. There was no specific intelligence on Constable Stephen Carroll, who was also murdered in my constituency. But their lives were taken.

We need to address this issue. The Government need to realise that we are dealing with human lives. We are dealing with people who have to go out in the morning to do a day’s work and who are looking over their shoulder. All of us on these Benches live with that every day. People will say that we are well paid for it, and perhaps we are. However, there are people out there who get up in the morning, leave their families and go out to check their vehicles. The word for the problem is complacency. We all get lax when nothing has happened for a while, and we do not check under our vehicles or look over our shoulders as we should. That happens, but some day it will be too late—there will be a device and it will all be over.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend will be aware of the targeting of security force personnel, whether in the police, Army or Prison Service. Is he also aware of the announcement that the name and address of every prison officer was known to dissident republicans, and does he feel that security for everyone who serves in uniform needs to be upgraded and stepped up?

[David Simpson]

Yes, and over the years we have been made aware of security leaks, and documents relating to members of the security forces have been found in the possession of certain people. People have been arrested because material has been found that could be of advantage to terrorist organisations. We must be vigilant and ensure consistent upgrading and assessment of all those issues, and I ask the Secretary of State to keep that in mind. I do not totally blame the Northern Ireland Office for the situation; the PSNI of course has responsibility for making an assessment. People should not just be dealt with as being under moderate threat, when all of a sudden their lives are taken. As has been said, David Black was driving down the motorway outside Lurgan in my constituency. He was on his way to help his country by serving in the Prison Service, and to earn a living for his wife and family. He did not return. We must address urgently the issue of how people’s protection is assessed.

On a more positive note, no one in this House, or anywhere in Northern Ireland, would deny that Northern Ireland has made remarkable progress in recent times. This has been a fantastic year for our Province, and the announcement yesterday that Ulster will host the G8 summit next year was the crowning glory in an incredible period of positive headlines. I thank the Secretary of State for attending my constituency yesterday—of course, she brought the Prime Minster with her—and it was good of her to be there to make an announcement about the G8. I am sure she will agree that the warm reception that both she and the Prime Minister received from the NACCO work force in the Craigavon area was tremendous. It was a positive day for my constituency, for Northern Ireland and for NACCO, which had its tweets all ready. They were not allowed to go because of security issues, but I assure the Secretary of State that the moment the Prime Minister left, wires were hot across the whole world to promote that company and the Craigavon area.

This year has been an excellent showcase for all that is good about Northern Ireland. No longer is our part of the United Kingdom referred to in the same breath as Palestine or other trouble spots in the world, and the Province is receiving global recognition for the right reasons. That success has been built on the sure foundation of support for the rule of law among all those who carry the responsibility of political leadership. People who once swore that they would never support the police or the rule of law, now do so.

[Mr Dodds]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about support for policing. Does he share my concern, and that of many others, about the recent developments following an arrest made under proper policing processes, when Sinn Fein organised a protest outside police headquarters and accused the PSNI of “political policing”? Does my hon. Friend believe, as I do, that that retrograde and dangerous step plays into the hands of dissidents?

[David Simpson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention; he is absolutely correct. Such events send out the wrong message and seem to give support to dissident republicans which, as was mentioned earlier, encourages young people to believe that the war is not really over. In the words of one famous republican, “We haven’t gone away you know.” We must remember that.

[Dr McCrea]

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that a dangerous precedent has been set by members of Sinn Fein and the SDLP on Dungannon and South Tyrone council? A person has gone through the due process of the law as a result of an action to murder a member of the DUP—Councillor Sammy Brush—yet now we find that their release is being demanded.

[David Simpson]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. In fact, he must have seen my speech—[Interruption.] He probably thought he wrote it for me. He is right to say that the call from the SDLP is despicable, and I will soon refer to that case in my speech.

A generation of young people are emerging in Northern Ireland for whom the worst days of the troubles are something they hear their parents talk about at the fireside. Mercifully, these young people have no real first-hand experience of such things themselves. I welcome that changed dispensation and the fact that our society has become less accustomed to violence and less accepting of it than during the dark days. At stake, however, is the maintenance of peace and prosperity for all our people.

I pay tribute to Kate Carroll, the wife of Constable Stephen Carroll who was murdered in my constituency. She is a very brave lady and I understand that in January next year she will launch in the Stormont buildings an initiative for disfranchised young people. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry referred to young people who are unemployed and find themselves in difficult circumstances, and Kate Carroll is bringing forward an initiative that will help such people to find work, get involved in youth projects, and remove them from the scene and criminal activity, and from the leeches that try to tap into their lives and take them away. I pay tribute to Kate Carroll; she is a brave lady who has been outspoken on many issues and come a long way since the death of her husband. She should be congratulated on that.

There was a time in Northern Ireland when a person’s losing their life as a consequence of terrorism was sometimes read out on news broadcasts with the tiresome repetition of the weather forecast or the market report. Those terrible times are gone, except for a tiny, crazed element that seeks to take us backwards. That element does exist, and we learn from the past that if it is not confronted, it will persist. It is a sign of how far forward we have moved as a society that the community, right across the traditional divides, was genuinely convulsed in shock by the recent murder of David Black. People who lived through the dark days do not want to go back to them, and their children do not want to endure what their parents had to endure. We must not let our people down through a weak response to that grave threat. We must have peace, but it can only be guaranteed through strength.

Peace will be preserved in our country only if those who threaten its continuation are confronted and harried at every opportunity by the legitimate forces of law and order. My point again to the Secretary of State is that we need to provide any resources that are needed. We need to take those people on, defeat them and remove them from our society. We need to remove their political ideology—or whatever ideology—to try to bring them to their knees. Republicans tried for many years in Northern Ireland, but they found that the people of Ulster are very resilient, despite all that was thrown at them over the years. The people of Northern Ireland did not give in to the Provisional IRA, and I can assure the House that they will not give in to any so-called dissident republicans. They will continue to fight and continue to remain members of this United Kingdom no matter what is thrown at them.

The latest incarnation of republican terrorism considers itself to be the keeper of an old republican flame—the armed struggle. Those people believe that, if they can keep alive the twisted tradition of anti-democratic violence, it will eventually burn as strongly as it did in the past. The psychopathic delusion required to sustain such a nightmare vision ignores the pain and suffering that would be inflicted on the wider community were it ever to become a reality. It can never be allowed to become a reality. Too many people have suffered as a consequence of politically motivated violence. It is essential that the Government do all in their power to defeat those who would seek to reignite the flames of division and bloodshed. Every tool at our disposal should be deployed.

The news that the disparate and scattered remnants of physical-force republicanism have joined together under a single banner—one local tabloid referred to it yesterday as a coalition, but I will not go into that—shows why the current policy of allowing dissidents to segregate in prisons must be ended. It is beyond dispute that the warnings given in 2003 on where that policy would ultimately lead have been fulfilled. The policy should be reversed, and I hope the Secretary of State joins us in calling for that.

It is more important now than ever that all democratic parties in Northern Ireland stand together to oppose the dissident agenda. That is why I have found some of the actions of the SDLP very disappointing. I have a lot of respect for many SDLP members, but recent comments have been disappointing. It sends out a mixed and confused message if the leader of the SDLP and his party colleagues campaign for the release of Marian Price and Gerry McGeough. McGeough was convicted by a court of law for the attempted murder of my party colleague, Councillor Sammy Brush. Had Sammy Brush not been in possession of a personal weapon, he would have been dead today. He was able to return fire, but he would have been dead had the personal protection weapon not been issued to him.

It was appalling to hear the leader of the SDLP claim that McGeough has been victimised. It was equally appalling when his party backed a call for McGeough to be released. Let us imagine the scene at Dungannon and South Tyrone borough council on that night: Councillor Brush was sitting in his place in the council chamber while one nationalist speaker after another rose to demand the release of the man who had tried to murder him. Such behaviour is an affront to any innocent victim of terrorism. McGeough should not be released until he has served his full sentence. That is the end of the story.

Marian Price had her licence revoked by the previous Secretary of State for encouraging support for the very same terrorists who would seek to plunge Northern Ireland back into the violence and bloodshed of the past. At this juncture, there can be no question of setting her free. I hope the Secretary of State reiterates the Government’s support for the decision taken by her predecessor in that regard.

I hope the Secretary of State provides an assurance that any PSNI request for additional resources to tackle the threat posed by dissident republicans will be looked on favourably by the Government. When we are talking about protecting the safety and security of British citizens, there can be no question of penny pinching. Prison officers, who are currently the focus of attention, need protection. Whatever package is required—whether PPWs or home protection—needs to be provided.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise that Ulster has lost too many young men and women, and men and women who have served their country for many years. We do not want to see any more.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I should inform Members who wish to take part in the debate how it will run for the rest of the afternoon. Five Members wish to participate, and we are due to start the wind-ups at around 4 o’clock. I am not putting a time limit on speeches now, but asking each of you to consider the clock to ensure that the time is allocated fairly between you. Otherwise, I will do it for you.

14:47

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I suppose there was a certain nervousness about this debate. It has been a measured debate, but as many hon. Members have said, we do not wish to paint a picture of Northern Ireland as being back in the 1970s and 1980s. Considerable progress has been made. I was glad that, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) introduced the debate, he gave a balanced picture of a Northern Ireland that has moved on considerably. The Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, and all hon. Members who have spoken, have echoed that.

The one thing that would give great consolation to those who murdered Prison Officer Black would be that their vile act is used to try to destabilise Northern Ireland further—economically, politically and in all other ways. That has not happened. The family have acted with dignity, and the community and security forces have been responsive, which is important. For Northern Ireland to succeed, and for us to move in the direction we want—to a normal and prosperous society that gives hope to young people who are looking for jobs, and families who want to bring up their children in a stable environment—we cannot allow the cancer of terrorism once again to push Northern Ireland into the headlines for all the wrong reasons.

This year, we have had more tourists than ever, and we have succeeded even in the middle of a recession in attracting more foreign direct investment to our economy than any other region bar the south-east of England. Despite that and all the other changes, some people would love to wallow and say, “Things are just as bad as what they ever were.” I do not want this debate to give credence to such a view of life: that is not where Northern Ireland is today. We have already referred to the events that have happened this year and the events we are looking forward to next year. Even in Londonderry, with its republican and nationalist majority on the council, they are going to celebrate the UK city of culture next year. That is how Northern Ireland has changed. We may even have the Deputy First Minister going to the Brit awards—

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

The Brits out awards! [Laughter.]

[Sammy Wilson]

I have not heard that phrase for a while.

As hon. Members have pointed out, despite those changes it is important that we do not get complacent and that we recognise that dangers still lurk that affect people’s daily lives in Northern Ireland. We have to deal with those dangers, and I accept that we as the public representatives in Northern Ireland have a responsibility to deal with them ourselves. I am glad that we are moving away from the days when we went and asked everyone else to help us with our problems and relied on them to sort out our problems for us. We have a devolved Administration, which includes parties across the board, although it is a difficult arrangement to make work, especially when dealing with people as financially irresponsible as Sinn Fein and, marginally behind them, the SDLP. People talk of their support for the police, but if the police start to deal with some of the colleagues of those who were involved in terrorism, that support suddenly becomes qualified. It is disgraceful—

[Naomi Long]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that Ministers from his own party advocate civil disobedience in the face of violence in the streets of our cities? That is also irresponsible and should be condemned and avoided.

[Sammy Wilson]

In any democratic society, there is always the opportunity for people to engage in peaceful protest, if that is what the hon. Lady means. There is a huge difference between those who say that members of the public can engage in peaceful protest and those who say that it is political policing for the police to go through due process to arrest people for serious crimes—including murder. I notice that the SDLP Members have been quiet on this point. It is one thing for someone on Dungannon council in the back of beyond to call for the release of someone who was guilty of trying to murder a council colleague: it is another to stand up in the House of Commons and defend that. I note that SDLP Members have not tried to do that, because there is a bit more public scrutiny here.

It is important that we in Northern Ireland take responsibility not only for seeking to try to heal the divisions of the past, but for giving support to those who have to deal with the reality of the lingering terrorism that we still experience. I do not buy the idea—to which the shadow Secretary of State referred—that people get involved in terrorism because they are economically deprived. We do an injustice to people who have lived their lives in difficult economic conditions and never become involved in crime if we make that excuse. We have a responsibility to provide hope in our society, so that people can have a stake in it, feel that there is something better for them and that it is a place where they want to belong. The Executive are seeking to do that and to direct resources towards the young and unemployed, and people who have lost their jobs. We are looking at innovative ways to try to give that economic hope to people.

There is a need for security policies that will be effective, and responsibility for those may, at some stage, lie with the Government here in Westminster. If we are going to deal with terrorism, we must have intelligence. There are various ways of gathering intelligence—electronic surveillance and so on—but human intelligence sources are also important. The security services are responsible for gathering that intelligence in Northern Ireland. I know that they are hampered in doing so, and I remember my time in the police force and some of the unrealistic demands that were made, especially by some of the SDLP representatives—Sinn Fein was not on the Police Board then. People almost had to be Sunday school teachers to become informants for the police because there were so many restrictions. If people were involved in this, that or the other, they could not be recruited as intelligence sources. We would have been left with people who would not have had any idea about what was going on in the criminal underworld of terrorism if we had stuck by those restrictions. The important question is what changes we need to make to get the intelligence required to ensure that those who want to engage in such criminal behaviour are quickly identified.

There is also a resource aspect to this. I know that the Police Federation has talked about 1,000 extra police officers. I do not know whether we need 1,000 extra police officers or not, but I do know that if we are to target terrorists—including intensive surveillance on them—it will require additional resources. I give credit to the Government because when policing and justice were devolved, we were given additional resources for policing of £50 million on a yearly basis, depending on the assessment of the security situation. The Chief Constable and the Northern Ireland Executive made the case that they had to plan ahead and could not be left to wonder whether they would get the £50 million every year—whether the security situation would be assessed as okay or as having deteriorated. They asked for the money to be guaranteed for a four-year period, so that planning could take place to make best use of the resources. I pay tribute to the Government and the Treasury for accepting that argument, and that is why the Chief Constable has been able to plan ahead.

Additional resources may be required in the future. If so, it will be to deal with a national security situation, and not just to have more community policemen on the ground in Northern Ireland. I understand why Members on both sides of the House, when they see cuts in their police service, ask why Northern Ireland is treated differently from other parts of the United Kingdom when it comes to constraints on police budgets. But this issue does not apply only to Northern Ireland. If the situation gets out of hand, it will have national security implications. Republicans would far rather do something on the UK mainland than in Northern Ireland—that would be much more newsworthy. They get the base, they get the wherewithal, they get the ability and they get the mechanisms for doing it, and we can be sure that this is where the targets will be.

If the Chief Constable makes the assessment that additional resources are needed, I hope there will be a positive response. That is not to say that we in the Northern Ireland Executive must not do anything. Indeed, we have provided for greater flexibility in the security budget than for any other budget. In any other Department, where money is not, or cannot, be spent in the way it was voted on, it has to be returned to the centre and looked at again. The security budget has been ring-fenced so that the Chief Constable has much greater flexibility. This is not an issue of holding out our hands and looking for more money; this is about what we can do for ourselves first of all. However, if the situation deteriorates—I hope that it does not, and that there is never a need to call on the House and the Government for more resources for policing in Northern Ireland; I, and the citizens of Northern Ireland, want to see policing return to normality—then that is one thing that could be done.

I appreciate the response—the support and recognition—from all parts of the House to the situation in Northern Ireland. For our part, we raised this issue because it is important to the people who live in Northern Ireland for it to be highlighted. We have done so in a measured way; not in an alarmist way, but in a way that, as public representatives in Northern Ireland, we have a duty to do.

15:01

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I welcome the motion despite the barbed and direct attacks on me, my leader and colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell), and my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). It was absolutely scandalous, because our record on violence and our record against terrorism, all down the years, has been straight and to the point: we reject it all.

It is of paramount importance at this time, when there is undoubtedly a growing threat from dissident republicans, that we show solidarity with those who do most to make our communities safe. That includes, obviously, the PSNI and the Prison Service. The murder of Prison Officer David Black was an abhorrent crime against a man who was doing an important and difficult job on behalf of us all. It was also a vicious crime against the family and friends of Mr Black. Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with them.

If I am to be frank, apart from relative stability, there are not that many successes that our somewhat dysfunctional devolved Government in Northern Ireland can claim. Hopefully, that will change. None the less, the outstanding achievement of this spell of devolution is that we have all taken a united stand against terror from whatever source. For some of us, that is nothing new. My own party has always stood against politically motivated violence whatever the goal, whatever the frustration at the lack of movement, or whatever the anger about the lack of justice. For us, the recent violence is little different, except thankfully in its magnitude, from the violence we all endured in past decades. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.

[David Simpson]

In the hon. Lady’s opening comments, she said that her party had stood against terrorism. That is fine, but will she condemn her leader for calling for the release of former terrorists?

[Ms Ritchie]

We were very concerned that the prisons issue does not feed the dissidents, as happened with the provisional movement in the past.

If I may continue: my party has stood against violence. Violence was wrong back in the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s and it is wrong now—simple, clear. Others have come a longer way—whether those who have renounced the armed struggle and have followed the electoral road to places such as this, or those, including the Democratic Unionist party who moved this motion, who fanned the flames of division for many years, including sporadic flirtations with paramilitarism and lawlessness. We are now all in the same place. We stand united against terror and we will not be moved. It is vital that we continue, whatever else may divide us, that united stand against terror. There must be no slippage on anyone’s part.

I recognise the distance travelled by others and acknowledge that we are united against terror. That unity is genuine and, I believe, resilient. However, I must also caution the DUP and Sinn Fein on how we maintain our united stand and how we deepen our commitment. To Sinn Fein I say the following: they perhaps have travelled furthest of all and deserve credit for that, but they can and should do more. First, they should stop describing a murderous atrocity as achieving nothing, or pointless, or condemning the perpetrators as having no strategy. Such acts are not just wrong strategically and tactically—they are just plain wrong. They are morally wrong. It would help if they could just say so.

Secondly, republicans must do more to provide every shred of information they have, whether recent or from the recesses of their memories, to the police—not selectively, but completely. I believe that it was a major step backwards to see Sinn Fein leaders recently protesting outside police headquarters against the arrest of a republican in the investigation into the murder of Robert McCartney in Belfast. One either supports the police or not, and the dogs on the street know that republicans have yet to come clean on the brutal murder of Robert McCartney and the subsequent despicable persecution by republicans of his family.

It is not just Sinn Fein who need to do more to strengthen our united stand against terror. The party behind the motion can sometimes be uncomfortably close to some of the hard men on the other side. I understand that the DUP leader only recently complained to the Irish Government that funding going into worthwhile north/south infrastructure projects should instead go to community projects for loyalists, because loyalist paramilitaries were getting restless and were increasingly of a disposition to strike out. That is not good enough. Our united stand against terror must include all those who espouse terror and violence, not only the republican dissidents in this motion but the intimidatory thugs who continue to prey on working class communities on all sides. I would hope that the DUP pay heed to that.

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Lady made a statement in relation to my party leader, the First Minister of Northern Ireland. I would just be grateful if she could provide the House with any evidence that she may have for that ridiculous statement.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think there is evidence to that effect and he should discuss it directly with his colleagues who serve in the Northern Ireland Executive. [Interruption.] Yes, there is evidence to that effect.

We must not allow the tragic murder of Mr David Black to curtail our appetite for reform in the north. Our hard-working Justice Minister has plans to reform the Prison Service, just as we have reformed policing, and we must let him get on with it.

If there is one thing politicians can do to honour the memory of David Black and everyone else killed over the last several years—the police officers and other members of the security forces tragically murdered three or four years ago, and the other brave citizens cut down while providing essential public services—it is to strengthen and deepen our big achievement in devolution, which is our united stand against terror. That is what we should all subscribe to and what we in the SDLP—my party leader, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South, my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle and I—have done continually.

15:10

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I thank DUP Members for bringing this motion to the House, although, like others, I am saddened that it is so pertinent as so many positive things have happened in Northern Ireland in recent years. We have seen a remarkable transformation. The city I grew up in is unrecognisable compared with how it was during the worst of the troubles. We should be hugely grateful for that. It is an achievement of which we should all be hugely proud, having made it happen.

This is a pertinent motion, however, because the security threat in Northern Ireland is very real. It was visited most recently on the family of David Black, with his brutal murder. I want to offer again my condolences to his family—to his wife, his son and daughter, his parents and his sister, and the wider family—and his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Prison Service. It was an appalling murder committed in cold blood, and those who did it not only ruthlessly took a life but recklessly endangered others on the motorway that morning. That demonstrates their utter disregard and contempt for the entire community more effectively than any words of mine in this place could ever do.

The murder was particularly ironic, given that David Black was an officer with a strong reputation within the prison service for supporting improved prisoner welfare. The motives of his murderers contrast sharply with those prisoners in Maghaberry who found a way to mark their respect for him as an officer in that facility, seeking a book of condolences that they could sign. That is a poignant tribute to the quality of service he gave to those placed in his care in the Prison Service.

It is important also to commend the police for their ongoing efforts to counter terrorist threats from all sources. As others have mentioned, we know that two people have been arrested for questioning today in relation to the murder. I welcome that, because it describes an active and ongoing police investigation. I wish them every success in bringing those responsible to justice. In doing so, they are not just delivering justice for the family but delivering justice and protection for the wider community. It is hugely important that the community co-operate fully with the police in all their efforts. I also commend the close and effective co-operation between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda. I know that my party leader, the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, is hugely impressed and encouraged by the ongoing work in that regard.

I also commend the speedy response of the Prison Service and the police service in dealing with the concerns about the personal security of prison officers that have arisen as a result of the most recent attack. As others have said, there were concerns about the speed of clearance of applications for personal protection weapons by officers leaving the service under the early redundancy scheme. I understand that they have been at least partially addressed by way of a commitment from the Chief Constable to fast-track those applications. There were also concerns about the duration of the maintenance support for home security measures for prison officers, but I believe that they have been resolved by an amendment to the scheme by the Prison Service. Clearly, other action is being taken to address the outstanding issues.

This was not only an attack on an individual or the security services; it was an attack on the whole community, and as such it requires a security, a political and a community response. These attacks are designed to dissuade people from joining the security services, to disrupt the political system, to drive a wedge between parts of the community and to reignite and exploit sectarian tensions. It is hugely important, therefore, that we work together and present a united front against people engaged in such activities to ensure that they do not achieve any of those objectives. The community needs to pull together and co-operate with the PSNI in bringing those responsible to justice.

As we are repeatedly reminded in statements by political leaders, these dissident groups are small, but there is no direct correlation between their effectiveness and destructiveness and their size. They are forensically aware and therefore able continually to avoid detection. It is hugely important that we do not underestimate the impact that these individuals can have in our community. They have been denounced by Father Michael Canny, who sought to engage with dissident republicans and bring about a ceasefire and the disbandment of those groups. He denounced them as “mindless morons” with nothing positive to offer our community. We would all concur with his assessment, but a mindless moron with a weapon or bomb is a dangerous individual. We should never lose sight of that. These groups might lack a vision for the future, but they are a threat to the present and the future, and we need to take them seriously. They are more wedded to their struggle than to any cause, which makes it particularly difficult for political intervention to succeed.

On the security response, I want to reflect on the need for Westminster to co-operate with the Northern Ireland Executive. Like others, I welcome the additional funding made available by the Treasury for the current comprehensive spending review period, and I recognise the importance of countering the threat during this period and the level of commitment to ensuring it continues into the next period. Northern Irish Members, like Government Members, have mentioned the huge opportunities in the coming years in Northern Ireland. Huge international events are due to happen, and we are hugely thankful that those things can take place in Northern Ireland and will shine a light on the positive things happening in our community. That is something we should welcome.

We have to recognise, however, that those events will place additional pressures on the PSNI when it comes to policing them, be they the UK city of culture, the world police and fire games or the G8 summit. All those are, in effect, UK-wide events being hosted in Northern Ireland, and a single police force should not be expected to carry all the financial burden. The Police Federation for Northern Ireland recently raised with me its concerns that although mutual aid is available to the PSNI through the UK-wide scheme, it can often be difficult to access. For example, many other forces are not routinely armed or trained in the specific skills needed to engage in civil disobedience situations, as is the case in Northern Ireland. We need to consider that point when we look to police resources and what is available to them.

I am happy to support the motion, but I note an omission, which is why I am grateful for the remarks made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and, in response, the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and others about loyalist paramilitaries. They are also active in our community; they are a destructive force, and the damage they can do should not be underestimated. Their activities are no longer monitored as publicly as they used to be when the Independent Monitoring Commission was involved. Often, these activities are dismissed, even when we raise them with the Northern Ireland Office, as merely criminality, but it is criminality with a political purpose, and we should never lose sight of that. We should be wary of not monitoring it as effectively and publicly as we have done in the past. Allegations of such groups recruiting young people are rife, and there is evidence of their being involved in civil unrest on the streets of our city and our towns over the last few months, as others have said.

[Stephen Lloyd]

Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the challenges in some parts of Northern Ireland is that some loyalist racketeers are blocking the good work that the devolved Government are trying to do to improve employment prospects?

[Naomi Long]

I concur entirely. In some areas where loyalism has a particular grip on the community, racketeering and profiteering from local businesses have often led to the destruction of small businesses and severely damaged economic opportunities for those living in the immediate area.

[Sammy Wilson]

indicated assent.

[Naomi Long]

I see the hon. Gentleman—who was previously a councillor in my constituency—concurring. We are talking about something recognisable in many of the communities that both of us have served. It is therefore hugely important that we take seriously the call by the Police Federation for Northern Ireland to consider re-specifying organisations such as the Ulster Volunteer Force and also proscribing some of the newer republican organisations, in order to aid the police and security services in making progress against such organisations.

I was born at the end of 1971; 1972 was the worst year of the troubles. I lived my whole life as a child against the backdrop of violence in the city I grew up in. I look at Belfast now and it is not the city that I grew up in. It is a better, more vibrant, more open and more welcoming place. I am hugely proud to have lived in that city; however, I would not wish my experiences of growing up there as a child to be visited on another generation. When the Good Friday agreement and the subsequent political agreements were made, I believed that we were moving towards the end of such experiences. I do not want young people in my community to have the same memories—of death and destruction, of fear and terror—as I and my contemporaries grew up experiencing. It is not a normal way to live, and it should not be visited on today’s young people. Therefore, as elected representatives, together with the security services and the community, we must present a united front so that those intent on continuing down this destructive path are prevented at every turn.

Security is part of the answer, but it is not the whole answer. Our security response in the current context needs to be effective, but also consistent with the kind of Northern Ireland we want for the future. We need politics to work. It needs to be a real alternative. It needs to be resilient in the face of attack and united in its condemnation of any breach of the rule of the law, and without equivocation. We need to redouble our efforts to build a shared society and tackle sectarianism, which remains a breeding ground for the kind of hatred that in turn breeds paramilitarism. We need maturity and generosity in dealing with the difficult issues that still face us as a community, as part of the legacy of the troubles. We need to find ways of doing that which do not bring people on to the streets, placing them in conflict with our security services and creating opportunities for those who wish to take the extra step from peaceful protest to violent conflict by providing them with a platform to do so.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that a fundamental part of preventing those issues from recurring is rebalancing the economy and creating a much more vibrant economy in Northern Ireland?

[Naomi Long]

I agree that the economy is part of the solution, but would not argue that it is the cause of the problem. Although we have to recognise that those from economically deprived and disadvantaged backgrounds may be more likely to fall prey to paramilitary organisations, it would be unjust to those of us who grew up in such communities, as I did, to suggest that that is a natural choice that people make. People still have responsibility for their actions and for abiding by the rule of law, so the economy cannot excuse, although it might inform, our response. We need to be conscious of that.

The peace that we have in Northern Ireland is exceptionally precious, and none of us should ever treat it lightly. It remains fragile, so I support the motion and the Government’s efforts with the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that Northern Ireland continues to prosper, as it has over recent years, and that those who are hellbent on its destruction are frustrated at every turn.

15:20

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Throughout this debate we have heard perspectives—perspectives of the troubles and an attempt to put the current situation in Northern Ireland into a new perspective—and it has been very valuable. We heard a thoughtful contribution from the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), whose constituency bears the scar of Irish terror. As each Member walks into this Chamber, under the scarred and broken ramparts of the Churchill arch, and as we see above us the memorials to Robert Bradford, Airey Neave and Ian Gow, we are all reminded of just how far we have come. It is a miracle; there is absolutely no doubt about it.

The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) mentioned her pride at having grown up as a Belfast woman and a citizen of Northern Ireland, understanding where she has come from and where her city has come from. All of us on these Benches whose formative years were spent in those times remember an average body bag count of 80 or 90 souls sent into eternity by the assassin’s bullet. That was our daily news intake as we grew up. Only now, in normal times—and thank God they are normal times—do we realise how perverse and awful it was and what a harrowing vista it is to look back on. As a father, probably the happiest occasion for me was when my daughter was 14 or 15 and said to me one day, when she had started her GCSE course, “Daddy, what are the troubles?” As a person who grew up in Northern Ireland and knew when I was 14 or 15 how bloody the troubles were, that was a great question to be asked as a parent—a powerful question, and something that should spur us on, as fathers and grandfathers in this House, to hope that our children and our children’s children never go through or witness that awfulness again, as the hon. Lady said. It is important that we have that perspective, because the security needs of the country we live in are now very different, but they are still incredibly real. We should face these things head-on.

In the current spending round the police have been given sufficient resources. We campaigned for that before the devolution of policing and justice powers—we made it a red line and we achieved that. That was job done, because it was essential to put our security services on a fair and good footing, so they could take us forward, hand in hand with economic progress, political stability and, of course, security gold-plating. We needed all that, but the current Chief Constable and his senior team now have to put forward their bid for the new spending round, and that involves a leap of faith. Their calculations are not being made using clear, understood figures from the Secretary of State, the Northern Ireland Office and the Government of Northern Ireland. They are being made with a leap of faith. The police need to retain the same level of spending that they got in the last spending round; otherwise, they will be under severe pressure.

The Police Federation for Northern Ireland has called for an increase in police numbers. My hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and I served on the Policing Board for about seven years—I think that we were among the longest-serving members—and we constantly heard that call. We saw the numbers in the police service drop from 12,000 to 7,000. It now has about 6,800 members. The fact is that, this week, the police are going to have to start recruiting about 300 more police officers. They have not asked permission to do so yet; they are taking a leap of faith. Because of the new training mechanisms and the long gestation period between starting as a probationer and becoming an active, serving officer on the street, they need to push that button now, but they are taking a leap of faith because the money to recruit an additional 300 officers simply is not there.

The Chief Constable and his team are going to go to the Policing Board and ask for that money, and I believe that we in this House, across the parties, and the Secretary of State should encourage them. We should tell them not only that they can ask for it but that they will have the resource to get the number of full-time police officers back up to 7,150. Why do we need those extra officers? Why do we need that money? We need them in order to sustain our security capability in a practical way. An example is the air support unit that the police service runs. It requires a huge amount of resource to keep it going. The air patrols allow the police to watch people as they travel along certain roads. The main road from Dublin, from the border at Newry through to Belfast, is a smugglers paradise. Many millions of pounds-worth of contraband cigarettes and smuggled fuel go up and down that road every day. There is a multi-million pound enterprise run by gangsters and criminals, and the police need air support as well as ground support if they are to stop it. There are other measures that can be taken, and I shall come to those later.

The police also need money for close protection work. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) said, they need money for surveillance operations. One of the things that galls many Members is that, although we know that certain individuals in Northern Ireland are responsible for particular crimes, the police have been unable to get sufficient evidence to secure successful prosecutions. Those people are loose on our streets. A great deal of effort is going into providing proper surveillance of a certain person on the streets of the mainland at the moment. Every effort is being made to ensure that he is being properly tagged and that, at the first opportunity, he will be kicked out of this nation.

We need the same surveillance equipment to be made available for certain people operating in Northern Ireland. One particular individual there is responsible for five murders. He was brought to trial for three of them, but got off on a technicality. That is the way the law works, and we all accept the rule of law, but it galls us that the police in Northern Ireland do not appear to have sufficient resources to watch that man day and night, so that the next time he tries to plan what was planned on the Lurgan bypass, he can be prevented from doing it. I hope that the police get the money and the surveillance equipment they need to undermine individuals such as those.

Any diminution of the police’s ability to do their work has a morale-eating impact not only on police officers but on the entire civilian population of Northern Ireland. The police have to balance their books this year, but they can do that only if they know that they are not taking a leap of faith and hoping to get resources next year and in the next Government spending round. They need adequate resources to do their job.

I mentioned in an earlier intervention that the level of churn in the police force had increased. More police officers than ever before are now resigning after only a short policing career. The level does not yet represent a spike on the charts, but it is starting to illustrate the existence of a problem. Police officers used to identify their work as a calling, and they would spend 30 years or more serving their community in that way. The new regime encourages police officers to see it as a short career, and many now go on to work in business or management or some other profession. That has an impact on the police force’s ability to hold on to recruits and to do the job. If that becomes a problem in the future, we will need the resource to address it.

The police certainly will need resources to police the G8 summit; they will need them to police the world police and fire games; and, as we approach 2016, they will certainly need them to police any public disturbance or anything that arises as a result of those who will try to turn their memories into the commemoration of the Somme or, in the south of Ireland, those who will try to turn their memories into the commemoration of the Easter rising. Those things will present policing challenges, so we must ensure that the police have adequate resources to address them.

Each year, we spend £37 million of policing money on policing the past. We have to do that because in order to get justice for what happened in the past, we have to gather evidence, pursue those cases and hopefully bring people to trial—but that is a huge draining resource that does not affect policing in any other part of the United Kingdom. Next year, we will spend £6 million on the Historical Enquiries Team; we will spend £6 million this year on inquests; and we will spend £25 million on legacy investigations—current detectives involved in policing the past. That has to be done, as I say, but it is at a cost. I want policing for the present and the future, but I know we have to continue with the project of getting through these cases and ensuring that we bring justice to people who rightly have questions that need to be answered.

We have to recognise, however, that if that huge demand is there, the police cannot step forward on a leap of faith when it comes to their budgets for next year and the next Government spending round. They have to know now that they will be adequately resourced to police the issues I mentioned, to furnish the HET, inquests and legacy investigations and to get on with tackling sex trafficking and other serious and organised crime in Northern Ireland.

One of the biggest crimes that goes on in Northern Ireland is fuel laundering. I am glad that our Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee is studying the problem. This is a multi-million pound crime. As I said, there is a highway—the A1 between Newry and Belfast—that is a smugglers paradise, and fuel is smuggled there every day. We need more resource put in to prevent that from taking place. We need resource put in to find a proper fuel marker to diminish the current nonsense of officers from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs pouring orange dye into fuel and then saying, “There—the problem’s solved”. It is not solved. I do not care about the colour poured in; whether orange or green dye is used, it does not solve the problem because all that happens is that it is laundered out of the fuel. The more dye poured in, the more kitty litter needs to be stolen to launder it through the process. That just perpetuates this cycle of crime. We need a new fuel marker in our fuel as soon as possible to stop the crime and put those gangsters out of business.

Just this week, gangsters in Belfast had a huge petrol station dug up. It was owned by a man in South Armagh, but it was dug up and the tanks were removed. Will the gangster be charged? No. Will he go to jail? No. How much has he stolen from the Secretary of State’s Government? Tens and tens of millions of pounds in this year alone—and he is getting away with it. We need that matter to be addressed—urgently.

[Oliver Colvile]

Does the hon. Gentleman and fellow member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee agree that we also need some more convictions? People who behave this way are stealing money out of the Treasury’s pockets; we need to make sure that they get sent to prison for it.

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the figures are startling. This year, because of smugglers, the Treasury will lose £3 billion in unpaid revenue on cigarettes—about a third of the entire Northern Ireland budget. That is an incredible loss to the Exchequer. How many people will go to jail for that? Zero—a big fat zero. Why? Because these people are not prosecuted. The latest thing we hear is “Well, we will do our best to get more of these people behind bars.” If surveillance cannot be done, if these people cannot be trapped and if proper markers cannot be put in the fuel, we will never have sufficient evidence to convict them. I believe that in the past 11 years, during which the Government have lost billions of pounds in unpaid revenue because of fuel and cigarette smuggling, the authorities have prosecuted fewer than seven people and none has gone to jail. That is in an indictment of those at the top in the HMRC: they should be taking this on, and taking it on with a vengeance.

[Jim Shannon]

Does my hon. Friend agree that more HMRC personnel should be available at airports such as Belfast City and Aldergrove? Staff tell elected Members that there are not enough of them to catch offenders. Would not providing extra staff be a start?

[Ian Paisley]

That is an interesting point. I understand that the current customs special investigation team consists of five people—five people dealing with the multi-billion- pound crime that is taking place in Northern Ireland. Those five people are brilliant, and they experience threats to their lives because of the work that they do and the people whom they approach; but their work is being hampered because the Government have decided that it is important to focus on VAT fraud—on an office desk job that involves going through VAT forms and deciding whether there has been any fraud. That is a disgrace, and we need to get on with ensuring that those staff are properly resourced.

We study history to learn the lessons, not to repeat the mistakes. It is clear that many mistakes have been made down the years, but Northern Ireland has turned a page, and there is a new chapter that Members of Parliament are helping to write. We are seeing a new beginning, a bright dawn, and it is a much better, brighter society in which we are living. However, there are still hurdles for us to jump, and we can jump them only if our security services are properly resourced and we set out in a spirit of real togetherness to make the changes that are necessary.

15:41

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I support the motion. Let me begin by discussing its opening sentiments, which concern the murder of David Black.

David Black’s murder was rightly, strongly, thoroughly and comprehensively condemned across the democratic political spectrum, which counts for an awful lot and, I hope, means something to his family and colleagues. That may distinguish it from some of the previous murders of prison officers and others. However, I want to make it clear that while we welcome that united, strong condemnation, we believe that every other murder committed by every other paramilitary group was equally deserving of that thorough, comprehensive condemnation. David Black was entitled to his life and his living; so were all the other prison officers who were murdered by various paramilitaries. His family were entitled to his living love; so was every other victim in Northern Ireland.

It is not the case that there was a phase during which there were legitimate targets and we are now experiencing a phase during which there are no legitimate targets. We all need to be clear about that, because there is a danger that gross revisionism, on all sides and in all directions, will eventually plant in the heads of a new generation the false notion that the troubles were merely a necessary and unavoidable prelude to the peace process that we now have. They were not. We must bear in mind the violent campaign of the IRA and the violence of loyalist paramilitaries, and the fact that loyalist paramilitaries were indulged for years without even being proscribed. Unionist politicians justified the existence of the Ulster Defence Association by saying that it was a legal organisation, and Ministers in this House—in both parties—justified not proscribing it as though there were some acceptable level or form of terrorism or paramilitarism, which there never has been. I reject any suggestion, whether it comes from Martin McGuinness or any other member of Sinn Fein or from anyone else, that there was ever any way of treating paramilitarism in any of its forms.

Of course David Black’s family have been promised what the families of many other victims have been promised in the past: that no stone will be left unturned to bring the killers to justice. I join other Members in stating that I hope that is true, but the work of the Historical Enquiries Team and other organisations has revealed that it was often in the past not true when victims were told no stone would be left unturned, because it has been found that information held by the intelligence services was not passed on to the police, or that when information was passed on, the use to which it could be put was heavily circumscribed.

There were victims whose murders could have been prevented. There could have been intervention, apprehension and prosecution, but that did not happen because an intelligence long-game was being played, which allowed violence to happen. There was collusion and complicity, and that was not confined to the indulging of loyalist paramilitaries in attacks on Catholics; it extended to republican attacks on police or prison officers and on civilian targets. Such attacks were allowed because it was believed that an intelligence asset was being protected and must not be compromised. That should not happen.

People need to know that if anything has changed as a result of the peace process it is that there will be no interference or inhibition in the full and proper conduct of police inquiries and of prosecutions of anybody against whom there is relevant evidence. No consideration of protection of intelligence assets must be allowed to interfere in that. All victims need to have that assurance nowadays, and they need it all the more because there is evidence that in the past victims were sold short.

Even the victims of the Omagh bombing feel that way. I know how sick they feel when they hear it being said that no stone will be left unturned, because they were assured of that as well. They believe calculations were made and mistakes were allowed to happen in the Omagh investigation. As we completely reject the murder of David Black and the agenda of those behind it, we must also be clear that we are in no way trying to sanitise any of the past violence and excesses of any group.

As has been said, the murder of David Black comes at a time when there are many things we should be positive about and be trying to build on. We are now learning to move beyond lobbying our special case—which we are very good at, and have had to be very good at—and are getting much better at selling our special place. We will be able to do that through the opportunities we will have at the G8 summit next year, and we saw it with the MTV awards and the Titanic festival in Belfast. We will see it again at the world police and fire games, and when Derry becomes the UK’s city of culture next year. That will be a fantastic year-long celebration which will offer great opportunities for the city, particularly as it will be happening in the same year that the island of Ireland will have “The Gathering” as a way of bringing back the diaspora to the island of Ireland. That will enable us to sell in a new way, and it will be hugely important and positive. We want to build on all those positive sells.

Of course, there are dissident groups and tendencies who know that all such events and sells present an easy target for them. They could get very easy coverage from leaving a bomb outside the city of culture offices in Derry, for instance, or from planting devices here and there. However, we should not be thwarted, intimidated, deflated or deflected in any way by the fact of knowing that they are going to try to do that. They might be able to come up with viable devices that they can plant, but they have not been able to come up with any viable rationale for what they are doing, because they are just stuck in a groove, carrying out the old provo tactics through the old provo methods. That is the only agenda they have.

As far as I am concerned, if these dissidents have any rationale, let them bring it forward—let them take it to us. I will meet them; I have met them before, and I will meet them again, in my constituency or elsewhere. Any argument or case they want to put can be met by democrats, and it needs to be met by democratic nationalism and republicanism. There is an agenda for democratic nationalism and republicanism in the coming years: to disarm any pretence these dissidents have, not least in the build-up to 2016 and the centenary of the 1916 rising, that they are the sole keepers of the republican flame and that because they are the remnants of physical-force republicanism, they are the only people who stand in the 21st century for the ideals of Irish republicanism and for the principles in the 1916 proclamation. Democratic nationalism, in all its forms and parties—now joined, thankfully at last, by Sinn Fein—has a duty to get its act together to make sure that nobody is able to say that constitutional democratic nationalism, north and south, has been derelict on the basic nationalist cause or nationalist principle.

The dissidents try to say that those of us who subscribe to the Good Friday agreement have abandoned any belief in nationalism or the republican ideal. I am 100% committed to the Good Friday agreement but I am still 100% a nationalist and committed to a united Ireland. I also know that many Unionists are 100% committed to the shared institutions we now have in a settled process but that they are 100% committed to the Union. That is the strength and beauty of the agreement and these shared institutions: we can have our own different senses of legitimacy. The sense and source of legitimacy for me, as an Irish nationalist, comes from the wishes of the people of Ireland. The sense and source of legitimacy for Unionists is bound up in the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland.

With the Good Friday agreement, we recruited both those senses and sources of legitimacy, so that we could give allegiance to institutions, because Unionists cannot give allegiance to institutions that are not legitimate according to their political ethic, and nationalists and republicans cannot give allegiance to institutions that are not legitimate according to theirs. That is why in negotiating the agreement and in ratifying it by the joint referendum—articulated self-determination for this generation of the Irish people—we significantly moved politics forward. We created a new beginning for politics and for policing.

There was massive resistance to that, as we knew then. At the time of the referendum on that agreement, I made pledges to people about those institutions. Many people found the institutions controversial; people found the idea of inclusion by mandate—just this elective inclusion—hard to grasp. I started off as its sole proponent in the Social Democratic and Labour party, and the SDLP started off in the talks as the sole party proposing it, but it became part of the outcome. Similarly, the idea of a joint office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister was ridiculed by many, not least because we came up with it only in the last month of the negotiations, but it was inspired by the sight of Seamus Mallon and David Trimble going to Poyntzpass following the murder of Damien Trainor and Philip Allen by the Loyalist Volunteer Force. That was a symbol: here were two leaders—unionism and nationalism—almost literally helping to bind the wounds of the community and defy a violent threat aimed at undermining political prospects at the time.

At the time of that referendum, I predicted that the Good Friday agreement institutions would have working in partnership not just unionists and nationalists, loyalists and republicans, but those who vote yes and those who vote no, because we did not want the agreement—those pro-agreement and anti-agreement—to end up being the new running cleavage in Northern Ireland politics or in Irish politics. Thankfully, that prediction has proved to be so.

Sinn Fein had to play catch-up in accepting and getting its head around the political institutions in the new arrangements and the new beginning for policing, which it rejected and attacked us for. All sorts of intimidatory gestures were used in the council chambers when we were nominating people to the district policing partnerships; gun-shaped hands were being pointed at people and all the rest of it. We faced that down and we saw this through because it needed to happen. Those people of course were saying that change would not happen. The unionists, in the form of the Democratic Unionist party and others, were saying that change should not happen, but it needed to happen. In the end, when those in Sinn Fein conformed on policing all they brought to the policing agenda was themselves. Nevertheless, that was important and welcome, and we see its importance and worth when we see the First Minister and Deputy First Minister able to stand with the Chief Constable and others in the aftermath of murders in recent years. That was hugely important and it had to happen, but some of us had to see it through and take that stand, and some of the “veto-holic” tendencies of other parties had to be faced down—that is what has to be remembered.

In today’s debate, I have listened to nostalgia bumping into amnesia on the way back from revisionism on the question of how we are where we are now. We have had more people on more roads to Damascus in Northern Ireland in the past 10 years than the Syrian bus fleet would have on a peaceful day. That has been good, because people have moved from justifying and supporting violence to being able to condemn it. They used to condemn us for the politics of condemnation; now they are thoroughly involved in condemning what should be and needs to be condemned and confronted.

There is also an issue about dissidents. Not only will they try to exploit the fact that the rest of us all support the agreement and are now branded as the establishment, particularly at a time when there is a lot of economic disaffection and difficulty—it is very easy for them to try to seize on that sense of alienation, which has been faced by some other hon. Members—but they are trying to exploit impressions about the situation in the prisons. Historically, the provisionals movement exploited impressions and issues in prisons in a way that helped to fuel them and their campaign and to feed a sense of alienation and disaffection, helping them to recruit other people. It is quite clear that the dissidents are trying to do the same.

I believe we need to disarm the dissidents of that ability, and we can do so. Nobody is more cynical about the cynicism of Sinn Fein than me, but when I meet republican dissident prisoners and their families and they tell me, “We think Sinn Fein is using the situation because they want to break us in the jails,” I tell them that although no one would be more on Sinn Fein’s case than me, I do not believe that that is true. The idea that Sinn Fein is using David Ford, the Minister of Justice, to help break their rivals in the prisons is simply not true. It is nonsense, but it is feeding the mindset of those people and we need to confront it.

We need to ensure that we deal with people’s legitimate questions and concerns in prisons, for example about why strip searches should be carried out at the rate and in the form in which they are carried out. Whenever there is a clear modern technological alternative, that should be used. Rather than wasting time experimenting with the technology in other locations, it should be brought in where it is most needed and that is Maghaberry.

[Ian Paisley]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that today the new BOSS— or body orifice security scanner—chair has been introduced into Northern Ireland, meaning that the number of full strip searches will be reduced? As a result, I understand, 20 dirty protestors have come off their dirty protests.

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman is reinforcing my point, which I have made to people in the Northern Ireland Prison Service and to others, about my interventions and involvement and many other people’s, too. That is the point that we have been making; we want to see that argument disarmed.

Similarly, when people raised serious health questions about the circumstances of prisoners such as Marian Price and latterly Gerry McGeough, we were trying to ensure that those issues were properly addressed. Any sentences duly imposed must be served, but, as with any prisoner, if any issue gives rise to thoughts about their release, it should at least be considered.

[Naomi Long]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the points he is making and realise that he does so with great passion, but if we are going to disarm those who try to use the prison situation as a recruiting ground for dissident republicans, would it not be helpful if the SDLP, rather than making the case that such an approach is almost valid, stood with the Justice Minister and others to say that the processes are in place, that health assessments for those prisoners are received and that the proper actions are being taken, disabusing them of the notion in that way?

[Mark Durkan]

I can assure the hon. Lady that in any of the conversations I have, I disarm people of any prejudice they might have. Any assurance I can give them about the attitude of the Prison Service, the Minister, the overall regime or anything else, I give them. It is equally important that representatives reflect the issues and concerns they hear from families, however.

There is also a point to make about where the dissidents are and where they hope to be. In my constituency, I see a number of different brands of dissident, but the one thing they have all been able to do in recent years is to get more young people to pick up their leaflets at events and to leave with some of their literature. We have had different brands of dissident. Some, such as those in RAAD—Republican Action Against Drugs—were seen for a number of years as policing dissidents, rather than political dissidents, as they did not disagree with the overall political project. Now they are disagreeing with the overall political project. They are finding each other and getting together, so there is some drift or mission creep among dissidents and we should not underestimate that.

Just as the dissidents are getting together, we as democrats should show that we stand together in our political institutions. Whatever political differences we might air in the Assembly, in the Chamber today or anywhere else, they must see us standing shoulder to shoulder behind the democratic opportunities mandated by the Irish people north and south, unionist and nationalist. We do not pretend that our problems are all behind us; the opportunities are all ahead of us and we can seize them by working and standing together.

16:00

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

This has been a very helpful debate. We have been outlining the positives that we all recognise in Northern Ireland, yet we have also highlighted the dangers that still face many of the law-abiding citizens in our constituencies. We are thankful that things are not as they used to be; nevertheless, we must not let our guard down, and we must not be complacent. Although many, including those within Government, call these terrorists dissidents, let us not forget that many of these same terrorists were players trained in the knowledge and practice of terrorism by the Provisional IRA leadership.

Before dealing specifically with the motion, I acknowledge the valuable contributions by many across the House, raising their voices in condemnation of the brutal murder of Mr David Black, a gentle man whom I had the privilege of knowing personally, being from the town in which I was educated; it formed part of my former constituency of Mid Ulster, which I represented in the House for 14 and a half years. Sadly, since 1997 that constituency has never had a voice in the House. The only beneficiaries are the coffers of Sinn Fein, without the obligation to give representation here.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) for his opening speech, in which he skilfully and professionally set out the backcloth for our motion. I also thank the other Members who participated. I thank the Secretary of State for her thoughtful speech, rightly identifying the remarkable progress, which few could ever have imagined, in Northern Ireland. I also noted that she acknowledged the arrest of two persons from Coalisland in relation to the murder of Mr David Black. I would remind her, however, that recently, buildings were found in which weapons of war were being hoarded, nearby in the same Coalisland area. It would be interesting to know how much public money was received to erect or to rent those properties. I think that deeper investigations should be considered. I think of the Secretary of State’s remarks as regards a number of terrorists that have been arrested; the prosecutions identify that that is not an insignificant terrorist group, but does indeed pose a terrorist threat.

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for acknowledging that things have changed significantly, and that we have a confident Northern Ireland, which is confident on the world stage. The excellent announcement that the Prime Minister was able to make yesterday concerning the G8 proves that confidence, not only within Northern Ireland but within the United Kingdom, as the Prime Minister projects Northern Ireland across the world in bringing world leaders to our Province. I also thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) for his participation, and the personal knowledge that he has expressed in this matter.

The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) made a valuable intervention on the inventory of terrorist weaponry—because we do need the greatest possible transparency—and on a garden of remembrance for prison officers. Those are salient matters that needed to be brought up in the debate, and I thank her for doing so. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) pointed to the remarkable achievements. However, we should not underestimate the capacity of republicans to create serious problems to life and property, while bearing in mind the significant events of the past year. Thankfully, those events put us on the world stage for the right reason. We look forward to more remarkable events that are planned for the future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) pointed out that most Members of the House know nothing of what it is to have to look under their cars and to exercise personal security because one happens to be deemed to be an opponent of the republican terrorists. I think that is a fact that many in the House have never grasped, even in the darkest days of our Province.

I thank the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long). We certainly do not want to point Northern Ireland back into the dark ages we came through, but I can assure her that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Executive will work with her party’s Minister and leader, Mr Ford, and Security Minister, Mr Porter, in the efforts to give political leadership to the PSNI and the Prison Service at this challenging time.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) spoke about the harrowing times past and the miracle of the present situation. We grandparents never want to see our grandchildren—I am proud to say that I have nine—go through the dark days that my children had to go through in our home, under constant threat from the terrorists in Northern Ireland.

To the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) I say that I accept that there is no acceptable level of violence—there never was; there never will be. Terrorism was an evil in our midst and terrorism is an evil in our midst. All must equally condemn it and none must be allowed to sanitise the evil of the past.

Although I disagreed with some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), I suggest to her that when one has the opportunity, and uses it quite often, to give insults, it is always best to be able to take criticism when criticism is due. That is a good lesson, I think. There is a lesson in her evidence on why her colleagues in certain places supported McGeough, who tried to murder my colleague on Dungannon and South Tyrone council. The lesson of the past is this: you cannot go soft on terrorists; you cannot go soft on those who have actually gone through the courts, and when they have done so, they certainly have to spend the time in prison—

[Ms Ritchie]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr McCrea]

Yes, as I did mention the hon. Lady.

[Ms Ritchie]

I remind the hon. Gentleman of one person who died, obviously in tragic circumstances, with whom certain people had associations: Mr Billy Wright.

[Dr McCrea]

I would say that that is a very serious charge, which proves it is an appalling charge, a lying charge—and a charge that should not have been made in this House. I say to the hon. Lady that I was a member—

[Ms Ritchie]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr McCrea]

No, I will not. I was a member of Magherafelt district council. When young soldiers were murdered at Warrenpoint, it was an SDLP member—it is recorded in the minutes of the council—who said, “I will not shed a tear over the murder of those soldiers at Warrenpoint.”

[Ms Ritchie]

Who said that?

[Dr McCrea]

He did, an SDLP member. It is recorded in the minutes. When challenged about why he would say such a thing, he replied, “Because they weren’t Irish.” That was despicable. I am happy for the hon. Lady to look at the minutes of the council, way back in Magherafelt. I was there; she was not.

The DUP motion rightly commences with our expression of deepest sympathy to the family of Prison Officer David Black. His murder represents an attack on society as a whole. I was stunned on hearing the tragic news of the despicable murder of another innocent victim of IRA terrorism. David was a public servant who gave honourable and unstinting service to the Prison Service. Unlike the cowards who murdered him, David exemplified all that is good in Ulster people, doing his duty with integrity, decency and bravery. We all know that a car with Dublin registration plates pulled up alongside David as he travelled between Portadown and Lurgan on the M1 motorway, and David was shot dead—in other words, he was brutally murdered.

Unlike most, if not all, Members of this House, I had the personal privilege of knowing David. I counted him and his wife’s family circle as personal friends. He was a loving husband to Yvonne, a devoted father to Kyle and Kara, and a caring son and brother. The murderers did not care about those excellent characteristics and credentials of David Black. All they had was a lust for blood; vile murder was in their hearts. To Yvonne, Kyle, Kara, his elderly parents and his sister, I offer my heartfelt sympathy, having walked the lonely pathway to the graveside of my own loved ones.

This was a cold-blooded and callous murder, but it must be remembered that the murders of the other 29 prison officers who were butchered by terrorists, mainly the Provisional IRA, were, too. Those who murdered all the prison officers, police officers, Ulster Defence Regiment members and innocent civilians are equally repugnant and evil. No elevation to high office or elected office can remove the stain from their conscience or erase the record from the eternal book, which will be opened on the day of judgment before the Almighty Judge and justice will finally be handed out.

I congratulate the Black family on the dignity that they have displayed before, during and after David’s funeral. I pray that God will give them strength day by day to face the future, but I can assure them that that is not easy. They have made it clear to all that they do not desire revenge, but they do want justice to be done and those responsible to be found guilty.

Republican terrorists will not be satisfied with the murders of Constable Stephen Carroll and Ronan Kerr or those of Patrick Azimkar and Mark Quinsey at the Massereene barracks in my constituency, or with the attempted murder of my constituent, Constable Peadar Heffron, or the numerous failed attempts on the lives of several members of the security forces. No, they are a part of the death squads of hate, and therefore the law-abiding community has a right to look to the Government for security and protection.

I appreciate that policing was devolved to Stormont, but national security, including for the people of Northern Ireland, is still the responsibility of this House. Therefore, it is important that a united voice goes out from this House in condemnation of the violence that is daily being planned by various republican terrorist groups against the vast majority of people, who simply desire to build a peaceful future. Indeed, many are finding it hard to cope with the economic downturn across Europe and face challenges with regard to daily living, including the possibility of some having to join the unemployment queues for the first time ever in their lives. When I look across the Province, I see enough suffering, sickness and hurt among families, and I cannot comprehend why some simply spend their energies scheming evil, desiring only to add grief, harassment, intimidation, terror and murder to our community.

We in Northern Ireland are resilient people. Indeed, we have proved this. We withstood more than 30 years of Provisional IRA bombs and bullets and resolutely faced them to achieve our right to remain part of this United Kingdom. Our legitimacy as Unionists, unlike what the hon. Member for Foyle has said, is not that the Unionist people of Northern Ireland desire to be part of the United Kingdom, but that Northern Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales desire to be part of that United Kingdom. That is our legitimacy and it will be proven shortly, when the referendum comes to pass and the people of Scotland realise that we are stronger together than we would be apart. However, we need help. We urgently need the Government here to work closely with the Northern Ireland Executive to provide the fullest possible protection to members of the Prison Service and police officers in general, both serving and ex-members.

About two years ago, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed additional access to Treasury reserves—£200 million—over a four-year period to assist in the fight against republican terrorist groups. I appreciate that two years’ worth of money has been drawn down and that another two years’ worth is to follow, but the threat has not diminished in our Province to the point that we may not need extra money from the Treasury reserve fund. I therefore ask the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to give a commitment that as long as the security situation demands, additional funds from the Treasury reserve will be available to allow the police service to plan for the necessary equipment and personnel.

We also need to be assured that all necessary measures will be taken to combat and defeat the threat posed by terrorist organisations. We must not let our Province slip back into the cycle of murder and mayhem. We must therefore be determined to protect our community.

In conclusion, perhaps a few practical suggestions would be helpful. Many former prison and police officers live in vulnerable areas of the Province, and yet they have had their personal protection weapons removed. That is disgraceful. Many people, at the end of their sterling service through years of terrorism and intimidation, have been told to hand over their PPWs and have had the security measures removed from their homes. In their place, they have been handed a leaflet on personal protection. Will the Minister tell the House how many PPWs have been removed from former police officers, prison officers and personnel of the Ulster Defence Regiment or Royal Irish Regiment?

A few weeks ago, the Home Office stated that the threat from dissident IRA groups had reduced on the mainland. I welcome that, but we need to be careful in how we communicate such news. These sick, murdering maniacs can consider such language as putting it up to them and it can therefore be counter-productive. Indeed, it was after that announcement that my friend, David Black, was brutally murdered.

Although we must highlight the security threat, we must also put on the record how pleased we are to have the opportunity to welcome the world leaders of the G8 to our beautiful Province. I assure them and this House that our Province has much to offer. We will do all within our power to ensure that the world knows that Northern Ireland is and will continue to be, irrespective of any terrorist threat, open for business.

16:17

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mike Penning)]

It is an honour and a privilege to stand here as the Minister of State for Northern Ireland. I have taken questions in this capacity, but this is my first debate.

May I say at the outset that even though there may be disagreements across the House—and we have seen a tiny bit of that today—we all want peace in Northern Ireland? The peace process has given us the ability to sit in this Chamber and discuss, fairly rationally, a difficult situation. In the past, that would have been more difficult or would not have happened at all. It certainly would not have taken place in the tone that we have heard today.

May I also, at the outset, place on the record my thoughts and prayers for the family of David Black? I was at his funeral with the Secretary of State, the shadow Secretary of State and other Members. It was one of the most moving funerals that I have ever attended. The way in which his children—they probably will not like my calling them children at their age, and I will probably get into trouble with my own daughter for calling them children—held themselves together to pay tribute to their father was enormously moving, as I said a few moments ago.

Although I was not at Enniskillen, I was at Corporal Day’s funeral. If had known that the First Minister was flying down, I would have flown down with him so that I could have been at both. However, it might have been a tight squeeze. In the next debate, I will perhaps make some further comments on Corporal Day and her loved ones.

The debate was rightly opened by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). In his wide-ranging speech, which has been reiterated by many other Members, the main thing that he called on Her Majesty’s Government to do was to be steadfast and give a long-term commitment to stamping out terrorism in Northern Ireland, no matter which side it comes from. We give that commitment today, as have the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State on previous occasions.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister reiterated the point at meetings with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and told them, “As your Chief Constable said, you need more.” I said exactly the same to the Chief Constable and the Justice Minister, David Ford, and the Secretary of State has also said that. We meet regularly; my door is permanently open, my phone is on, and we can talk about many of the issues that we need to discuss. If there is a need, however, we will address it.

There has been much discussion of the £200 million from the contingency fund. That money has been on a two-year draw-down. A lot of it was drawn down early as it had to be for capital projects—what I call capital projects are slightly different from what others call them and include vehicles as well as buildings. We also needed money for people and ongoing revenue costs. The Government are working with David Ford and the Chief Constable to look at exactly how that money was spent, so that we can go back to the Treasury and say, “See, we need this funding again—or we will do in three years’ time.” We do not need a brand—new vehicle straight away, but that time will come. There is CCTV—technology moves on very fast, and we must ensure there is something in the pot for that. If we go back to the Treasury, it will probably not be for contingency funding. We would not do that in a normal spending round and would keep spending within the allocation.

We are, however, conscious that there are exceptional circumstances, particularly at the moment. The group likes to be called the “new IRA”, but that is the last time I will stand at the Dispatch Box and say that because there is nothing new about thuggery, murderers and people of that description. We give them oxygen by giving them that badge—they may think it is a badge of honour but it is exactly the opposite. Those people are thugs and murderers who are living in the past. They are trying to drag people—a lot of them young people—into what went on in the past, and we must do everything possible to address that.

There have been 16 contributions, 11 of which were not interventions but proper speeches. I will not be able to answer every question raised, but my officials have diligently taken notes and I will write to right hon. and hon. Members if I do not address their particular points now. One of the final points raised concerned how many personal protection weapons have been removed. I have been in this job for three and a half months but I do not know that figure off the top of my head. It was probably an obvious question and I should have had a response ready, but I will write to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and let him know.

The process is quite simple. There is an appeals process and a decision is made by the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland either for a new weapon or for a weapons licence to be renewed. If that is declined, the case is referred to me on appeal. I assure hon. Members that I look at every individual case—I have had quite a few in the first couple of weeks, and think I might see some more.

I raised personal protection weapons when I met the head of the Northern Ireland Prison Service, and I will soon meet a representative of the Prison Officers Association, which I phoned the following day. The head of the Northern Ireland Prison Service told me categorically that any prison officer who needs a weapon will get one or has got one.

A lot of prison officers were not taking their weapons home. The issue of complacency was touched on during the debate, and I will come on to people checking their vehicles and so on in a moment. A lot of weapons were being left in the armoury at work and not being taken home. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. We need to reiterate people’s personal responsibilities, as well as those of the state and employers. I concur with what was said about people having things taken away and being given a piece of paper, and more needs to be done on that. I know, for instance, that the PSNI has already visited and is giving seminars and doing work with prison officers to increase their awareness and ensure that measures are in place to help them.

In the last couple of months I have also looked carefully at home protection. I met Lord Carlile, the Chief Constable and David Ford to look at that issue, and we will look carefully at having a more level playing field. I do not care who someone is employed by; if they are doing a job, protecting people and are at risk, the situation should be the same for everyone. The system does not operate that way at the moment, and we will look carefully at the issue.

I could not go further without addressing the two points made in interventions by my friend the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)—[Interruption.] She is a friend to me. First, on a commemoration for the 30 prison officers, it would be right and proper for us to have a round-table discussion with all interested people. I recently opened a new memorial in my constituency to those who have fallen since the second world war. The memorial, which was unveiled the day before Remembrance day this year, was provided by public donation. We could certainly look at her suggestion and have that discussion.

Secondly, on how much weaponry was taken away, the Prime Minister has said in the House that we do not have the list—it is not within the Government’s archives. The Secretary of State has offered to meet the hon. Lady, and we can see how that goes, but we genuinely do not have the list to release. The Prime Minister has said that, and I have had it checked during the debate.

[Lady Hermon]

I thank the Minister very much indeed for agreeing to a round-table discussion on a memorial garden for those 30 prison officers, which is wholly appropriate. I would hope that Finlay Spratt and others will be there.

On the inventory of decommissioned weapons, I welcome the Minister’s explanation that the Government appear not to have the document, but will he kindly confirm what is believed, which is that the document, the inventories and the details are kept in the university of Boston in America? Will the Minister clarify that if I were an academic, I could go to Boston and have open access to the inventories, but the people of Northern Ireland, and the MPs representing Northern Ireland, cannot see them? That is ludicrous.

[Mike Penning]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and am pleased about the work we will look to do on the memorial.

On decommissioned weapons, the hon. Lady said earlier that we must not hide behind the independent body. Look at the size of me—I could not behind anybody! I am not hiding behind anything. I will discuss the matters the hon. Lady has mentioned with my officials, but I personally do not know where the hell those details are. She is much better informed than I, given the short time I have been in this job. The Secretary of State and officials will talk this through with the hon. Lady when they meet, but I have to go with the information I have been given.

Hon. Members have spoken of the terrible, appalling murder of David Black not only because it was a terrible murder, but because of how it was done. One thing that the police and forensics are looking at is exactly where that high-velocity weapon came from and where it has been stored. We know the weapon, but we do not know where it has been stored. Hon. Members have mentioned close protection weapons, but based on the evidence we have seen so far, David Black would not have been saved by one. Anyone willing to put so many people’s lives at risk by driving at speed on a motorway at 7.30 am while opening up with a high-velocity weapon shows a lack of care for other people that beggars belief.

Interestingly, those people are a bunch of cowards—they do not want to get hurt themselves but they put other people in the position of getting hurt—and they do not want to get caught, but their action was very risky. It is important that we try to understand where these dissident republicans are going rather than thinking back to the past and learning what they used to do. Some of their technology and methodology has not changed, but some things they are starting to do are different—probably out of desperation, but who knows?

I have promised to write to hon. Members if I do not deal with their points now, but in the one minute remaining I want to reiterate what the Prime Minister said yesterday when he was in Northern Ireland. It is significant that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom went to Northern Ireland to meet people in the very successful factory where they work. I got trapped with the owners on the plane coming back. They were so chuffed—it was absolutely brilliant for them to meet the Prime Minister and for their staff to have that personal contact. The Prime Minister reiterated—as did the Secretary of State—that we will work with the Opposition. We will work with anyone, and if some of these groups, on any side, want to meet me, I am more than happy to meet them anywhere. It is really important that we engage with them and try to dispel the concept that they could win anything by such actions. We need to work together, and we will give everything necessary, in security terms and in cost terms, to the PSNI and the other security services to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland go forward, not back into the terrible abyss of before.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House extends its deepest sympathy to the family of Prison Officer David Black, whose murder represented an attack upon society as a whole; condemns the violence of the various republican terrorist groups now active in Northern Ireland; and calls on the Government to work closely with the Northern Ireland Executive in providing the fullest possible protection to members of the prison service and the security forces generally, and to ensure that all necessary resources and measures are deployed to combat the threat from terrorists in Northern Ireland.

Military Covenant

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

16:30

[Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House acknowledges the service and sacrifice of the United Kingdom’s armed forces and veterans and supports the full implementation of the military covenant in each region of the United Kingdom.

It is an honour to lead off in this debate on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House. At the outset, I want to pay tribute to all our service personnel from across the United Kingdom, and indeed from other countries, who serve in our armed forces. I also pay tribute to the veterans who have served this country with great distinction. In Northern Ireland, we hold our armed forces in very high esteem, and we have seen in recent years—during the time of the troubles—how the armed forces were on the front line, standing in the gap between the general public and those whose objective was to create mayhem and undermine the democratic process.

We have also seen our armed forces in action in recent years in Iraq and Afghanistan. We understand the sacrifice that they make, and the sacrifices made by their families—by those left behind at home, the husbands, wives and children of members of our armed forces. That is important in the context of this debate, because the military covenant should not just be about the personnel who serve or have served: it includes their families.

Like all right hon. and hon. Members, I stood beside the war memorial in Lisburn in my constituency on 11 November as we honoured the dead of two world wars and of the conflicts that have occurred since the second world war. I watched as my constituent Ian Walker, his wife Rhoda and their sons, Kyle and Ross, laid a wreath in memory of Corporal Stephen Walker, who served with 40 Commando in Afghanistan and was killed in action in May 2010. Although Stephen had been living in Scotland with his family, he was from Lisburn and our community saluted his memory. We stood with Ian and his family as they remembered their dear loved one, and this was repeated in many places across the United Kingdom.

It was good to see that representatives of the Irish Government were present at some of the war memorials in Northern Ireland to mark the fact that many people from the Irish Republic served in the British Army during the great war in particular, which of course occurred before the Republic of Ireland left the United Kingdom. Indeed, some have served since then, and even today we have people from the Republic of Ireland in the modern British Army and the other services.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman share my hope that the leadership that has been shown by the Irish Government on remembrance may defuse some of the tensions in Northern Ireland around the implementation of the military covenant, which is still—sadly—a politicised issue?

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point and I will come on to that subject in the course of my remarks.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the significant and beneficial effects of recent days has been the issue he has just raised? Many people in the Irish Republic, who for several generations were afraid to recognise, or were unaware of, the contribution made by many people in the Irish Republic to the armed forces, both here in the United Kingdom and in the Republic, in the fight against fascist Germany, are now beginning to recognise, realise and appreciate that?

[Mr Donaldson]

I concur entirely with my hon. Friend. I recently had the great honour of being appointed to the advisory board that is preparing for 2014 to 2018 and the United Kingdom’s commemorations of the great war. I have been giving some thought to how we might commemorate that period in Northern Ireland. It is important that people in the Irish Republic, and the Government of the Irish Republic, recognise the massive contribution made by thousands of Irish men, from the counties that now form the Irish Republic, who served in the British Army. Many served with great distinction, winning Victoria Crosses and other meritorious awards for their courage and bravery. For example, one thinks of Captain Redmond—the brother of the then leader of the Irish Nationalist party in this House, John Redmond—who served with distinction and sadly lost his life in the service of the Crown. Today, there are others from the Republic of Ireland who step up to the mark and join the Royal Irish Regiment, the Irish Guards and other units in the Army, and the other elements of the armed forces. They make a contribution that we value. It is good to see attitudes changing in the Republic of Ireland towards those who have served and who continue to serve in our armed forces.

It would be remiss not to mention the name of Corporal Channing Day, to whom the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office referred in his closing remarks in the previous debate. She was a remarkable young woman, 25-years-old and serving with 3 Medical Regiment. The medics are often overlooked. Their courage and bravery in the face of extremely dangerous circumstances, seeking to save lives and rescue those who find themselves wounded as a result of combat, is often overlooked. I pay tribute to Corporal Day. I can do no better than repeat the comments of her sister Lauren at Channing’s funeral:

“Channing loved the Army. If there was one thing she knew growing up, it was that she wanted to be a soldier, proven by the way she would march around the living room and she never missed cadets. She loved what she did and we are so proud of her. Channing grew up into the bravest, beautiful, determined woman, she has done more in her 25 years than most women her age and we are so very proud of everything she has achieved.”

Today, we pay tribute to the men and women of our armed forces across the United Kingdom who daily place themselves in the line of fire not only for this nation, but for others across the world who need their protection.

I want to also pay tribute not just to our regular armed forces, but to the reserve forces. In Northern Ireland, we are proud of the contribution that our reserve forces make to all elements of the armed forces in the United Kingdom. We are proud that despite the fact that Northern Ireland makes up approximately 3% of the UK population, we regularly provide more than 20% of the reserve forces on operational deployment. That is wonderful testimony to the men and women who step out of their day-to-day work, leave their families behind and serve the country overseas, often in very dangerous circumstances. In paying tribute to the reserve forces in Northern Ireland, I want to make particular mention of the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association, which is especially active in Northern Ireland. Throughout the years of the troubles, it ensured that recruitment to the reserves continued even in some areas that might surprise hon. Members. That persists to this day. Most, if not all, of the reserve units in Northern Ireland are extremely well recruited. I hope that the Minister will have the opportunity—I know it is his intention—to visit some of those units in Northern Ireland. He will receive a very warm welcome.

What is the purpose of this debate? I want briefly to set out some context. A recent report published by the World Health Organisation on post-traumatic stress disorder found that Northern Ireland had a higher incidence of PTSD and trauma-related illnesses than any other conflict-related country in the world. That included places such as Lebanon and Israel. It was remarkable that the study found that nearly 40% of people in Northern Ireland had been involved in some kind of conflict-related traumatic incident. The survey estimated that violence had been a distinctive cause of mental health problems for about 18,000 people in Northern Ireland. Against that backdrop, the health and social care services in Northern Ireland seek to provide a service to members of our armed forces and veterans from Northern Ireland. There is already a huge demand on these services from across Northern Ireland as a result of trauma-related illnesses arising from the conflict.

Before I remark on the deficiencies in the service, I want to acknowledge that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, within the legislative constraints, has made efforts to ensure that a degree of priority is given to members of the armed forces and veterans in Northern Ireland when providing health and personal care. The Health Minister, Edwin Poots, is a constituency colleague and hails from Lagan Valley, and I do not wish to criticise him, because he is determined to ensure that our service personnel and veterans receive the level of support they require when they need it. His Department has established an armed forces liaison forum linked to the armed forces protocol, which has done valuable work in seeking to co-ordinate the health and social care response to the needs of service personnel and veterans living in Northern Ireland. In addition, the Department has worked with the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association and military charities to examine how services can be improved in line with the objectives of the military covenant.

I also want to mention the Department for Social Development, where another of my colleagues, Nelson McCausland, is Minister for Social Development. The housing needs of those leaving the armed forces are taken into account under the housing selection scheme in Northern Ireland. That is important.

I also want to praise the work of the aftercare service put in place specifically for those who served with the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment. Northern Irish Members fought hard to get that service in the period leading up to the disbandment of the home service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment. We worked with the previous Government towards the establishment of the service, because we recognised that one of the legacies of the troubles were the many people who had served in the armed forces in Northern Ireland over a prolonged period as part of Operation Banner, the longest-running military operation in the history of the British Army. These men and women had served constantly. It was not a matter of spending six months on operational deployment in Northern Ireland and then maybe not coming back for another two years. Rather, the Royal Irish Regiment, and the Ulster Defence Regiment before it, served continuously on military operations in Northern Ireland for a very long time—from the early 1970s through to the disbandment of the home service battalions—and was recognised for its service with the award of the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross by Her Majesty the Queen.

The aftercare service is important. We believe that, in time, it is a model that other parts of the United Kingdom might seek to implement. It takes a hands-on approach, not just responding to the needs of soldiers with medical issues or welfare problems, but proactively engaging with people to ensure that their needs are met.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

My right hon. Friend has extensively described much of the support that is available to soldiers who have left the Army, but does he agree that, in the light of the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and the Ministry of Defence yesterday turning their back on Danny Nightingale, the SAS soldier who has been imprisoned, many people will call into question just how much support soldiers get when they really are in trouble?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. That was a rather long intervention and we have to be careful not to stray into areas that we do not really want to be discussing.

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case. I was going to allude to it, but I will say simply that it is important that post-traumatic stress disorder and medical conditions arising from military service are given due weight and recognition when military courts consider allegations made against soldiers. I know that this case is the subject of an appeal, so I will not go into the detail, save to say that we on these Benches wish Sergeant Nightingale well in seeking to appeal against the decision made in his case.

The aftercare service provided to veterans of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment makes an important contribution towards ensuring that those who have served in Northern Ireland are provided with the care and support they need. I hope that the Government will continue to fund and resource the service properly, because it is important. Indeed, I hope that in time it can be expanded to include others.

All that said, we on these Benches have a concern about the implementation of the military covenant in Northern Ireland, and it is a concern expressed by others too. There are service personnel and veterans who are not getting the support they need in Northern Ireland. I speak of Northern Ireland because I am not mandated to speak of other areas of the UK, but I am sure that other right hon. and hon. Members might mention instances in their areas of where the military covenant might not quite be delivering yet for service personnel and veterans.

I want to give the House an example of an individual, who I have been trying to help, who has found himself in great difficulty. James Burns is a young man from Mallusk in County Antrim, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea). James was formerly a lance corporal with 40 Commando. He had been on operational service in Afghanistan, returned to his family in Northern Ireland and developed post-traumatic stress disorder. Sadly, as a result of his illness he turned to alcohol. As a result of the lethal mix of alcohol and his medical condition, he developed violent behaviour and got himself into trouble, harming himself and those around him. Only a few months after his military career ended, he is sadly now in prison serving a sentence.

I just feel that there is something wrong with a system in which a soldier comes home from operational deployment to his family and, within months, finds himself serving a prison sentence for behaviour that he and his family would argue might have been beyond his control because of his medical condition. I am not trying to excuse what James has done, and his family do not seek to do so either. What they are seeking is help for that young man. He has a young family, and they do not want to see his life completely ruined. There is clearly more that we can do to help young men like James—and, indeed, young women—who develop post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the traumatic experiences that they have had to endure while on operational deployment.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

The case to which my right hon. Friend refers is known to me, and I too have spoken to the father of the young man in question. I totally endorse what my right hon. Friend has said: the family’s plea was for help. They could see what was happening and they really wanted help. It is incumbent on us in the House and those in the Department to ensure that that help is made available to families such as these; they deserve it.

[Mr Donaldson]

I concur with my right hon. Friend’s comments.

In August this year, I wrote to the Minister for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) at the Ministry of Defence to raise this case. I understand that, owing to issues relating to data protection legislation, he was unable to respond in as much detail as he might have wished. His advice was that James should

“contact the welfare service at the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency.”

He provided a helpline number for that service. He went on:

“I would also strongly encourage James to raise any medical concerns…with his GP…James may also wish to consider contacting the charity Combat Stress”.

I am sure that there is nothing wrong with that advice, but my point is that there should be someone in the system who can get alongside people like James, who are not in a position to make the appropriate judgment calls, and to help them and their families get access to the level of care that they need. That advice was given before James ended up in prison.

Returning to my remarks about the aftercare service, I believe that that model could be expanded. As a starting point, I would like to see it expanded in Northern Ireland to incorporate those service personnel and veterans who continue to serve in our armed forces, whether in the Royal Irish Regiment, the Irish Guards or any other armed forces unit, and who reside in Northern Ireland. Why should Northern Ireland get such special treatment? We should do so because we have a special problem when it comes to the implementation of the military covenant.

That special problem is section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998—the equality legislation that formed a key element of the Belfast agreement. The section places a statutory duty on public authorities to promote equality when carrying out their functions in relation to Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, officials in various Government Departments in Northern Ireland who might be able to offer support to veterans and service personnel say that they are unable to give any form of preferential treatment.

Let us bear it in mind that the military covenant requires only that action should be taken to ensure that a veteran or a member of the armed forces should face “no disadvantage” as a result of serving or having served in the armed forces. In other words, they should be placed in the position in which they would have been, had they remained a civilian. Unfortunately, however, section 75 is being used in a way that can prevent full implementation of the military covenant in Northern Ireland. We have a problem, but there are a number of ways in which that problem could be overcome.

In a submission to the Defence Committee of this House, of which I have the good fortune to be a member, it was made clear by the current Northern Ireland Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, Edwin Poots, that there was a problem. Paragraph 36 of the Defence Committee report, “The Armed Forces Covenant in Action? Part 1: Military Casualties”, states:

“The provisions of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 prevents the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) and the Health and Social Care (HSC) sector in Northern Ireland in providing war veterans with priority over other individuals with respect to healthcare treatment.”

This is recognised as a problem, as far as the implementation of the military covenant in Northern Ireland is concerned. The “Report of the Task Force on the Military Covenant” of September 2010 stated that “Service personnel” based in Northern Ireland

“are disadvantaged more than their contemporaries elsewhere…For example, Service families in the province are prevented from identifying themselves as such due to the security situation. This can cause difficulties for partners in explaining their career history to prospective employers and for Service children in obtaining the necessary support in schools, among other issues.”

The report, in making some recommendations, states:

“One possibility currently under consideration is to extend”

the Northern Ireland aftercare service

“to cover all veterans based in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland”.

We Democratic Unionist Members would be happy to see veterans of the UK armed forces who reside in the Republic of Ireland covered by the aftercare service, so that they get the help they need when they need it. I hope the Minister will give careful consideration to the proposition that the aftercare service should be extended to include not only veterans living in Northern Ireland but serving members of the armed forces who live in Northern Ireland and, for whatever reason, may require treatment or access to other services for themselves or their families.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I have received two letters from former southern Irish soldiers who served in the British Army asking that they be given the same rights under the military covenant as their compatriots living within the United Kingdom. I think that is a good idea; it should come almost as part of the package. I entirely endorse what my right hon. Friend says.

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank my hon. Friend. We both serve on the Defence Committee. I have great respect for his knowledge and understanding of the armed forces—not least because of the time he served in Northern Ireland. I know he is due to come back to the Province in the near future; we will welcome him very warmly indeed.

I have suggested that the Northern Ireland aftercare service should be expanded to provide support to all veterans living in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland who have served with our armed forces and to the service personnel who reside in Northern Ireland and whose families are based there at present.

Another way of addressing the problem of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act and the impediment it provides to the implementation of the military covenant in the part of the United Kingdom that I represent is to consider legislation to grant an exemption to any action taken under section 75 by a Government Department in Northern Ireland pursuant to the implementation of the military covenant. We will want to discuss that further with the Ministry of Defence and the Northern Ireland Office. We believe it is important that no obstacle should be put in the way of implementing the military covenant. I know that when section 75 was implemented it was never intended to have such a consequence—but it does, so we need to fix the problem.

I know, too, that the Minister, in recent comments to the Welsh Affairs Committee highlighted the particular challenge in Northern Ireland of implementing the community covenant. Some local authorities in Northern Ireland are controlled by Sinn Fein. Unfortunately, too, there seems to be some reticence on the part of the SDLP when it comes to implementation of the military covenant. As hon. Members have said, let us hope that that is loosening up and that people are now beginning to recognise the fact that, ultimately, we are talking about human beings. We are talking about men and women who need help and support, and it should not matter that they wear the uniform of this country. When they need that support, it should be given to them. I should like some Northern Ireland Members to adopt a slightly more humanitarian approach to the issue.

As the Minister pointed out when he gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee on 30 October, some local authorities in Northern Ireland seem reluctant to support the full implementation of the covenant. We shall want to discuss with the Government ways in which community covenants can be implemented throughout Northern Ireland without being impeded by certain elements in local government.

I also think that there is a great need for some kind of respite facility for the armed forces in Northern Ireland. At present, a veteran or current member of the armed forces living in Northern Ireland who is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and needs recuperation must go to Hollybush House in Scotland. I should like the Government to work with the military charities, the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association, and other stakeholders in Northern Ireland to find a way of resourcing a respite centre there.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

May I suggest that a respite centre in Northern Ireland might not always be a suitable alternative to Hollybush House? Some members of the Army might feel a certain sensitivity about receiving respite care in Northern Ireland. I was extremely concerned to learn from some of my constituents who are retired servicemen that their opportunities to benefit from recuperation and help at Hollybush House have been reduced because resources are not going into that facility. I should be hugely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman if he would call for increased resources for Hollybush House as well.

[Mr Donaldson]

I can only echo what the hon. Lady has said. I agree that there should be adequate resources not just for a proposed facility for Northern Ireland, but for other facilities for veterans and members of the Northern Ireland armed forces. I take her point that not all of them would want to receive their respite care in Northern Ireland itself.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The week before last, I had an opportunity to meet a gentleman from Help for Heroes, a charity of which every Member present will be aware. When I mentioned this very issue to him, he said that although the organisation currently made no such provision specifically for Northern Ireland, it was seeking to do so, and I hope that that will be possible in the near future.

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that information. It is worth noting that the people of Northern Ireland are very generous when it comes to military charities. Year on year, Northern Ireland consistently gives more to the poppy appeal than any other region of the United Kingdom, and Help for Heroes is well supported there. We receive a share of that, and we do not in any way criticise any of the military charities. However, it would be good to see those charities unite with the Government, the RFCA and others in considering what enhanced facilities we might provide in Northern Ireland. That would constitute recognition of the generosity of the people there who support them.

I said earlier that we would meet Ministers to pursue the issues that I have raised. We have already met the Minister for the Armed Forces and we should be happy to meet the Minister of State and his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office as well. Thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), we have secured a meeting with the Prime Minister early in December, when we will discuss with him matters relating to the implementation of the military covenant in Northern Ireland.

Her Majesty’s Government have a duty to support the armed forces and the veterans who have served this country so well, and we support them in pursuing the work that they are undertaking in relation to the military covenant. No political obstacle and no political party should get in the way of full implementation of the covenant in every region of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. I commend the motion to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I now have to announce the result of the deferred Division on the question relating to the draft Benefit Cap (Housing Benefit) Regulations 2012. The Ayes were 283, and the Noes were 203, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

17:05

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr Mark Francois)]

I greatly welcome the opportunity to open this important debate on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government. It is a particular pleasure to respond to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson). As he knows, I have taken an interest in Northern Ireland matters down the years. In fact, some years ago I visited Northern Ireland as his guest. We are debating a serious subject, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not mind my telling the House that I also bumped into him in 2009, when I was in Northern Ireland during the European elections. We were each separately with our respective campaign teams when we came around the same corner. As politicians do on these occasions, we exchanged some banter, and one of the right hon. Gentleman’s fellow campaigners described me as a “communist.” I have been called a number of things down the years, but that was a personal first for me. I have happy memories of that trip, and I was determined when I saw this debate coming up to get that quote into Hansard.

Let me begin by saying that we greatly value the contribution that all our armed forces make, and in particular that made by the Irish regiments over the years. The right hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues rightly touched on that. As evidence of this contribution, one statistic stands out. Some 173 Victoria Crosses have been awarded to members of the armed forces who were Irish. That is more than one in eight of all such awards, including the first ever Victoria Cross, which was awarded to Charles Lucas from Scarva—in the constituency of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson)—which he earned while serving as a mate on HMS Hecla in 1854. Following a swift promotion to captain, Charles Lucas eventually retired at the rank of rear-admiral. So that is a not a bad start for the VC.

Continuing this naval theme, I should like to mention HMS Caroline, about which there has been good news following our decision to gift the vessel to the National Museum of the Royal Navy. It has agreed to keep the vessel in Belfast, where it has been berthed since 1924.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

HMS Caroline was built in the Devonport dockyard and it is the last surviving ship from the battle of Jutland, at which my grandfather was a gunnery officer on HMS Valiant. This is incredibly good news, therefore, and I will make sure everybody in Plymouth rejoices.

[Mr Francois]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s grandfather and his service in that epic battle, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for being so fleet of foot with his intervention.

As my hon. Friend has taken a close interest in this ship, he will know that HMS Caroline, a light cruiser, was built in 1914, measures 128 metres and was capable of a top speed of 28.5 knots. She is the last surviving warship of the battle of Jutland and before decommissioning was the second oldest ship in the Royal Navy. Her parts are 85% original—which is more than can be said for some Members of this House—and she is the only vessel in the world from the time of the great war still to have its original engines. A recent National Heritage Memorial Fund grant of £1 million, supplemented by £100,000 from the Northern Ireland Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, will enable urgent repairs to be carried out on the vessel. We very much hope that she will be open to paying visitors by the centenary of the battle of Jutland in 2016 and, together with the Titanic centre, will be a focus for tourism around Belfast’s great maritime history.

[Mr Dodds]

The Minister mentioned his previous visits to Northern Ireland. He will be permanently and for ever welcome in Northern Ireland as a result of the good news about HMS Caroline—the Prime Minister announced it but the Minister followed up recently. This has been an excellent example of working together between Whitehall, the Northern Ireland Executive and my colleague Arlene Foster, Belfast city council and the Friends of HMS Caroline. This fantastic news has been warmly welcomed throughout Belfast and Northern Ireland, and we say well done to the Government.

[Mr Francois]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I have to report to the House that there has been a leak, because my speech says, “This has been an excellent example of practical co-operation between the Ministry of Defence, the national museum of the Royal Navy and the Northern Ireland Executive.” He also rightly mentioned the friends group. In all seriousness, this is one where everybody got it right. It is proper and appropriate that HMS Caroline remains in Belfast, and I hope to be able to visit her at some point in the near future. So I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words and the spirit in which they are offered.

In more recent times, the contribution of those who served alongside the Army in the former Royal Ulster Constabulary has also been remembered, most notably through the awarding of the George Cross to the RUC. I also pay tribute today to the work of the Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross Foundation and the Northern Ireland Police Fund, which look after former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and current members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland so well. In the same vein, I should like to pay tribute to the veterans of the Royal Irish Regiment and its home service battalions and the Ulster Defence Regiment. It is for them that the bespoke Royal Irish aftercare service, to which the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) rightly paid tribute, is in operation. Funded by the Ministry of Defence, that important organisation has supported a client population of up to 63,000 veterans in the delivery of psychiatry, physiotherapy and welfare casework. I will undertake to look at his suggestion as to whether that service could be extended to other members of the armed forces in Northern Ireland, but I must enter the obvious caveat that that is subject to resource constraints. So we will look at that, but standing at the Dispatch Box this evening I cannot guarantee a positive outcome.

Such proud traditions of service continue right up to the present generation. I, too, should mention the sad death of Corporal Channing Day, who grew up in Northern Ireland and joined the Army in 2005. Corporal Day, who served with 3 Medical Regiment, died alongside Corporal David O’Connor, of 40 Commando, after being injured on patrol in Helmand province on Wednesday 24 October. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) had the privilege of attending her funeral service, which was said to have been the largest that the small church had seen in some 400 years. I pay tribute to Corporal Day and Corporal O’Connor this evening, and in doing so I echo a number of the tributes that have been paid by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues tonight.

In terms of current operations, I should also like to mention the personnel of 204 field hospital, who are shortly about to deploy from Northern Ireland to Afghanistan to serve as part of the role 3 hospital at Camp Bastion and to provide other medical services to troops in theatre. I recently had the privilege of visiting Camp Bastion and the hospital, and I laid a wreath to commemorate those who had fallen in operations in Afghanistan.

I should now like to turn directly to the armed forces covenant. As the House knows, its key principles are enshrined in law in the Armed Forces Act 2011. I am proud to say that the Government published the covenant in May 2011. In essence, its principles are: that those who serve in the armed forces, whether regular or reserve, and those who have served in the past, and their families should face no disadvantage compared with other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services; and that special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given most, such as the injured and the bereaved. The covenant extends to the armed forces community, which is defined as serving personnel, including members of the reserve forces; veterans; and their families. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his generous tribute to the reserves as well as to the regulars.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Will the Minister take time to consider the interaction between the MOD and the Department for Work and Pensions on benefit payments and armed forces compensation scheme payments? The compensation scheme payments invalidate claimants’ eligibility for some DWP payments, which seems very wrong. Special consideration should be given in such circumstances.

[Mr Francois]

I am aware of the issue and pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his persistence on these and related matters. We had an Adjournment debate recently on a parallel issue, although not exactly the same one. I believe that we are doing what we can to try to solve the problem, but as it is quite technical, as he knows, if he wants to write to me on the specific points I would be happy to look into them and get back to him.

In common with other legislation, the provisions of the 2011 Act extend to Northern Ireland in the same way as they apply to all other parts of the United Kingdom. Those principles are important because they influence the formation of policy, but there are other sides to the covenant, too. One of those is the community covenant, which seeks to bring together local authorities and other local organisations with members of the armed forces community who live and serve in the area for which they are responsible. To date, more than 200 local authorities across the United Kingdom have signed a community covenant. I am proud to say that in Essex the other day, I signed that covenant on behalf of the Government in my own county, and some 13 local authorities signed one after the other.

We are clear that by forging such relationships the community covenant is starting to have a positive impact on the lives of the armed forces community and on the wider community. For example, in Gateshead the council is making arrangements, among many other measures, to explore opportunities for serving personnel and veterans to access leisure facilities to support their overall health and well-being needs, including their mental health needs.

In Oxfordshire, the county council, by working with the NHS and 145 (South) Brigade, has been able to help resolve problems of access to GPs and dentists for the families of serving personnel. Dental services have also been extended in some areas to address a shortfall and the referral process for primary care services has been made easier.

Also in Oxfordshire, the local authority has arranged for school places to be allocated to service families in advance of the family’s actual move, based on a letter from the relevant unit. That has been a long-standing problem when military units move from one location to another, but I understand that the Department for Education is now encouraging other local authorities to take a similar approach to try to alleviate the difficulty.

In the past, members of the armed forces could also be pushed towards the bottom of local housing waiting lists, as the need to move from base to base often meant they could not prove a local connection to the area in which they wanted to live, but, thanks again to the armed forces covenant, many local councils will now ensure that due consideration is given to service families so that they are not at a disadvantage when applying for a council home. That extends to serving people, families and, importantly, veterans.

One of the chief benefits of the community covenant is quite simply that people are now talking to one another in a way that they never did before. To some degree, we are doing that in the House this evening. Local authorities, which deliver many of the vital services at ground level, are being made aware of the needs of the armed forces community, which they might not have considered fully in the past. At the same time, it is fair to say that service personnel and their families are becoming increasingly aware of what life is like beyond the wire and how they can help their local communities.

As the House knows, the 2011 Act also places an obligation on the Secretary of State for Defence to report annually to Parliament on the state of the armed forces covenant. The first of these statutory reports will be published before Christmas and will set out in more detail what the Government are doing to deliver in the key areas that the covenant covers.

I now want to speak about extending the armed forces covenant to Northern Ireland. Hon. and right hon. Members from Northern Ireland will be aware that many of the main areas covered by the covenant, such as housing, health and education, all lie within the devolved field and that these services are provided by Northern Ireland Departments, which are answerable to Northern Ireland Ministers in the Executive, not all of whom currently support this agenda, as the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley intimated.

Northern Ireland Departments and other public authorities also need to give due regard to the statutory obligations placed on them by section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act to promote equality of opportunity in respect of all the functions they perform and the services they provide. Herein, as it were, lies the dilemma. It is not for Westminster to tell Stormont what it must do in respect of the covenant—it is for Northern Ireland Executive Ministers to debate and negotiate and agree how the armed forces covenant should apply in Northern Ireland to the extent permitted by law.

There are some who say that section 75 is a hindrance and should be amended to somehow allow the covenant to be applied. Of course we want to see the armed forces covenant principles applied right across the United Kingdom. However, if the Northern Ireland Executive decide not to proceed with the covenant, that does not justify amending section 75, which is one of the cornerstones in the architecture of the Belfast agreement that was endorsed in referendums in both Northern Ireland and the Republic.

I think it is fair to say that Northern Ireland has made great progress since the dark days of the troubles. This month we saw the Taoiseach lay a wreath at the war memorial in Enniskillen following on from the historic wreath layings—both at the garden of remembrance in Dublin and at the Irish war memorial at Islandbridge—by Her Majesty the Queen during her highly successful state visit last year. That, of course, built on the historic joint unveiling in 1998 by Her Majesty and the President of Ireland of the Messines peace tower on the site of the battle of Messines Ridge, to remember the Irish dead of the first world war—also mentioned earlier this evening—and to inaugurate the Island of Ireland peace park.

[Mr Donaldson]

I understand the point that the Minister is making. However, the Northern Ireland Executive have not decided that it should not proceed with the military covenant and Ministers in their Departments are free to proceed with implementation. It is just that the equality provisions in section 75 sometimes present an obstacle to that. The Northern Ireland Act cannot be amended by the Northern Ireland Assembly; that is a matter for this House. That is why we want to discuss with the Government how we can overcome that obstacle.

[Mr Francois]

I think what the right hon. Gentleman has said is very reasonable. I hope that some of the acts of remembrance that I was referring to a few minutes ago will inspire those in the Northern Ireland Executive to work together to find a way forward to apply the covenant principles in a practical manner, and I hear what the right hon. Gentleman has said about their only being able to do so much. I think that that is something we could all discuss when we meet the Prime Minister next month. If, in that time, the right hon. Gentleman can explore what could be done by the Northern Ireland Executive, I believe that would materially inform that discussion. Then we need to see where we can go from there. I will leave it to the Minister of State to say whether there is any more that he can add to that when he winds up at the end of the debate, but I hope that I am replying to the right hon. Gentleman in the spirit in which he intervened on me.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State has invited me to visit Northern Ireland. I have accepted his invitation to visit in the new year, to see for myself how the covenant operates in practice and whether there are any practical difficulties. I hope that it will also be possible for me to meet personnel from 38 Brigade. I think that, after the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, I am now honour-bound to visit a cadet unit as well; and as my own father served in the Royal Navy, perhaps I might be able to squeeze in a visit to HMS Caroline, too.

In conclusion, we appreciate the complex history of Northern Ireland, and the sensitivities in this area, but we also appreciate the valuable service in our armed forces given to the Crown by so many from Northern Ireland—and indeed the whole of the island of Ireland—over many generations. It is important that we remember that service, and that we do our best for those who have served with such distinction—and for their families—because they have helped to keep us free.

17:24

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The military covenant has to be lauded as a fantastic aim and programme put in place by this Government, with cross-party support. It is a collective demonstration of the desire of representatives here and the people we represent to do far more for our deserving armed forces personnel. From a personal perspective, I know why a military covenant is needed: my grandfather fought for four years in the trenches of Flanders; my now 87-year-old father fought in the Combined Operation Pilotage Parties; and my community was home to Stan Hollis, a company sergeant major in the Green Howards who was the only man to receive a Victoria Cross for action on D-day. The people in my area, like those in many others in the United Kingdom, share those values.

Our villages, communities, towns and cities buy in to the need for the military covenant, and the great partnership working by Government and local authority bodies and the voluntary armed forces charities to achieve its aims has been excellent, but today I want to draw the Government’s attention to anomalies that will undoubtedly affect members of the armed forces to their detriment, and, in some cases, take standards backwards for serving and former armed forces personnel and their families.

In April 2013, thousands of families will have their housing benefit reduced by up to £80 a month because of the new bedroom tax. When I am out in my constituency, meeting residents and asking them about their concerns, that issue is becoming more prevalent. The coalition Government have said that persons classed as “of working age” who have an empty bedroom in their house will lose 14% of the rent value, and 25% if there are two or more spare bedrooms. As a result, some people will have to find more than £1,000 extra a year just to stay in their home. Children under 10 are expected to share a room, and children up to 16 are expected to share a room with a same-sex sibling, so a family of four living in a three-bedroom house could still be charged an extra £44 a month even if there are no unoccupied bedrooms. Hundreds of local families will be affected and I could talk at length about them, but that is for another time.

One of the many people to contact me is Alison Huggan from Coulby Newham in Middlesbrough. She has been a tenant of the same housing association for nearly two decades. Why is that relevant to today’s debate? Alison single-handedly brought up her twin boys in her three-bedroom house, which is owned by a local housing association, and both, now 18, are serving as soldiers in the Army. Alison said:

“The Government has made no concessions and have totally disregarded personal circumstances. If the Government forces these changes, when my sons return home after defending our country and serving its people, they will not have a bed to sleep in at their family home. I have spoken to my housing officer about moving to a smaller one-bedroom property, only to be told that they do not have enough one-bedroom properties to meet the need of everyone.”

The problem Alison is facing is shared by people right across my constituency, Teesside and the wider country, and people from all over the East Cleveland area have contacted me about the tax.

What is also highly disappointing is the state of affairs regarding under-25s losing their entitlement to housing benefit. The Government recently decided to disband the 2nd Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment, the Green Howards, with the proviso that the cap badge, regimental heritage and legacy be maintained, with the strong likelihood of their being adopted for the Territorial Army battalion of the Yorkshire Regiment. Again, that is a separate matter and cannot be debated today, but the issue of redundant troops—the real human cost—has yet to be addressed in relation to housing benefit.

A number of parents, who want to remain anonymous for the sake of their sons and daughters serving in the armed forces, have raised concerns about how the housing benefit changes will affect personnel who leave the armed forces under the age of 25, with very little in the way of savings, and who are looking for housing and benefits after April 2013. They are not from wealthy families and do not have the luxury of the bank of mum and dad to help with a deposit—if, indeed, they have a job to go to that will enable them to maintain future payments. Unemployment in my constituency is always high.

As yet, the status of soon-to-be-former armed forces personnel aged under 25 in relation to housing benefit is still in question, but it has to be said that on Teesside—an area with a high level of local young people serving in the armed forces juxtaposed with some of the highest unemployment and, in particular, youth unemployment in the country, and where some of the poorest wards in the country are to be found—we find it incredibly difficult to accept that recently former armed forces personnel aged under 25 will not have access to housing benefit. That is an obvious anomaly and flies in the face of the guarantees stipulated in the military covenant regarding “special considerations”. I dearly hope that the Minister will take this issue on board and quickly resolve it.

17:29

[Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), who has reminded me of something that happened eight or nine years ago when I was fishing in Robin Hood’s bay with my son, who was about 12 at the time. We were surrounded by a gang of lads who were watching us and what we were doing. I turned to them and said, “I imagine you’re joining the Army, aren’t you?” They said, “Not just that, but the Green Howards.” It is a wonderful regiment with wonderful recruits. What a curious decision to disband it.

I pay tribute to the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) and to the service of Ulstermen and, indeed, men and women from the Republic in the armed forces. With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I should like to add some comments of my own about the application of the military covenant in my own constituency of Newark.

I will not bore the House, but I spent a lot of time in Northern Ireland. I was a fighting soldier and spent my time in difficult areas. We were not thanked by the individuals there—on the contrary, they shot at us—but when we were outside of those areas, I was struck by the people of Ulster’s warmth and their admiration for and understanding of the military culture. That is not unique, but it is rare in England. I was terribly taken with it. I think that, given the pressures of operations such as those that took place in Iraq and those that continue on the Pakistan border in Afghanistan, we forget today the sorts of pressures that not just my colleagues in the regular Army, but Territorial soldiers and officers and men in the Ulster Defence Regiment, the Royal Irish Regiment, the Royal Ulster Constabulary reserves, the RUC and now the Police Service of Northern Ireland have faced and continue to face on a day-to-day basis.

Clearly, war is difficult. War is hell. It was all very well for a regular soldier such as I to have carried out a six-month or two-year tour in Northern Ireland and to then go home to sunny England, and it is all very well to serve in Afghanistan today—which is clearly immeasurably worse than anything I experienced—but we did not have to face the same sorts of pressures as these brave men and women who often lived cheek by jowl with individuals who were sympathetic to our enemies and who were, therefore, enemies themselves. It was hellishly difficult for those individuals. It imposed a toll and it continues to impose a toll, as the previous debate showed, on those who live in dangerous and difficult circumstances. The toll is not necessarily a physical one, but it is certainly a mental one.

Let us therefore make sure that the brave men and women who have served the Crown in Northern Ireland are looked after properly when their service finishes, and I mean not just soldiers, sailors and airmen, but police officers, prison officers and the whole gamut of those who are proud to wear the Crown on their uniforms.

I am amazed and dismayed by my right hon. Friend’s comments that respite care cannot—I think I am right in saying this—be carried out in Northern Ireland at the moment. That is a terribly important point. The Minister, who understands military affairs extremely well, knows that individuals who have served wish to recover among their comrades, if at all possible. With respect, I say to the Minister that if anything can be done for those brave men and women, I would be most grateful. I utterly endorse my right hon. Friend’s comments.

I also admire the conduct of Her Majesty the Queen. I admire it in every way, but particularly admired it during her recent visit to the Republic and what she did there. She laid wreaths not just for our own men who fell as a result of the difficulties in the Republic, but for those many men who fought for His Majesty at the time, as exemplified by the Royal Dublin Fusiliers memorial in Dublin, which is hideously known as “traitors gate” by some and admired by others. Her Majesty showed no prejudice in the way that she respected those dead. I hope that the Taoiseach will accept my invitation, at some stage, to visit the graves of the Sherwood Forester soldiers, from the Sherwood Forester Brigade, who were killed in Dublin in 1916 and who now rest in their native soil of Nottinghamshire. I do not know what the reaction will be; so far, it has not been positive, but in the future I hope it will be.

Moving on to the application of the military covenant in my constituency, I hope that I can suggest one or two things that the Minister might find useful. In 2007, a young man, Lance Corporal Davis of 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, lost a leg on operations in Afghanistan. I knew his family slightly, but did not know him at all. I went to see him at hospital in Selly Oak. We thought that he was going to die. Two of his colleagues in the team with which he was patrolling did die. Luckily, Lance Corporal Davis recovered.

That presented a problem in Newark, however. His father was not only having to take two children to school, but having to hold down his job as a lorry driver while his wife lived in Birmingham with their dangerously ill son, whom they thought was going to die. The road haulage company for which Mr Davis worked—which will remain nameless—was desperately unsympathetic to him. He was told that he had used his holiday and his leave, that he had no further opportunity to take time off work and that the mere loss of his son’s leg was no excuse.

In one of the very few moments as a Member of Parliament when I have known that I was 100% right and have operated in a completely uncompromising fashion, I rang the managing director of the firm and asked whether he would like some publicity. He said that he would love some. I asked whether he would like to be on the front of every national daily the following day. He said that he would love to be. I said, “Well, not for the reasons that I am about to outline.” It worked a treat. Mr Davis was helped and he got his time off. He was able to look after not only his other children but his hero son.

That case led us to establish the Newark Patriotic Fund. In the few years since, we have dealt with more than 12 amputees and a number of men and women who have presented—I think that is the word—with all sorts of mental difficulties. The earliest case with which we are dealing is a survivor from the Korean war. I am not here just to plug the Newark Patriotic Fund, although I will mention Mrs Susan Gray and Mrs Karen Grayson, who work tirelessly for it. I commend what it does to other Members. It raises large sums of money, principally to help the families.

There is a gap in the way that the Government honour the military covenant. It is a gap not of commission but of omission, and the situation is evolving. Some useful precedents were set after the first and second world wars in how we deal with such men. I hope that we will not have many more people with traumatic injuries coming back to the Newark constituency, but we might have. However, we will definitely have a wave of mental illness that presents itself over the next decade or so. We have to look after those men—they are mainly men, although there are one or two women.

I have a suggestion for the Minister, although I appreciate that it would involve expense. I believe that part of the military covenant should be that every soldier, sailor and airman, whether regular, reservist, territorial or whatever they are called in the future, should be offered medical screening on discharge. The medical services could advise on what the interval should be, but I would have thought that it should be about every three years. The individual should be looked at and given a chance to talk. Most people who are discharged are fit, but this would be an extremely useful way to monitor those who are concealing injuries, those who have injuries they do not know about and those who are in the developing stages of mental illness. It would not be cheap or easy to administer, but it might just prevent problems that could be nipped in the bud.

To give an example, I was seen by a doctor in Lincoln about five years ago because of the injuries that I received in Northern Ireland. She said that I not only had the problems with my wounds, but extensive frostbite in my right foot. She said that unless that was put right, I would develop a problem in the future. That is a simple illustration, but unless I had seen that doctor I would not have known about it. If no one had said to me, “Look Colonel Mercer, behave yourself. Own up to what has happened and we can help you.”, life would have been more difficult for me.

[John Glen]

Given my hon. Friend’s experience, is this more about somebody’s willingness to engage and open up about difficult mental health issues than the availability of screening and services? A physical injury is one thing, but is the real issue the barrier of people not wanting to own up to the fact that there might be a problem?

[Patrick Mercer]

I am grateful for that helpful intervention. My hon. Friend is absolutely right and he will probably face many cases in his constituency that are similar to those in Newark.

In another plug for the Newark Patriotic Fund—forgive me, Mr Speaker—one thing we find is that those who are without an arm or leg have probably come to terms with that. The groundswell of support and popularity—I do not quite use the word “glamour”, but I hope the House will understand what I mean—helps those individuals to come to terms with their situation. Those who are nursing, hiding or developing mental health problems find that much more difficult to talk about, but we find at our so-called drop-in centre that people are able and willing to talk in the company of other brave men and women who are empathetic and sympathetic.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Patrick Mercer]

I give way with pleasure to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Jones]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I looked at this issue when I was the Minister responsible for veterans, and may I suggest that screening at the point that someone leaves the forces is not the answer? We must ensure that individuals are flagged up so that GPs know they are veterans—the Labour party made a commitment to that, although I am not sure whether the Government have followed it through—and improve their access to mental health services. A lot of the problems that the hon. Gentleman mentions do not present until many years later and would not be picked up. I would prefer the money to go to help people at a later, rather than earlier, stage.

[Patrick Mercer]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention but I am obviously not making myself clear because that is exactly my point. There will be awful problems with this. It was difficult enough for us catch up six months later with one regular soldier who had been discharged, and ask him to re-enlist in the Territorial Army because he had disappeared into the system. I understand that this matter is not simple. Care must be provided in five, 10 or 15 years’ time and offered to everyone, as the hon. Gentleman said, not just to those who leave the forces having identified a problem.

[Mr Jones]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. This could be quite easy but I was frustrated with GPs who wanted to charge for putting an indicator on the QOF—the quality and outcomes framework. That is where money should be spent so that if people present after they have left the armed services, GPs will at least know that they have served in the forces. I am not sure whether the Minister has made any progress on that, but it is an important point and would be a better way to spend money.

[Patrick Mercer]

Absolutely.

[Mr Francois]

rose—

[Patrick Mercer]

I will, of course, give way to the Minister.

[Mr Francois]

I have not intervened purely to mention the Newark Patriotic Front—oh look, I appear to have done it. [Hon. Members: “ Fund!”] Forgive me—fund. With regard to the question from the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), the Government are continuing to look at this issue but there is a difficulty concerning patient consent—I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) with his considerable military experience will understand that. The intention in principle is to evolve a system—we are working on it now—so that when an individual leaves the armed forces and registers with a GP, that GP will be informed that the person is a veteran. If the veteran then begins to present symptoms, including mental symptoms, which might be an effect of their service, the GP will hopefully have been informed that the person was a veteran when they moved across.

We already have TRiM—trauma risk management—in which we invite men or women in a unit to look out for each other. If one of them starts to show signs of mental problems, the others do not shop them, as it were, but encourage them to speak to higher command to get help.

[Patrick Mercer]

As the Minister, with his military experience, will know, those systems have been in place informally for many years. I am not pretending that the measures will be simple, cheap or infallible, but if those who are discharged understand them, we stand a better chance of spending to save.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

The last three hon. Members to intervene have mentioned looking after the mental health of soldiers when they return, but since 2009 American soldiers have been screened before going out. Their weaknesses and strengths are measured—their strengths are recognised and their weaknesses are strengthened. When the troops return, they are given therapy, including mindfulness-based therapy, which is cheap and three times more effective than drugs in treating depression and related conditions.

[Patrick Mercer]

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right, and prompts me to share a very short anecdote. The last time I was in Afghanistan with the grenadier company of my old battalion, the company major told me that every single man in the company had used his weapon and killed or injured. I said, “Are they all right?” He said, “They’re fine, except for the company sniper. He’s killed more than 25 men now, and he’s the one man I really worry about, because he enjoys it too much.” That illustrates the point exactly—that is the sort of thing with which we must cope in future.

I will not detain the House for much longer, but I should like to make one more suggestion to the Minister. My view is that how we looked after serving and discharged personnel—it is now called the military covenant, but it was not called that at the time—was much better after the first world war than after the second world war. I commend not only the various patriotic funds that were set up, but the schemes in various large cities and towns—it was a different economic period—to set up taxi services specifically to be run by, mainly, limbless soldiers. Vehicles were bought and adapted for the men, and areas where veterans taxis would run were specifically designated. The cities and towns included Nottingham, Derby and Middlesbrough. I am not suggesting we replicate that scheme exactly, but other imaginative things can be done to help those men and women to return physically and mentally to their place in society. We could look at that suggestion to everybody’s benefit.

[Bob Stewart]

One problem with getting rid of regiments and making the infantry and other parts of the Army smaller is that we are losing regimental headquarters. Up till now, the regiment has been the one organisation to keep a proper trace on soldiers until they die. Soldiers are looked after by regimental headquarters, and friends warn when there is a problem. It is very sad, but that is one problem with losing our regimental headquarters.

[Patrick Mercer]

I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend. How on earth can we talk about localism while we are disbanding local regiments? I find that difficult to understand. I entirely endorse his point that the regimental structure was as much charitable as tactical, but there we are.

We have heard about the contribution of people from Northern Ireland, which I respect and honour. I would point out that Nottinghamshire—man for man—took more casualties proportionately than any other county in Great Britain in the first world war and won more Victoria Crosses. We should respect our veterans, whether they come from Fermanagh, Derby, Nottingham or London. We must give them exactly the deal they understood they would get when they enlisted. I hope some of my suggestions will be put into practice by the Minister.

17:49

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) and his right hon. and hon. Friends on bringing forward this very important debate. I am pleased that we have some time to debate this issue. It is also a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), who spoke with great authority from his experience of military life.

The failure to provide adequately for the needs of ex-service people stretches back well over a century, so I shall not make any political points today one way or the other. Kipling wrote of Tommy Atkins giving everything in service and returning to face virtually nothing in return. David Lloyd George, in a momentous speech at the beginning of the last century, poignantly referred to ex-service men returning from war as “broken men”—they mostly were men, then—and deserving of special treatment such as exemption from the payment of national insurance.

How much has changed in the intervening decades, and many conflicts later? The topic we are discussing today is the military covenant—the pledge to the armed forces that we will continue to look after the welfare of veterans after they leave the service. It is evident that the majority of armed forces personnel adjust to civilian life normally after discharge. Despite this, a significant and—alas—growing minority of veterans experience acute social rupture when discharged from active service, becoming homeless, cut off from mainstream welfare services and isolated. Unless they undertake further training or are fortunate enough to have completed relevant training prior to joining the forces, it can be very difficult for veterans to enter further education and/or employment.

If a veteran falls into a downward spiral, it is likely that he—and it is predominantly a male problem—will fall foul of the criminal justice system. Abuse of alcohol and drugs, and mental health problems, often act as catalysts. There is a lot of good work going on—it is not all downs—and next year, one of the main banks will announce a suite of financial services dedicated to ex-service people. I am pleased and proud that I have persuaded the bank to do that. It will be rolled out in Wales first and, if successful, then throughout the UK. One of the problems of people who have been in the forces for a long time is that they understandably get out of the normal money management routine that we all have to deal with every day.

I have campaigned for greater recognition of the welfare needs of veterans over the years and have raised the issue in the House and elsewhere since 2008. In 2010, I published a paper entitled “Support for Veterans”, which contained detailed recommendations for increasing the support available to veterans, in particular those who came into contact with the criminal justice system. I chair the veterans in the criminal justice system all-party group, held under the auspices of the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group. The group comprises parliamentarians and representatives from criminal justice trade unions and charities, including the National Association of Probation Officers, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Prison Officers Association, the Royal British Legion, SSAFA Forces Help and others.

When our campaign began, very few were raising the issue, but I am glad to see that it has now become a core manifesto commitment for every party. The Armed Forces Act 2006 also enshrined the principles of the covenant in law. Much work has been done—and that is to the Government’s credit—but much remains to be done, and I await the annual report in the coming weeks.

As a matter of urgency, a thorough audit should be completed of the number of ex-service personnel who are in our prison system.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

We did one.

[Mr Llwyd]

I am not going to get involved in arguments about figures with the hon. Gentleman. We have tried that before—I do not accept his figures and he does not accept mine. NAPO and various other organisations do accept my figures.

[Mr Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman is like a broken record. As Minister, I got all the data for all three services, in some cases going back to 1968. The Howard League report accepted those figures. I am sorry that they do not match up with some of the figures that he and others want to keep perpetuating, but I do not know what else I could have done to get those figures or what the Minister could do now.

[Mr Llwyd]

I was an adviser to the Howard League report. The hon. Gentleman’s scoping exercise did not include women, reservists—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

That is not true.

[Mr Llwyd]

Well, that is what the then Minister told the Howard League. It did not include reservists, those under 21 or those who had served in Northern Ireland—that is what the Minister at the time told the inquiry. [Interruption.] That is the evidence that we were given and some of the conclusions we reached.

[Mr Jones]

Is the right hon. Gentleman really suggesting that to get the 25% figure that he often quotes—

[Mr Llwyd]

No, I never quoted that.

[Mr Jones]

Well, I think some of the right hon. Gentleman’s colleagues have. The figure was about 3% or 4% of the prison population. Is he seriously suggesting that he could make another 23% by adding reservists to it?

[Mr Llwyd]

I have never said it is 25%: 10% is the highest figure that I have ever canvassed, so I am not getting involved in a sterile figures argument. There are other issues to discuss.

As a matter of urgency, we need to have another look at those who are involved in the system. I became involved in this issue when I was working in courts in north Wales and Cheshire. I noticed that an increasing number of those appearing for very serious offences professed to come from a military background. Thus, I tabled some questions. At the time, in 2008, no information was held centrally. The shadow Minister says that a scoping exercise was thereafter undertaken—fine, I accept that.

[Mr Jones]

It was not a scoping exercise.

[Mr Llwyd]

Well, an exercise to determine the figures was then entered into by the Government. I accept that. Whatever the figure is, it is quite substantial—that must be common ground.

I honestly and sincerely believe that more resources should be put into helping veterans with mental health problems. Many people who have served leave the forces without any trauma whatever. However, at present, as I understand it, veterans do not undergo a compulsory mental health assessment prior to leaving the armed forces, except for the more obvious cases that demand it. Because of that, it is difficult to calculate the prevalence of mental health issues most commonly associated with veterans, among them post-traumatic stress disorder. PTSD is a convenient umbrella term, but it is just one complaint. The difficulty with it is that it can become evident within a couple of week or after 12 years.

[Mr Jones]

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to get the figures, he should read Simon Wessely’s very good study, going back to the first Gulf war and before. It provides the figures for PTSD, which are between 3% and 4%. It is a very good study that is internationally recognised as a groundbreaking work.

[Mr Llwyd]

That may or may not be the case, but in the United States, for example, the authorities talk about 35%. There is a substantial problem and I hope that we are able to look not just at PTSD—that is just one thing—but traumatic brain injury and other conditions. We have yet to see the scale of the fall-out from the first and second Iraq wars and from Afghanistan. However, I think there is a tendency to focus on PTSD. There are literally dozens of other mental health conditions that can affect personnel, including traumatic brain injury and anxiety-related problems, such as obsessive compulsive disorder and depression. The idiosyncratic needs of the veteran community must be taken into account when providing funding for research and treatment.

A paper recently produced by Dr Ian Palmer of the Medical Assessment Programme of King’s College London reported that, based on the findings of a clinic-based study on a self-selecting group of 150 veterans, veterans involved with the NHS mental health service tended to be middle aged, ex-army and male. That demographic picture reinforces the view that mental health problems can take years to develop—from the time of discharge to up to 12 years later.

I gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee, and, as I understand it, so did the Minister. The impression was given that the problem of alcohol misuse was being addressed, and that it was less of a problem than it had been. According to the report, however, 80% of those in this group had misused alcohol, and one quarter had encountered problems with the law. The barriers to seeking help included pride, guilt, shame and remembrance of lost colleagues. Obsessive compulsive symptoms were prevalent among many of those who reported problems readjusting to civilian life, while those not in a stable relationship were less likely to seek help, reinforcing the view that support from loved ones is vital for returning veterans.

Further research would have to be done, but the results are telling. Most crucially, it is clear that psychological assessments should be made mandatory for all those leaving the forces. The shadow Minister and the Minister talked about GPs flagging up patients who have done military service, but I understand that there might be a problem with data protection. I do not know whether that is right, but it needs to be cleared up. The flagging up is perfectly acceptable and a very good idea, but we need to address the data protection issue, so that we can provide a seamless service.

[Mr Francois]

There is a problem with data protection and patient consent, but we believe it can be overcome, and work on that is taking place.

I should declare an interest: King’s College London, to which hon. Members have referred several times, was my alma mater. I did my MA in law studies there. It is widely acknowledged that it has great expertise in the field of service mental health, and if it gives the right hon. Gentleman even slight reassurance, let me say that I am going there next week to meet Professor Simon Wessely and others to learn as much about this as I can.

[Mr Llwyd]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that intervention, and I am pleased with his comments. I know that a lot of work is being done, but I also know that a lot of work needs to be done, and I accept and appreciate his remarks in the tone they were given.

We need to address the huge dependency on alcohol and other substances that many armed forces personnel develop. Alcohol is frequently treated as a catalyst to unwinding by those on leave, and it can be no coincidence that many veterans leave active service displaying an overdependence on alcohol. Who am I to talk about that? I have never seen the hell they have been through, and one can understand why it occurs. Nevertheless, counselling on substance misuse must be a vital part of decompression.

During passage of the Armed Forces Act 2011, I tabled amendments based on the recommendations of a parliamentary group on veterans in the criminal justice system, as well as those made in the paper published in 2010. I was unfortunately prevented from sitting on the Bill Committee—the only time I have been unsuccessful in applying for a Bill Committee position in my 20 years in Parliament. I am not sure what happened. I was able to make a contribution on Second Reading and Report, however, and progress has now been made. As I stated, the principles of the military covenant are now enshrined in law, which is important, but we need to go further and ensure not only that we talk about the covenant but that it is a means of delivery for those who need these vital services.

I am pleased to have taken a brief part in this debate. There is good will among Members of all parties in the House to increase awareness of the problems faced by veterans, and the issue has now become popular with the media. We know, for example, that there are thousands of veterans charities doing fantastic work, but perhaps more could be done to link some of them together, to provide specialist services in some corners and add to the Government services being provided.

[Bob Stewart]

My worry is that once the Afghanistan campaign has gone in a few years and when these problems really start to present themselves, we will not have the public support that we have now, and we will probably not have the money to help that we have now. Then it will become primarily a Government problem; therefore, the Government have to understand that they must take responsibility for looking after these people until the time they die.

[Mr Llwyd]

I agree entirely, but there has been a problem historically. For example, I remember that there was a designated centre in north Wales dealing with PTSD that was run by a very experienced clinician called Dr Dafydd Alun Jones. I went to see the then Labour Minister at the MOD and asked whether he could put in a good word to secure funding for people to be treated there. He gave me a wry smile and said, “I sympathise with you, but unfortunately it’s a matter for the Health Department.” Some months later the Minister was transferred, as Secretary of State, to the Department of Health, so I went to see him. I got the same wry smile and words of sympathy: “It’s not my problem, guv. Have a word with either the DWP or the Ministry of Defence.” What that implies to me is that until very recently this matter was never taken as seriously as it warrants.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Llwyd]

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. That may be his view, but I am pleased that this matter is now being taken seriously. The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs is now looking at it and the Welsh Government are doing good work, as are our colleagues and friends in Scotland—for example, in Edinburgh there is a one-stop shop, which again could be a model for all countries in the UK—so at long last stuff is happening.

I want to end on what might be a discordant note, by quoting from a letter I received a couple of weeks ago. It is from a gentleman who served in the armed forces who lives in Barry, in the Vale of Glamorgan, and he says:

“I spent much of my working life as a member of the RAF as an aircraft engineer, completing over twenty years service. During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, I suffered a spinal injury that eventually led to the RAF and I going our separate ways after a medical discharge. Some months later the spinal damage worsened and led to my being hospitalised for an emergency operation to remove a damaged disc. However, due to a delay, much of my nervous system was wrecked, although I did manage to gain some mobility…The upshot of all the foregoing trauma was that my mobility was curtailed due to nervous damage and continuous pain. Over the past 17 years my condition has worsened due to age, however I can just cope—or I could until recently, when I received a letter from the DWP which informed me that I had to go and play performing monkeys for ATOS.

The question is: ‘What the hell happened to the much trumpeted Covenant between the Armed Forces and the Government?’ And no it cannot just apply to the Army. From personal experience, those on the other side give no heed to the colour of the uniform worn—they will try to kill you anyway. As I understand it the Covenant promises to take care of those injured in the service of this country. Seems from my point of view to be failing big time—not a good thing for those lads and lasses putting their lives on the line in Afghanistan. Has the MoD told them this fact yet?

So what does the future hold for me and mine? Playing performing monkeys for ATOS, whose operatives are, as I understand it, under orders to fail 90% of all those seen. So given that I have a 90% chance of failure, this will mean that I will lose the use of the Motability vehicle that is my only mode of transport, however, now being housebound, I’ll probably not have a house to live in, as the loss of income will put our mortgage in jeopardy. Even so, I would launch an appeal against the ruling which, if the various stories I have heard are true, I will probably win. This has its draw backs as those that have won their hearings are then dragged back by ATOS to undergo the whole process again…as many as four times. Isn’t this illegal under the Disability and Equality Act?”

That confirms what the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) was saying about the DWP, and about the need for extra care when dealing with ex-service personnel. The letter supports what has already been said.

We spend many months training these young men and women to the highest level to prepare them for active duty. Once deployed, they will often witness the kind of horrors that few of us, myself included, could ever comprehend. The least we can do for them is to spend a similar period decompressing them as they approach their discharge, and to ensure that no veteran is left to fend for himself or herself. As the Ministers know, there is a time-honoured maxim in the armed forces: “Leave no man behind.” Unless and until we can make the military covenant fully and positively deliver the necessary services, however, that is precisely what the Government will be doing.

18:10

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

I congratulate the Democratic Unionist party on having the foresight to secure this debate on the military covenant. It was perhaps sad that we were unable to discuss the matter immediately before Remembrance Sunday, as it would have been particularly pertinent at that time. The debate nevertheless gives me an opportunity to talk about some of the issues that affect the military in my constituency.

I also want to thank the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for his announcement about HMS Caroline. That was brilliant news. I would like to ask the DUP and the Executive in Northern Ireland to ensure that representatives from Devonport are invited to see it in Belfast, because it started life in Devonport; that is where it was built. It was one of the last ships to be built there, in 1914.

I pay tribute to those Northern Irish and Irish soldiers, sailors and airmen who have served in our armed forces. I also want to pay tribute to those members of 3 Commando Brigade who died during the troubles in Northern Ireland. We need to recognise them. All too often that has not happened because people were more interested in what was happening in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I welcome this opportunity to talk about the military covenant. A number of things need to be done, and I welcome the fact that the Government will be publishing their first report before Christmas. The issues affect not only the regulars but the reservists. I want to say a little about the reservists, because it is their families who end up bearing an awful lot of the brunt when their husbands or partners—or even their wives—go abroad to serve on operations. I hope that we can have a debate about what we are trying to do for reservists’ families.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

The families do not lack support when the reservists are away; the support received from the regiment is second to none. It is when a reservist is demobilised and returns to civilian life that they feel the most isolated and in need of support. When a regiment comes back from theatre, the individual soldiers have the support mechanism of their comrades and the family of the regiment itself, but the reservists go back to being civilians. They lack having comrades around them who understand what they have been through and the readjustments that they are having to make.

[Oliver Colvile]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. That is certainly the line from the Army, but those in the Royal Navy—or, for that matter, the Royal Marines or the Royal Air Force—do not necessarily live on base in the same way, and therefore both regulars and reservists can feel isolated during that process. Those serving in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines do not normally live on base. They are encouraged to buy their own homes. The Government need to look at how we can encourage such people to get on to the property ladder.

The reservist families need a significant amount of support. When I was on Woodbury Common last year on the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I came across a Royal Marine—I do not know whether he was a reservist, but I suspect he was—who lived in Aylesbury. He said that when he went home, he experienced some real difficulties. He wanted to talk to his friends about what had happened during his time in Afghanistan, but he found that it was not easy to do so. When he went back to his wife and said, “I have had an interesting time”, she said, “Don’t talk to me about what kind of day you’ve had; I’ve ended up having to answer 300 e-mails.” Perhaps she was working for a Member of Parliament and replying to constituents. He had been under mortar fire for seven or eight hours during the day and found it difficult to talk to her about that, so he went off to find his mates, but they had not been through that experience either, and they also had difficulty understanding what he was talking about. He thus had to go and find his fellow Royal Marines to talk to, as they understood his experiences.

We need to ensure that we set up a chat room for those reservist families so that they are able to talk to each other while their husbands or family members are away. I very much welcome the comments made about TRiM—trauma risk management. We recently had a breakfast here with the Royal Marines, and they talked enormously about it. In Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, we have signed the community covenant, too, which is working incredibly well. Last Friday, we talked quite extensively about how to ensure that people are looked after in respect of housing, for example.

[Mr Francois]

I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend, but to give all due credit to the Royal Marines, my understanding is that they initially helped to develop the TRiM programme. It was such a success within the brigade and its commandos that it was exported to the rest of the armed forces. It is quite right to pay tribute to the Royal Marines as basically they came up with the programme.

[Oliver Colvile]

I suspect, if I may say so, that the programme is very good because the Royal Marines is a small unit able to deliver it, but there are many lessons to be learned.

Finally, the Royal Navy in Plymouth and Devonport, with the help of the Prime Minister, is doing an enormous amount of work on dementia, because it understands the impact on a family when personnel are abroad. We have a lot to do, and I would be interested to know when we are going to have the debate.

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, especially when he is close to finishing his speech. The issue of the particular needs of servicemen also relates to the provision of sheltered housing for homeless ex-servicemen. Will my hon. Friend reflect on whether we should follow the model, already pioneered in Catterick, of specialist provision for homeless ex-servicemen so that they can relate to each other in a way that might not be possible in other forms of sheltered housing?

[Oliver Colvile]

My hon. Friend is quite right. One organisation he may wish to talk to is Alabaré, which does a lot of work on homes for ex-servicemen and is very well regarded by the Minister for the Armed Forces, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan). We have a lot of work to do, and I look forward to the report on the armed forces covenant.

18:18

[Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to today’s debate on our armed forces and the military covenant. Our servicemen and women sacrifice so much in defence of our country, as do their families, and they continue to serve across the world, most notably at present in Afghanistan, putting their lives on the line. Even in recent weeks, some have sadly paid the ultimate sacrifice, including Corporal Channing Day of 3 Medical Regiment, about whom we have already heard. Sadly, she died alongside Corporal David O’Connor of 40 Commando Royal Marines. I understand that Corporal Day was from Newtownards in County Down. She will be terribly missed by her family and by all who knew her. Her death reminds us that no corner of the UK is untouched by terrible sadness and tragedy when our forces pay the ultimate sacrifice.

It is just a matter of days since the nation paused together to remember the fallen. From the thousands of people lining Whitehall to the events in all of our communities, it would appear that the number of people who participate in acts of remembrance is, if anything, rising.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) for reminding us about the Irishmen who served in the first world war. My great- grandfather was one of those men—he was a Royal Dublin Fusilier—and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it is extremely important for us to remember their service as part of the commemorations of the great war.

I welcome the new Minister to his post. I recognise his commitment to our forces, and I appreciate that, as a former reservist, he will have first-hand experience of some of the issues that we are discussing.

We must bear in mind that, at its heart, the armed forces covenant is first and foremost about people. Labour Members worked hard to strengthen the Bill that became the Armed Forces Act 2011. We supported the move to give legislative recognition to the covenant, and we will support the Government in seeking to enshrine it at all levels and in all departments of the public sector and, indeed, extend it further.

Today’s debate is timely, given the forthcoming publication of the Government’s first annual covenant report. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House read with interest the interim report that was published late last year. In my view, however, the Government have already done the easy bit, and the next steps will prove to be the real hard work. There is a small degree of scepticism in the services community about the enshrining of the covenant in legislation, and we must ensure that that is not just warm words, but is backed up by action.

None of us particularly wants to be in opposition, because we cannot do all the things that we would like to do, but being in opposition does not mean that we cannot do anything. I was delighted when, earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) launched the veterans interview programme, which involves a range of companies guaranteeing interviews to veterans with the skills that they seek. As Members will know, a number of different charities and organisations operate veterans employment schemes, and that variety is welcome, because we have not yet got it right.

A large number of service people will be “transitioning” in the coming years, and they will have skills and experience that we should use in business, in public service, in innovation, in problem-solving, in leadership, and in getting the job done. We need a better framework for their transition to civvy street, and we need better routes to work. Unemployment is higher among veterans than in the general population, and that should not be the case.

Earlier this month the Government announced the introduction of a kitemark for companies that support their reservist employees, and I think that it could be extended. That possibility was discussed at a recent event organised by Recruit for Spouses and sponsored by the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry). A kitemark could be awarded to companies that adopt a positive attitude to the employment of veterans, reservists and forces, spouses. If there is to be such a kitemark, it should be a badge of honour, and we should consider how to reward employers who have it. I urge the Government to consider again whether the kitemark could be taken into account in procurement decisions, because we do not agree with them that EU procurement rules would prevent that.

Some veterans, however, must deal with more pressing, urgent issues before they can even think of employment. Some of our veterans are living with extremely serious injuries. When we speak of veterans we tend to think of them as older people, but many are not very old at all, and they want to live their lives. We should ensure that if we can remove a hurdle, a worry or a barrier, we do so.

I welcome the guarantees on prosthetics that arose from the review conducted by the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). Now that he is a Minister in the MOD, he will be well placed to ensure that those guarantees are delivered. However, I urge Ministers to consider whether such guarantees could be extended to cover other types of health care provision and treatment. I should welcome any details about progress in relation to mental health services and IVF provision.

The whole point of the armed forces covenant is that no one who has served should be disadvantaged by that service, but I hope that we can also use the umbrella of the covenant to highlight examples of excellence in the way in which the forces community are treated, to raise the bar, and to end the postcode lottery method of decision making. Time and again, I hear about people leaving the forces being sent to the back of the queue for local authority housing. Someone who is leaving the forces—and many are not doing so through choice at the moment—and has been in service accommodation will need to find a new home for his or her family. It should not be the case that no local authority will take responsibility for them, or that they can only apply as homeless, or that they do not have a choice about where they can relocate.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

I am sure my hon. Friend will be as happy as I am that most of Scotland is now served by local authorities that are signed up to the community covenant. However, in Scotland that has been hindered by the Scottish Government cuts, which have been handed down to local authorities. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Scottish Government, as well as the UK Government, have a responsibility for supporting local authorities to enact the community covenant and protect our servicemen and women and their families?

[Gemma Doyle]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Unfortunately, we are continuing to see a patchwork of provision across the UK, and it is to be hoped that we can address that problem through the community covenants.

Over the last couple of months a number of cases have been highlighted in Scotland by the Daily Record. Calum Grant served in Afghanistan and Iraq with the Highlanders. He has been told he is likely to be offered a house in about nine years. Scots Guard Jason Eadie also served in Afghanistan and his son has cerebral palsy. He has been told he will wait for about 15 years for a house.

Unfortunately, the Scottish Government are sitting on their hands. They say they have issued guidance to local authorities and it is now up to them to sort it out. The Scottish Government housing Minister is also the veterans Minister, however, so he can no doubt arrange a meeting with himself to sort out a solution. He has said that

“the housing needs of those who have served in the forces should be considered sympathetically by local authorities. It is the responsibility of”

councils to ensure that families

“have all their options explained.”

However, knowing what their options are and being listened to sympathetically does not get families a house. It is not good enough to pass the buck to local authorities.

I read the evidence the Defence Minister gave to the Welsh Affairs Committee recently and I am concerned that he may share the Scotland veterans Minister’s view, because he said he wanted veterans to be given “the maximum possible consideration” by local authorities in respect of housing priority. Again, however, consideration does not necessarily get people a house. I say to him and the Scottish housing Minister that we need a framework that all local authorities and housing associations can sign up to. It has to be a framework that is stronger than just giving consideration to, or listening sympathetically to, veterans.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

rose—

[Gemma Doyle]

I am very sorry, but I am not going to give way as I am conscious that other Members still want to speak.

Clearly, Northern Ireland faces particular challenges in taking the covenant forward, as Members have made clear today. I hope that a solution can be found.

The British public have given generously over the years, and have supported a vibrant and varied armed forces charitable sector, which not only provides services but pushes all of us in this Chamber to do better by the service community. Its role is invaluable, but it is not a substitute for Government action, and it should not be taken for granted.

The Minister and I attended the recent COBSEO—Confederation of British Service and Ex-Service Organisations—annual general meeting. He was in the hot seat, and I was in the cheap seats at the back. I am sure he will recall questions about the fund which has been drawn from bankers’ fines, for which charities have been invited to bid. I welcome that fund, but there were concerns about its administration, in that charities have, perhaps, not been given sufficient notice to make applications. Some guidance on and criteria for applications would be welcome.

Our armed forces consistently go above and beyond the call of duty, making great sacrifices in the defence of our country. We will never be able to thank them enough for what they do. A career in the forces is a career like no other: it asks for so much, not only from those serving, but from their families as well. The covenant challenges all of us to ensure our forces, veterans and forces’ families do not face disadvantage because of their service. They deserve the best from us, and it is the job of all of us to make sure they get it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The wind-ups are going to start at 6.40 pm. Three Members remain to speak, so if they take just under four minutes each everybody will get in. If they take interventions, I really should ignore any injury time.

18:29

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

It is not long ago that people taking a stroll around the pubs in Westminster or elsewhere in the country would often see posters saying that members of the armed forces were not welcome to drink there. As a country, we have undergone a massive cultural change in our level of appreciation of our armed forces and how we show it. We hope that the armed forces covenant will take things to a new level, and it is tremendously important that this is led by the Government and local authorities.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

On 18 July, Lyndon Chatting-Walters of 9 Parachute Squadron, Royal Engineers was blown up in Afghanistan and came home with serious injuries. While he was still very ill and at home having them dealt with, he had to sign a form for compensation, and that is now being used to reduce his compensation package. He is seriously ill, and we need to deal with this situation.

[Penny Mordaunt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was going to make five brief points to the Minister about what he should be focusing on as he develops the covenant, and the role of Service Complaints Commissioner was top of the list. It is a unique position. The person has tremendous knowledge and expertise, yet they were not involved in developing the armed forces covenant and they are not involved in the writing of the annual report. It would be tremendously helpful if the Minister could rectify that.

Secondly, I was going to mention the integration between civilian services and services in the armed forces, where health care tops the list of areas that need to be examined. Thirdly, the covenant is really a call to arms. It is a call for good ideas to be brought forward and acted on, so will the Minister ensure that he has enough resources and capacity to be able to examine them and implement them? Fourthly, a lot of money is being put into all kinds of organisations that provide services and support to our armed forces, in part because of the kind of operations we are undertaking at the moment. That might not be the case in the future, so I urge all Departments to take a long-term view of how they plan to upkeep those rehabilitation services when there is less money coming in.

Finally, I ask the Minister to examine the low-level issues as well as the headlines. We have had wonderful, long overdue announcements under the covenant in areas such as education and in vitro fertilisation, but we need to address the downright boring stuff that will make a great difference to men and women in our armed forces, for example, getting their joint personnel administration accounts to work and getting the shower fixed when they are overseas. I urge him to examine those issues and not let up on reforms in that area. I also just wish to say that I am delighted that he is at the helm, and I think that great things can be done under this initiative.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you for your brevity. I call Jim Shannon.

18:32

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to say a few words, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) on bringing this matter to the House and on setting the scene clearly for us all. I am proud to stand here today beside my fellow British men and British women to say a big thank you to all those who put their lives, their mental health and their physical health at risk every day.

My constituency was devastated recently by the news of the loss of young Channing Day in Afghanistan. She was a courageous and heroic young lady who gave much. My right hon. Friend and I were both at a dinner in London when we heard the news filtering through that night, and it came as a shock to everyone there. I was shocked to the very pit of my stomach. Many of us were shocked to learn that someone who came from a place not 10 minutes away from my office would never be home in physical body again. The community of Comber turned out in great numbers at the Royal British Legion service on the Saturday before the service that the Minister of State attended in Comber church, and it was a very poignant occasion. All the RBL remembrance services in my area served as a particular reminder, because not too far away was a young lady who gave her life. The Army quickly stepped in to provide the assistance necessary to help the family—to bring them over to receive Channing’s remains when they came home and to come to Comber. The funeral was an occasion of some poignancy and tears for all of us. Those are things that we remember.

Let me make a couple of very quick points. About a month ago, we had a coffee morning in my office for SSAFA—the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association—which raised some £3,600. We have raised £14,000 over four years. That is only a drop in the ocean when it comes to what is necessary, but it underlines the fact that a great number of charities, including SSAFA, ABF and the Royal British Legion, are all doing their best to ensure that the opportunities are open to everyone when it comes to ensuring that people have the chance to receive the help that they need.

I am very privileged to come from an area where people join the armed forces—it is not just an exception, but an everyday part of my life. In my office alone, my secretary’s nephew and my researcher’s friend and husband are serving Queen and country. That is three people out of my office and shows the service from the area. I am proud to stand in the Chamber on behalf of the people of my constituency of Strangford and the service they give across the whole world. It is true to say that wherever a person goes in the world, they will find a soldier from Northern Ireland either fighting a battle or cleaning up afterwards. Wherever I have been in the world with the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I have met soldiers from my constituency who are doing just that—giving a great service across the world.

I have also been an avid supporter of the British Legion’s “Honour the Covenant” campaign, which we should all support. I believe that there have been many changes in how the MOD and the Government treat our returning soldiers. As many Members have said, we need to consider their mental health, but there is also a physical aspect to the question. With growing numbers of injured personnel coming home from Afghanistan, there is an immediate need for a dedicated strategy on care for them and their families. They need to know what they are coming home to and we should be providing that strategy.

Finally, whenever I meet servicemen, they say to me that they will give all they have if we will take care of those they love back home. We have a responsibility to the families, too, and we should and must act on that. I think of this comment: they offer their tomorrows so that we can have our today. Let us honour that and honour the covenant, and let us enshrine it from these green Benches so that it covers each and every corner of the United Kingdom.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Mr Weir, who should finish no later than 6.40 pm.

18:36

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I am glad to be able to make a brief contribution to this important debate. I fully support the motion. I would have preferred it of it had it referred to “nations and regions”, but we will not fall out over that.

Scotland has a long military tradition, of course, and Scottish soldiers, sailors and airmen and women have served and continue to serve with distinction and courage. They are justly proud of their reputation as among the best in the world. They, their families and veterans are an integral part of Scottish society and their local communities. I represent 45 Commando, based in RM Condor by Arbroath. Many personnel have married locally and settled in the area after leaving the service. Recently, the unit raised a lot of funding, much of it locally, to provide the Woodlands memorial garden to commemorate those who have fallen in conflict, from Northern Ireland and the Falklands to Iraq and Afghanistan. It not only remembers them but provides an opportunity for all those who have served to have a quiet place for reflection, as well as providing a place for children to play. It reminds us that not only those who serve but the families are important. Those families are often left behind, worrying about those who are in the services, whether they are in Afghanistan or elsewhere..

Many of the services required by the military covenant are devolved in Scotland, including health, education and housing, and are the responsibility of the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government are committed to the armed forces covenant and to ensuring that no member of the armed services, service family member or veteran in Scotland faces disadvantage when accessing services or support. We have a veterans Minister, Keith Brown, who is a former Royal Marine from 45 Commando who served in the Falklands war. We have published a paper, “Our Commitments”, which sets out the Scottish Government’s support for the armed forces community in Scotland and has been widely welcomed, including by the head of veterans services at the MOD’s service personnel and veterans agency.

I want to address one specific point. I was very disappointed that the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) made a ridiculous political attack on housing, because that is an important issue for veterans and servicemen. The Scottish Government have introduced legislation to ensure that service people’s local connections are taken into account when they leave, which is something that Labour never did in its eight years in power although it was Labour that introduced the original legislation. We do not have a stock of housing we can just pull out of a hat and give to anyone who comes along—there is a serious difficulty, irrespective of what the covenant says, with the supply of social housing.

Too often in the past, service people have been told that they have no local connection because they have moved around a lot, and their local connection is in an area where perhaps they have not been for many years, as a result of their service. The Scottish Government have ensured that they are treated as having a local connection; they will be considered for social housing. However, there is not enough social housing, because successive Governments—Labour in particular—failed to build social housing when they had the chance. The Scottish Government are now building new social housing to deal with the lack that there has been for so long. I think it is appalling—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We must begin the wind-ups. Mr Paisley.

18:40

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

This has been a wonderful debate. We have seen a very good response from across the Chamber, and it has provided people from every arc and part of this kingdom with an opportunity to come here and voice the issues that are of concern to them about veterans and their needs, and about how we, as a Parliament and as a nation, should treat them. It really has been a tribute to our armed service personnel. I hope I speak for everyone when I say that it is Parliament expressing the high esteem in which we hold our veterans and our armed service personnel.

Soldiers have been ambassadors for Northern Ireland. As one Member mentioned, when those soldiers who came from the mainland and served in Northern Ireland got to meet the ordinary folk—the people who supported them, the people who welcomed them, the people who knew that they were there to protect their life and their property—they became ambassadors for those people when they returned home to their families. Likewise, soldiers who have travelled from Northern Ireland, who have been recruited in Ulster and worked for the British Army overseas, have been ambassadors for our country, and have told great things about it. Of course, as my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has just recited, many have paid the ultimate sacrifice for being the ambassadors of our nation. It is for that reason that we should do all that we can as a Parliament to help them, and to assist their families, and to ensure that the military covenant is honoured not just in spirit but in the letter of the law in every part of the United Kingdom, not just some parts of it.

When my colleague and right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) opened the debate, he said how such service has affected not just people in the United Kingdom but people in the Republic of the Ireland. We welcome the efforts that were made by the then Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, to establish a memorial garden to the fallen victims of world war one who had volunteered to fight for Crown and country and should have been honoured but were treated so disgracefully.

But what gets me is the fact that before this debate, we had a previous debate, with pious tones about leadership, about what we should do for our country, how we should stand up and be together; and as soon as the debate on the military covenant started, I was caught in the breeze as the three SDLP Members were hurtling out of the door so fast they nearly took the hinges off it. I think that is a disgrace. I think they should have been here, and they should have debated this issue and felt comfortable debating this issue. The fact that they made themselves absent makes it all the worse for them, because they have let down many people in Northern Ireland tonight, whom they should have been speaking for and should have been supporting.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley rightly indicated that section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is a great impediment to many of the proposals that we seek to introduce, especially in housing. I would like it if, when a former soldier presents himself or herself to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, he or she would automatically get 200 or 300 points on the list; in other words, they could choose where to live. They will never be able to live in certain parts of Ulster, so they should have the advantage of being given extra points right away to be housed. They do not get that; we need that sorted out. I know that the Minister is listening to that, because we have spoken about it before, and it is crucial.

In addition, the children of a former soldier should be able to get into the right primary school, where the parents know they will be safe. If a person has a roof over their head, and feels that their children are safe and free from fear, that person will be a better person in society. We need to do all we can to bring that about.

I was delighted by the comments by the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). We will give him room, between now and, I think, 12 December, when we meet the Prime Minister, to iron out some of the issues, because he is right: not everyone does support the agenda that we have set before the House tonight. Let us use the time, so that when we get to 12 December we have an agenda that is not only agreed but can be taken forward and implemented. I hope that we can do so.

The Minister mentioned the 170 Victoria Crosses awarded to Irishmen in the service of our country. One hailed from my constituency—Robert Quigg, from Bushmills. He was a brave and gallant man—a shepherd—who laid his life on the line during the battle of the Somme and rescued 16 people, I believe, from no man’s land close to enemy lines. What a gallant soldier and what an inspiration to local people in the community, where he is still hailed with wonder.

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) talked about how the Green Howards are being disbanded. He is right to question and challenge that decision, as was the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), who highlighted the difficulty for veterans in Northern Ireland who have to live next door to people who would previously have had them on their hit list. He is right to say that, very soon, a wave of such cases will come before us which we as a nation will have to deal with, and deal with appropriately.

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), with his lovely Welsh lilt, as usual entertained the House with everything from an apt reference to David Lloyd George’s speech after the war about the “broken men” to the project he is launching on banking services. I think that is a great idea, and we will watch with interest to see whether there are components that we can pick up and run with, not only in Ulster but in other places, I am sure. The military covenant should be something that emboldens people to be creative and to find opportunities to deliver other services.

I will leave the right hon. Gentleman to his dispute with the former Minister, but I think we all agree that we want more money in the system for our veterans. On that point, the Defence Minister reassured us in an intervention that the data protection and patient consent issue is now nearly sorted out. That is really good progress, because I know that that issue has caused some angst across the House.

I pay tribute to all the right hon. and hon. Members who took the time to come to this House this evening to speak about a subject of national importance, which we are proud to have put on the Order Paper so that our national Parliament could debate it. I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), a colleague of mine on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, on his powerful speech. He has shown a keen interest in our servicemen in Northern Ireland.

I end by echoing the words of the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle), who from the Dispatch Box said that no part of the United Kingdom is untouched by the effects of this issue. She got it in one: no part of this kingdom is untouched, whether it be Ulster, Scotland, Wales or the mainland of England. We are not untouched and we must make sure that we respond with valour, with decency and with honour for those people we hold in such high esteem.

18:47

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mike Penning)]

It is a privilege to wind up the second of this afternoon’s debates. Those who were not here for the first might be quite surprised that a Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office is winding up a debate on the military covenant. I will explain why in a moment, but first I want to say that I think this has been an excellent debate, although it is a shame it deteriorated a little into party politics. I do not think the military covenant should be about that. It is not about how difficult things are in certain parts of the country; how we do it is the most important thing for our veterans.

The reason why a Northern Ireland Minister is replying to the debate is that the Democratic Unionist party, led by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), has used its time this afternoon to discuss the military covenant in relation to Northern Ireland in particular. Perhaps the next time we debate the covenant, we will have a bit more time and be able to discuss the really pressing issues, but I think we can move on.

That 11 speeches were made in the short time allowed for the debate on the military covenant demonstrates the importance of its effects on our constituencies, no matter what part of the United Kingdom we represent. Listening to the debate, I have been proud to hear how representatives of our country who are not from the United Kingdom have also been honoured. I refer in particular to those from the Irish Republic. It is important that we recognise the dedication they have shown to Her Majesty’s armed forces.

The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) is not in her place, but in the previous debate she said that she was born in 1971. I joined the Army as a boy soldier in 1974, which makes me feel extremely old. I did my basic training at Pirbright, where the Household Division trained together. Two young lads there were 16 years of age, like me, and from Ireland—one from Belfast, the other from Dublin. They were clearly from a different religious background and culturally they were very different. They were the toughest two soldiers in the whole of that Brigade Squad. One of them went on to become the company sergeant-major of the Irish Guards boys unit. He was from Dublin and I think he served for nearly 22 years. He was as tough as boots and as proud as punch of being an Irishman and from the south. He served his country, just as others do today, in the way that we would expect of any members of our armed forces.

Some of my hon. Friends have drifted away to other duties, but I joined as a junior guardsman and left as a junior guardsman before re-enlisting as a private in the Royal Army Medical Corps to try to keep my para pay. That did not last very long, so I left as a private. It was particularly moving for me to attend the funeral of Corporal Channing Day and wear the RAMC tie, which I am also wearing today.

The medics are an amazing group of people. During my time in the military they were developing techniques at great risk, literally on the front line. One of our servicemen had been blown up and a young man did a tracheotomy on him by putting a Bic pen straight into the front of his throat. He knew that, otherwise, that man would die. Our medics were not allowed to do tracheotomies, so he took a huge risk: either that person would die, or he would take the punishment. The guy lived and tracheotomy has moved on, particularly with front-line medics.

When I was a shadow Health Minister, I had the privilege of visiting Camp Bastion and seeing mainly NHS medics working on the front-line as Territorials. Much of the skill in our A and E and major trauma units today is a result of the work of our medics out there. Frankly, any soldier or serviceman from any part of the armed forces anywhere in the world will say that being a battlefield medic, which is what Corporal Day was, is one of the most important jobs and that they need them by their side.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Penning]

I would like to make progress, if I may. The hon. Gentleman sat with me at the church. One of the most moving things is that Corporal Day’s father is a veteran of the Royal Pioneer Corps. She desperately wanted to be an engineer, but she was too short and became a battlefield medic instead, and thank goodness that she did.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister’s comments are very kind. It was a poignant occasion for us all. Camp Bastion has the best care in the world—it has saved the lives of servicemen who have lost three limbs. Does the Minister agree that that is an indication not just of the good work that our medical services do, but of that of the medics on the field of battle as well?

[Mike Penning]

That is a very important intervention. The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), has just whispered in my ear that 98%—I knew that the figure was good—of casualties who go into Camp Bastion field hospital alive come out alive. That is amazing and reflects the poignancy of part of this evening’s debate. People with physical and major trauma injuries are surviving today who would never have survived in the old days—sadly, we would have lost them many years ago. That means that our role when they come home is very important. An awful lot of the injured stay in the armed forces—a lot more than when I served—but many still leave.

Those are the visible signs and we need to do everything we can for them, and the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes and other units and benevolent funds are doing fantastic work. I completely agree that it will be really difficult when we come home from Afghanistan. That is true. When we come home from Afghanistan or from ops, donations to the Legion and Help for Heroes, which started during Iraq and Afghanistan, will drop. That is why it is so important that we get the money in now. The Government can do a lot, but those wonderful charities do an enormous amount of work.

When I was at the Department for Transport, I sat on the military covenant committee chaired by the Prime Minister. I am proud to have been re-appointed to that committee as the Minister of State for Northern Ireland. It is very important that the voice of Northern Ireland is heard on that committee. The Minister for Housing also sits on the committee. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) spoke about housing benefit. We know about that issue and the committee is working on how the benefit structure works. I, too, look forward to seeing the report when it comes out before Christmas.

I will now touch on Northern Ireland and, in particular, the conflicting legislation. Rather than looking at why it is preventing us from doing things for veterans and their families, we should consider how we can move forward. It would be a good idea to consider that between now and the meeting with the Prime Minister on 12 December.

[Jim Shannon]

It is on the 19th.

[Mike Penning]

Sorry, the 19th. I expect that it is being moved in my diary as we speak, as I hope to be at the meeting.

My one concern is that we must not be too prescriptive. As the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said, a veteran might be living next door to someone who disagrees fundamentally with their serving in the armed forces. It is not as simple as turning up and saying, “I should be rehoused because I am a veteran.” In Northern Ireland, the situation is very difficult. In many cases, we might not want people to know that somebody is ex-service, where they are coming from or where they live, particularly if they come from the nationalist side. I have met many nationalist young people who have served in the armed forces. We have to be really careful not to make the situation worse for them while we are trying to make it better.

[Mr Donaldson]

I take entirely the point that the Minister is making, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) made it clear that we understand it. On the legislation, we are simply trying to create an enabling environment—not something prescriptive—in which we can do the things that we both want to do.

[Mike Penning]

I agree completely. That is exactly what we need to do. If we can do that, it will be excellent. However, there may still be circumstances in which we need to be very careful about how we proceed.

I raised this issue with the brigadier in charge of 38 (Irish) Brigade at Corporal Day’s funeral, which was the earliest opportunity I had to do so. He said that in the interim, and even afterwards, Members should come to see him or me if they have constituency cases in Northern Ireland of the issues that have been raised. The rapport that the brigadier and his staff have with a lot of local authorities, which can be difficult in this sort of thing, is actually very good. What they say publicly sometimes differs from what they say privately, so we can address many of these issues.

The Defence Minister will write to Members about many other questions that have been raised, but I will deal with one matter of which I am very conscious. I have lots of friends who served in the Falklands. One of my closest friends is Simon Weston, who has done unbelievable things for charity since he suffered his horrific injuries in the Falklands. He tells me all the time that mental health issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder—the percentages do not really matter—rarely show themselves early on, but become apparent later down the line. The difficulty is how we get people to address such problems. Very often, people do not know that they have them. If they do, they often do not want to tell people how they feel because they are very proud people who have served their country. I experienced that when I was in the fire service. I knew many guys who were really struggling with what they had seen over their 15 or 20 years of service. We have to give such people the opportunities to come forward, or have the expertise available for them from the various organisations.

I have to sit down now. This has been an important debate and I am sorry if anybody is disappointed that it was a Northern Ireland Minister who summed up.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House acknowledges the service and sacrifice of the United Kingdom’s armed forces and veterans and supports the full implementation of the military covenant in each region of the United Kingdom.

Business without Debate

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

Groceries code adjudicator bill [lords] (programme0 (no.2)

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)).

That the Order of 19 November 2012 (Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords] (Programme)) be varied as follows: In paragraph 2 (conclusion of proceedings in Public Bill Committee), for “Thursday 6 December”, substitute “Tuesday 18 December”.—(Nicky Morgan.)

Question agreed to.

European union documents

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

EU Co-Financing for Actions in the Field of Asylum and Immigration

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 14123/12, a draft decision of the European Parliament and Council amending decision No. 573/2007/EC, decision No. 575/2007/EC and Council decision 2007/435/EC with a view to increasing the co-financing rate of the European Refugee Fund, the European Return Fund and the European Fund for the Integration of Third Country Nationals as regards certain provisions relating to financial management for certain member states experiencing or threatened with serious financial difficulties with respect to their financial stability; notes that the draft decision would be subject to the UK’s opt-in; notes that the draft decision may increase the ability of certain member states, including Greece, to fully utilise solidarity funds, which have been severely impacted by the ongoing economic crisis; further notes that the Greek-Turkish border is the entry point for more than half of all illegal migrants to the EU, and many of these migrants travel onwards to the UK; agrees that the UK has an interest in seeing an improved response to migratory pressures in Greece, and that the effective use of solidarity funds can play an integral part in this improvement; and supports the Government’s view that this draft proposal would also provide benefit to Ireland with whom the UK has a shared border.—(Nicky Morgan.)

Question agreed to.

Petitions

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

19:00

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The petition states:

To the House of Commons,

The Petition of members of the National League of the Blind and Disabled and of residents of Teesside,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that the Welfare Reform Act and the abolition of the Disability Living Allowance will adversely affect disabled people, including disabled workers at Ayresome Industries on Teesside. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to review and reverse welfare reform and cuts to service that disproportionately hit disabled people.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001135]

19:01

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

In advance of the debate tomorrow, I received a petition from residents of the United Kingdom. The original petition organised by the British Heart Foundation received 124,665 signatures.

The petition states:

The Petition from residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that knowing how to stop bleeding, open an airway or perform CPR is an essential part of a young person’s education; and the Government should take steps to ensure that there is a new generation of life savers across the UK.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make emergency life support skills a part of the curriculum to be taught in all schools

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001136]

0845 Phone Lines (DWP)

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Nicky Morgan.)

19:02

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

Some of the most important matters that MPs discuss in Parliament start with concerns that are raised with us by constituents, as is the case with this debate. People are routinely placed on hold for half an hour when calling the local jobcentre, or they are charged £40 in a single month for the cost of calls to Departments, when they simply try to report a change in circumstances. Such bills are run up because, as I established through freedom of information requests and parliamentary answers, the Department for Work and Pensions has 148 separate phone lines all using 0845 numbers that can cost up to 10p per minute from a landline and 41p per minute from mobile phones.

People who need to call those numbers are usually on a fixed, low income. They are elderly, vulnerable or unwell, and they are being charged rip-off rates to sort out problems or simply get information about sickness and disability benefits, carers support, jobs, pensions, child support, and even crisis loans.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the best way would be not to charge at all for such phone lines, which are used by the elderly, single parents, those on low incomes and those in poverty?

[John Healey]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for my argument. He is right that thousands of people in his constituency, in mine and in the Minister’s will be affected by those premium-rate lines and the rip-off call charges that people can suffer. The cost of the call takes a big chunk out of already stretched budgets. That can put people off making calls to get the help they need.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Healey]

I was not aware of the hon. Gentleman’s interest in the debate beforehand, but I will of course give way.

[Henry Smith]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will know from his time as shadow Health Secretary, which was more than a year ago, that phone lines are a problem not only for the Department for Work and Pensions, but for the health service. Contrary to Department of Health advice, many general practitioner services still have 0845 numbers. Surely the solution is to use geographical or 0300 numbers.

[John Healey]

I am glad I gave way and welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He is right, because guidance was issued in 2009—regulations were put in place in 2010, but they have not been enforced.

If it gives the hon. Gentleman any comfort, I ran a campaign in my local area because GP surgeries in Barnsley and Rotherham were using 0845 numbers for people who wanted access to the surgery. I am happy to say that all 16 of those using the numbers in Barnsley have switched to the landlines that the hon. Gentleman advocates, as have 22 out of the 24 GP centres using the numbers in Rotherham. I should tell the Minister, as the hon. Gentleman has, that change is possible and can be done. It requires the will of the Department for Work and Pensions, just as it does the will of the Department of Health and the NHS.

On calls to the Department for Work and Pensions, Mr Roger Clark of Goldthorpe put it to me like this:

“We cannot afford to do this out of our benefits with the cost of gas, electricity, water, food and fuel being so expensive”.

Quite simply, the Department is hitting the people that it is there to help. The situation is getting more serious. Many people now rely on mobiles. One in six people live in homes without landlines. Ninety-two per cent. of adults have a mobile phone, and the number is increasing.

The Secretary of State told me in writing in the summer:

“Jobcentre Plus is subject to the Department’s telephony numbering policy, which is that all calls should be free to our 0800 numbers to claim…State pension…Pension credit…Jobseekers allowance…Employment and support allowance…Emergency payments or crisis loans.”

That is correct, but it is misleading. Those are a small minority of dedicated DWP phone lines. As the Minister confirmed in a parliamentary answer last month, fully 87% of the Department’s phone lines use the 0845 number, including the disability living allowance and attendance allowance helplines; Jobseeker Direct, which helps people to find or make an appointment with Jobcentre Plus; all local jobcentres; Employment Direct, which is used for advertising jobs; the social fund; the winter fuel helpline; and the child maintenance line. The list goes on, and time is limited. In other words, people can pay up to 41p a minute in phone call charges for almost all inquiries to check the progress of applications, to ask for information and advice, to report a mistake or change in circumstances, and to make claims for some benefits and other support payments.

The other day, someone locally who helps others to deal with the problems they face in the benefits and tax credits system said:

“I called the Jobcentre and tax credit office last week for a lady only to find after looking at her itemised”

telephone

“bill it had cost her £4.55; and this was only the calls that could be checked as calls under 50p are not itemised.”

She added:

“To someone in this lady’s position as a single mum this is the equivalent of her daily food bill.”

This is not just a problem of call rates. We have an excellent welfare rights service, run by Rotherham district council. Staff there told me of a client this week who needed to check on the progress of her employment and support allowance claim. She has debts, as well as mental health difficulties. The advice worker said that

“she needed a great deal of encouragement from the adviser just to use the phone and she simply couldn’t afford to call the DWP. So she used the office landline, and the length of the two calls was over 30 minutes before she was then told she’d have to call back another time, as all the staff were busy.”

There are almost 8,000 people on jobseeker’s allowance in Barnsley, nearly 9,000 in Rotherham, and more than 45,000 across south Yorkshire. A further 38,000 across south Yorkshire receive income support and 37,000 get incapacity benefit. This is a scandal on a massive scale. The Department’s response to my FOI request showed that well over 30 million people call just seven of the DWP’s most commonly used inquiry lines each year—never mind the 141 other lines.

These 0845 numbers are formally called number translation services. The NTS is dialled by a caller and is diverted to its destination. This process can include features such as distributing calls between multiple sites, routeing calls according to the caller’s location and, of course, transmitting recorded announcements. But the key feature of these number translation services is that the call revenue from the customer can be—and normally is—shared between the telecoms company and the organisation receiving the call, the former receiving the access charge component and the latter receiving the service charge or the termination rate as it is known.

The Minister is relatively new to his brief, but the Government have had plenty of notice about the problems with the 0845 numbers. Back in 2006, Ofcom said:

“Ofcom continues to recommend that public bodies should not use NTS numbers exclusively…especially when dealing with people on low incomes or other vulnerable groups. The new 03 country-wide numbers, proposed as part of Ofcom’s Numbering Review, would be well suited to the needs of many public bodies currently using chargeable 08 numbers.”

Those 03 numbers were introduced the following year, and Ofcom recommends the use of these numbers, which provide the same additional functionality as 08 numbers but are priced the same as a geographic numbers and—crucially—have no revenue sharing.

The long-standing campaigner and expert David Hickson and the fair telecoms campaign take the same view—that 03 numbers are

“a perfectly acceptable option for normal engagement between citizens and public bodies”.

I go further, and Ministers make three arguments in response to my challenge. First they say that the DWP will ring people back, but too many constituents tell me that this is not offered and does not happen. The FOI figures I have show that hundreds of thousands of callers each week give up on getting through after being kept on hold and charged. More than one in three calls to the employment and support allowance helpline are abandoned before they are answered, but on average more than five minutes after they have been connected. Callers to the incapacity benefit reassessment line wait nearly 13 minutes without being answered before they hang up.

Secondly, Ministers say that there are customer access phones in most—but not all—jobcentres. Let me again quote from a constituent in Goldthorpe in Dearne who says that

“in my case the jobcentre at Goldthorpe the phone is in the corner where everybody who goes in to the office can overhear your conversations not in a sound proof booth so your conversations cannot be overheard.”

Frankly, people are having to give very private, personal and financial information through these phone lines. It is not acceptable to say, “There are these phones in the Jobcentre Plus office in the public space.”

Thirdly, the Department says that it does not benefit from the premium rate charges that people have to pay to ring it, but someone is making money from these calls. If the Government are not sharing the extra revenue and are letting the telecoms companies keep all the extra charges, the 0845 numbers are not just a bad deal for benefits claimants, but for the taxpayer.

Change is possible. I mentioned the changes to GP surgeries and the approach of the Department of Health and the NHS. The Minister might also care to look at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, because it ended a consultation on implementing the consumer rights directive, which was agreed by all member states in the EU last year. This will

“prohibit excessive phone charges for consumers contacting traders about existing contracts.”

In other words, all post-contract customer helplines will have to charge the consumer no more than the basic rate for a telephone call. According to the Department, the intention is

“that traders should not use high charges to deter existing customers with legitimate queries, complaints or cancellation requests from contacting them nor derive revenue benefit from such contacts”.

The parallels are clear; the lessons are clear. I hope the Minister and his colleagues in the DWP will learn those lessons. Because things are poised to get much worse now is the time for him to act. I fear that there could be an explosion of inquiries and problems for people because of the current turmoil in the benefit system at the very time the Government are cutting face-to-face service staff and forcing people to use phones instead. The combination of sudden cuts in benefits payments, delays in decisions and the introduction of universal credit next year could lead to chaos and much higher costs for those making calls.

What should the Minister do? Responsibility for running an efficient and equitable system of benefit support lies with the Government. I see contact centres and phone lines for access as part of the running costs of government. Therefore, there is a strong, principled case for making free the phone access that people need if they are to claim and to continue to receive their benefits, tax credits, pensions or child support. I want the Government to make these changes.

After all, the Department makes calls free with the 0800 numbers for new claims for some benefits. With the Ofcom changes to come in shortly, that will apply to all mobile calls, not just landline calls. As a minimum, all lines for all dealings with the DWP should be switched to 03 numbers, so that the cost is never more than calls to a 01 or a 02 number, and they must be part of any inclusive discount schemes in the same way. These numbers were launched five years ago for Government, public bodies, charities and not-for-profit organisations to use. Ofcom has reserved 0345 numbers for each of the equivalent 0845 numbers, so that the switch could be made with minimum cost and minimum confusion.

Finally, I called this debate to expose the extent of the rip-off rates that many of the poorest, most distressed and highly vulnerable are paying to get the welfare support to which they are entitled. I leave the last words to a local man from Barnsley who said:

“You haven’t the money to pay to phone these numbers, and yet you have to phone them. It’s a poor person’s trap.”

It is unfair and unjustifiable, and it must change.

19:20

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Hoban)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) on securing this debate. He focused most of his remarks on 0845 numbers, but they are not the only numbers the Department uses. As I explain, I will give a more balanced picture of the telephone situation than the one he gave in what I thought was a selective presentation of the information.

The Department has set out clear principles for the provision of telephone services. Indeed, they were set out when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the previous Government in 2008. There are four clear principles. First, calls to claim benefits should be free to the customer. Secondly, there should be a consistent approach across the Department, both for clarity and equity. Thirdly, the approach should make sense from the customer’s point of view, rather than being driven by product lines or organisational structure. Fourthly, it must be sustainable in terms of future business models and changes in the telephony market.

To enact those principles, calls to claim benefit are free and utilise 0800 numbers. The right hon. Gentleman said that crisis loan calls were not free, but they are. Other calls that typically take less time to resolve are made to 0845 numbers. Their use means that the customer is charged the same amount regardless of their geographical location or that of the DWP office they are calling. The exact cost will vary depending on the caller’s phone number and the service provider. I will give more detail on that later.

The Department provides customers with a facility to make a free telephone call to claim the state pension, pension credit, jobseeker’s allowance, employment and support allowance, crisis loans and other emergency payments. These calls are free of charge from all major landline providers. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the Ofcom changes making it free to call these numbers from a mobile. The Department has already made that change. As a result, eight of the UK’s largest mobile phone operators—O₂, Orange, Vodafone, T-Mobile, Hutchison 3G, Tesco Mobile, Virgin Mobile and Cable and Wireless—allow their customers to make those calls for free already.

The Department uses 0800 and 0845 numbers, rather than the geographical 01 and 02 numbers, to enable the operation of a virtual telephony network across the UK. This network has been in place for working-age benefits and crisis loans since 2008, and allows callers to be directed to the next available adviser with the appropriate skills to answer a customer’s inquiry. For example, someone ringing from their home in Rotherham or Barnsley to make a claim for jobseeker’s allowance might be connected to an adviser in Dundee, Derby or Poole. They will be directed to the first adviser available, rather than left hanging on the telephone waiting for the call to be answered in their local benefit or contact centre. Furthermore, should that person wish to make an inquiry about their benefits later on, that call would be answered by the first available adviser in a centre, wherever that centre might be, rather than left waiting for someone in their local centre to answer.

The use of these numbers gives the Department the flexibility to manage the peaks and troughs of the different types of inquiries it receives nationally. Calls can be routed to additional centres, as and when volumes require, and advisers are trained to handle more than one type of inquiry. This method of handling customer calls has proved to be much more efficient than the previous system, under which calls were directed to specific offices without the facility to reroute them to meet customer demands. It is designed to help facilitate and speed up the response to telephone calls. The use of geographic numbers would undermine the ability of the business to manage effectively the significant volume of calls received each year, and would result in a less efficient process.

Let me deal with the issue of costs. Charges for 0845 numbers vary depending on the service provider, personal contract and time of day a call is made. As a result, the costs to consumers are beyond DWP control. About 75% of calls to the DWP originate from landlines. If calls to 0845 numbers fall within the terms of a customer’s call plan, they are free. BT, the largest landline provider, charges 7.95p a minute, plus a 13.1p connection fee, where the call is made outside the inclusive plan. The right hon. Gentleman implied, without really making it explicit, that he thought the Government were benefiting from the cost of 0845 calls. We do not receive the termination payment. Other major landline providers charge between 6.63p and 10.22p a minute—also with connection charges—while the charge varies for calls from mobiles.

The right hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of 03 numbers. Depending on the service provider and the contract or call plan, many customers would currently pay more to contact the DWP if 0845 numbers were simply replaced by 03 numbers, so that would not be an easy solution to the problem. He needs to recognise that the situation is more complex than that.

[John Healey]

The caller pays the termination charge, so if the Government do not receive it, and most organisations using the service receive the access charge component, who receives the value of the termination charge?

[Mr Hoban]

The people or organisations hosting those 0845 numbers are the ones who earn the components of those calls.

Let me turn to the duration of calls. In line with the departmental principles that I outlined at the outset, calls to claim benefit should be free, because they are longer on average than calls to other numbers. For example, between April and October the average duration of calls by working-age customers to our free 0800 numbers was 25 minutes and 28 seconds, while the average duration of calls to our 0845 numbers was seven minutes and 42 seconds. We have sought to use our resources to ensure that those making the longest calls—mainly to claim benefits—can make them for free. Again, that is an important distinction that we need to recognise. Duration of calls is a factor that we have taken into account for those lines used to make claims, because there can be quite lengthy discussions between DWP claimants and call centre agents.

We have touched on the cost of 0845 calls and what would happen if we replaced them. The estimate is that replacing 0845 numbers with a free service would cost in excess of £12 million, because of changes to contracts and significant migration costs, including changes to branding and marketing. It is unlikely that mobile phone operators would agree to extend the scope of the current agreement for free mobile calls to the DWP’s 0800 numbers to cover such an increase. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the number of unemployed people in his constituency. Spending £12 million on migrating to 0800 numbers would mean £12 million less to spend on the Department’s other activities. He is a former Treasury Minister and he will know about the priorities and difficult choices that Governments have to make about where money is spent. If we spend more money on free telephone calls, someone else somewhere in the system has to bear that cost. I want to ensure that as much of our taxpayers’ money as possible is spent on getting people into work, rather than on looking at further changes to the telephony service, particularly given that the longest calls made by people claiming benefits are to freephone numbers.

The right hon. Gentleman was slightly dismissive of the mitigation measures we have put in place to help customers. We will offer to terminate a call and ring the customer back if they are concerned about the cost. That service is available, and I think it is well known. I would encourage people who are concerned about the cost to use that service.

We also provide customer access phones in Jobcentre Plus. I suspect that if they were put in a soundproof booth in the corner, the right hon. Gentleman would accuse us of hiding them from claimants. I have known him long enough to suggest that that might be a line of attack that he might take. We ensure that the phones are visible and that they can be used. As part of our strategy, we are also encouraging more people to use online facilities to seek information and guidance. We have launched a new online service for jobseekers this week, which will help to improve the quality of service. We are trying to increase the number of ways in which claimants can contact the DWP without necessarily having to use the telephone service, and as we continue to develop our digital strategy, that will become an important part of how we deliver benefits. It is also a key part of universal credit.

In conclusion, we recognise that the issue about customer waiting times is an important one. That is why we have recruited more staff and trained them on 0845 benefit inquiry lines. The working age and pensions service lines have a central network management team that can move work around the network in real time to bring a balance of service delivery on all service lines. We are also trying to improve our call answering metrics. In line with the principles set out by the previous Government, which we have followed, we have ensured that calls in which people are making claims are free, to 0800 numbers, and that customers know that there are alternatives out there if they feel that the cost of calling an 0845 number is prohibitively expensive. We are taking the right action, and we want to continue to promote such alternatives to our claimants.

Question put and agreed to.

19:31

House adjourned.

Deferred Divisions

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

Division 103

Ayes: 283

---

Conservative: 242
Liberal Democrat: 40
Independent: 1

Noes: 203

---

Labour: 187
Democratic Unionist Party: 7
Scottish National Party: 5
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 3
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1
Liberal Democrat: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Ministerial Correction

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Ministerial Corrections

Wednesday 21 November 2012

International Development

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Ministerial Corrections

Afghanistan

[Mrs Moon]

To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) how many (a) schools and (b) clinics have been financed and constructed by the UK Government in Helmand Province in Afghanistan; how many such schools and clinics (i) have been closed and (ii) she expects to close; and if she will make a statement;

(2) what discussions she has had with the Government of Afghanistan on identifying future sources of funding for schools and clinics in Helmand Province; and if she will make a statement.

[Official Report, 19 October 2012, Vol. 551, c. 472-3W.]

Letter of correction from Alan Duncan:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) on 19 October 2012.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Duncan]

UK funding through the Helmand Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) has built 11 health clinics and seven schools since 2007, with two of each currently under construction. The Helmand provincial education and health departments are responsible for the future of these facilities. They have stated that all are open and active and that they intend to maintain these services in the future.

The UK-led PRT is in regular contact with the Afghan Government, in Helmand and Kabul, to ensure that adequate funding is provided for future operation and maintenance of these services.

The correct answer should have been:

[Mr Duncan]

Twelve health facilities and 28 schools have been built, are in the process of being built or have been refurbished since 2007. The Helmand provincial education and health departments are responsible for the future of these facilities. They have stated that all are open and active and that they intend to maintain these services in the future.

The UK-led Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) is in regular contact with the Afghan Government, in Helmand and Kabul, to ensure that adequate funding is provided for future operation and maintenance of these services.

Petitions

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Petitions

Wednesday 21 November 2012

Innox Riverside development, Trowbridge

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Petitions

The Petition of residents of Trowbridge and the surrounding area of Wiltshire,

Declares that the Petitioners support the proposed “Innox Riverside” development of the “Old Bowyers” site in Trowbridge; further that the Petitioners believe that the development is needed to bring people back to Trowbridge and that the “Innox Riverside” development has received a massive amount of local support; further that the Petitioners believe that the “Innox Riverside” development promises to be an exciting family orientated leisure and residential destination with place to work, eat and relax and that it will also introduce a new civic square and landscaped green to Trowbridge.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Wiltshire council to reverse their decision to refuse planning permission for the “Innox Riverside” development in Trowbridge.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Dr Andrew Murrison.]

[P001137]

Speed limits on passenger trains

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Petitions

The Petition of residents of Oxford,

Declares that the Petitioners strongly believe that their community should not suffer the adverse effects of environmental harm that the Petitioners believe the Chiltern Railway’s Evergreen 3 project will cause due to inadequate mitigation; further that the Petitioners believe speed limits are the cheapest and most effective way to protect local residents, school children, businesses and the environment; and that the Petitioners believe that lowering the proposed speed limit of passenger trains from 75mph to 40mph would reduce noise and its adverse health effects, reduce vibration, reduce emissions, reduce running costs, reduce the risk of derailments, reduce the risk of injury to bats and reduce the inherent fear and disturbance of those living so close by.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Transport to review the speed limit on passenger trains and preserve the speed limit on freight trains for the Oxford–Bicester line between Oxford station and Water Eton Parkway.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Nicola Blackwood, Official Report, 16 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 5P.]

[P001125]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Transport:

The Secretary of State has considered the reports of the Inspector who conducted a public inquiry into the improvements to the Oxford-Bicester line proposed by Chiltern Railways as part of the Evergreen 3 Project. The Inspector examined the measures to mitigate the operational effects of the Project on local residents and the environment at both the original sessions of the inquiry held between November 2010 and January 2011, and at the reopened inquiry held between May and June 2012.

The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that it is unnecessary to impose speed limits on trains in order to mitigate the effects of the scheme. He is satisfied that adequate mitigation in respect of the noise, vibration and other environmental impacts of the scheme will be secured through the measures referred to in the Department for Transport’s letter dated 17 October 2012, in particular the planning conditions relating to operational noise and vibration. That letter, which gives the Secretary of State’s reasons for his decision to authorise the scheme, may be viewed at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/twa-20121017a/.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 21 November 2012

[Mr David Crausby in the Chair]

UK Constituent Parts (EU)

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Joseph Johnson.)

09:30

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

Good morning, Mr Crausby. It is a great pleasure to have you chairing this important debate.

The 2014 referendum on Scotland’s future is a landmark in our constitutional history, although it is extraordinary that support for the proposition is steadily declining, even before the introduction of the enabling legislation at Holyrood. The fact that it is occurring at a time of increasing volatility, at home and globally, makes the arguments for and against even more contentious. I shall return to volatility later in my remarks, but let me make one observation at the outset: we most definitely will witness in the next two years a period of relentless tricky questions. I noted at the weekend that the university of Dundee is launching a project on “5 Million Questions”, which may take us up to the end of the current century although it is certainly a worthwhile programme. The vast majority of Scots are clearly unconvinced by the proposition of separation, and will be asking many complex, multifaceted questions about the effect that such a move would have on them, their families, their communities and their nation. Ironically, however, in the Scottish Government are masters of avoiding tricky questions. In the political arts, they could win numerous plaudits for their ability to body swerve many difficult areas of policy over a sustained period. That has served them well up to now, but those days are over and, as was evidenced at the Scottish National party annual conference this year, many of its own members are in for a difficult and unsettling experience.

My colleague, Catherine Stihler, one of Scotland’s Members of the European Parliament, asked a deceptively simple question in a freedom of information request last year, but it has been explosive in its effect and deeply revealing about the lack of transparency at the very heart of the Scottish Government. Regardless of how anyone views the European Union, everyone in the Chamber today agrees that whether Scotland would automatically be an EU member if it separated from the rest of the United Kingdom, and whether it would be required to renegotiate the major terms of its membership are both key questions on which the public require clear information.

About 70% of Scotland’s exports are to other EU nations. Let us not forget that if Scotland were not part of the EU, it would probably also face renegotiating entry into the World Trade Organisation, which is responsible for setting the criteria for just about all the remaining 30% of our export markets, including our valuable whisky market.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has already made a compelling case in the first few minutes of her contribution. Will she also reflect on the fact that recent Scottish Enterprise figures show that two thirds of Scotland’s “exports” actually go to the other component parts of the United Kingdom?

[Ann McKechin]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. If Scotland were not part of the EU in a post-separation scenario, obviously its trading relationship with the rest of the UK would be in question—what criteria, tariffs and so on would be in force? Scotland’s economy relies heavily on having a stable export market, and many thousands of jobs depend on foreign trade, but the manner in which the Scottish Government have twisted and turned at every corner to avoid a clear answer as to what legal advice they had on such questions can only corrode public trust. I shall give way in the hope that the questions may be elucidated.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Lady is saying but, given the increasing Euroscepticism in the UK population and what is happening in this Parliament, how can she even be sure that the UK—with or without Scotland—will be a member of the EU in the next five to 10 years?

[Ann McKechin]

The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to know that on that issue I am united with them. The quality of our alliances and partnerships is what will allow Scotland to succeed, which is why I want to be part of a strong European Union, as much as I want to be part of a strong United Kingdom.

Let us return to the question of our status in Europe. Every time that the Scottish Government have been asked about the question of status, they have always sought to give the firm impression that continued EU membership was guaranteed and that no real material change in membership obligations would result from separation. One example of that sorry story is the interpretation of the Scottish Government ministerial code. That document was apparently altered—in a way that begs even more tricky questions—between the FOI request being made and the truth being forced out last month. Paragraph 2.35 of the code states, and I emphasise the first sentence:

“The fact that legal advice has or has not been given to the Scottish Government by the Law Officers and the content of any legal advice given by them or anyone else must not be revealed outwith the Scottish Government without the Law Officers’ prior consent. The only exception to this rule is that it is acknowledged publicly that the Law Officers have advised on the legislative competence of Government Bills introduced in the Parliament…Views given by the Law Officers in their Ministerial capacity are not subject to this restriction.”

I am grateful for the comments made by Ian Smart, the former president of the Law Society of Scotland, in a recent blog, which points out the revelation that legal advice given by “anyone else”—not the Scottish Law Officers—does not require the consent of the Law Officers; only the content of that advice must not be disclosed. Ian Smart said:

“And that is, on any view, deliberately the way the code reads for otherwise the first sentence would be the much simpler.”

The First Minister, however, in his interview on “Scotland Tonight” four weeks ago stated:

“That’s quite clear in the Ministerial code. It’s both the fact of whether it exists, and the content. I would need to clear it with the Lord Advocate if I wanted to say that I had not sought legal advice.”

That is simply not the case if we read the code accurately. Given the outcry about his remarks in the now famous TV interview with Andrew Neil back in March, we might have thought that the First Minister would have taken the opportunity to reread his own ministerial code before rushing into the TV studio. The tricky question that needs to be answered now is whether the First Minister sought legal advice from “anyone else” before that FOI request or his interview with Andrew Neil in March. If so, who was that from and what was said?

There may be some clues. On Tuesday, 30 October, the Lord Advocate wrote to Ruth Davidson, MSP. The third paragraph of that letter contains an interesting statement:

“As was made clear by the Deputy First Minister the Scottish Government has now requested specific legal advice from the Law Officers on EU membership. As you will be aware legal advice on many issues is provided by the lawyers in the Scottish Government Legal Department…but in relation to certain matters the Government will seek a legal opinion from the Law Officers. That is what is happening in relation to the matter of EU membership.”

That same afternoon, Nicola Sturgeon, the Deputy First Minister, summed up a debate on this very matter and, soon after 16.38 in the Official Report, said:

“Clearly, if ministers have sought legal advice, the law officers will provide that legal advice, so to reveal that legal advice has been sought from the law officers reveals the fact of such advice and puts us in breach of the ministerial code.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 30 October 2012; c. 12755.]

Both of those statements cannot be true, however. Catherine Stihler’s inquiry remains whether the Government have been given any legal advice, and on that point there is still deafening silence.

The First Minister and his colleagues may argue that, when they make contentions on EU membership, they are speaking about evidence from a variety of experts—“in terms of the debate” is the phrase most commonly used—but that is not the same as legal advice. They know the difference. Some of the people quoted are not lawyers; some have died; and most of the statements seem to have been made prior to the Lisbon treaty, which made fundamental changes to the European Union’s constitution. None of those represent a legal opinion, and just as many eminent people disagree with those expert opinions, including no less a person than the current EU President.

Here is one simple question the Scottish Government should clarify urgently. Have they already had legal advice from their legal directorate? It is difficult to imagine that, when the Scottish Government issued their White Paper, “Your Scotland, Your Voice: A National Conversation” in 2009, they did not run it past their own legal department. That document contains examples of ambiguous phrasing in its comments about EU membership. I draw hon. Members attention to page 110, paragraph 8.12:

“Settling the details of European Union membership would take place in parallel to independence negotiations with the United Kingdom Government”.

That phrase sounds as though it were written by a lawyer, and as I am a lawyer and a member of the Law Society of Scotland, I speak with some experience. Will the Minister confirm whether his Department has received any information about whether the legal department was consulted on that document, and whether it asked his office for advice or information about EU membership if Scotland were to separate?

That brings me back to volatility. As other hon. Members have said this morning, the EU is undoubtedly experiencing the most challenging and volatile period in its history. Its fiscal policies are under constant stress, there is significant unrest in many regions caused by massive hikes in unemployment and cuts to public services, and there are major differences of opinion in the political leadership. That is where legal opinion hits realpolitik.

Yes Scotland’s latest leaflet states without reservation:

“We can all see the one thing holding us back—we let someone else take decisions for us.”

lf the Scottish Government want our country to remain part of the EU come what may—that seems to be what the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) said—the painful truth is that other people will make decisions for us on how long the application process will take, the conditions for membership, the size of our contribution, our entry into the eurozone, and our entitlements under the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries agreement. As one small nation in 28, our negotiating position, at best, will be fairly weak.

[Mr Weir]

That is all very interesting, but has the hon. Lady bothered to listen to the news from Europe, where the Prime Minister is going to discuss the European budget? It seems that the rest of the EU is ganging up to cut the UK out of the EU, and to cut the famous rebate that everyone goes on about.

[Ann McKechin]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for proving my case about volatility and disputes in the European Union. Any union or partnership that lasts a long time has difficult phases, and this is one. He has proved my point that the negotiations will not involve simply providing a list—that is what the First Minister always seems to suggest—saying what Scotland would like and expecting people to nod and say, “That’s fine. Don’t worry. That’s okay with us.” That will not happen, and any attempt to try to prove the opposite shows the weakness of the argument.

On the national central bank and financial regulators, Croatia’s recent entry negotiations show that they are not tick-box exercises, and again there is no guarantee that other EU members would be attracted to the solution that the Scottish Government prefer at the moment of relying on another EU member to provide both important institutions, and that is if that EU member agreed to that in the first place.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. I remind her that the most recent entry to the EU, Croatia, had to satisfy stringent tests about guaranteeing bank deposits, the independence of its central bank, monetary policy and financial security. Does she see anything in any of the plans produced by the Yes Scotland campaign that deals with any of those points?

[Ann McKechin]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. It is understandable, given the financial and economic crisis that the EU has suffered over the past five years, that it would take a precautionary approach on any banking issue and financial regulation particularly. The Scottish Government’s proposals are untested. They have never been used by another EU member in the way proposed, and we have no idea how they would work, because we have received no details in response to the many questions that the Scottish Government have been asked. Apparently, we must wait until autumn 2013 for the revelation, apparently in tomes. The questions should be asked now if we want a proper analysis and expert opinion not only in our own country, but throughout the EU. We need that information now.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

As far as I know, Croatia does not have a particularly large international banking presence—I hope that I am not being unjust—but Scotland is still the headquarters not just of some UK banks, but of international banks. Does that not emphasise that in any new treaty, if Scotland were to become independent, the EU would be keen to ensure that proper regulatory arrangements were in place for the Scottish banking sector?

[Ann McKechin]

My hon. Friend has spent much of his time campaigning on financial services, because they are relevant in his constituency. He hits the nail on the head, because we have a significant financial services sector in Scotland. It is the second largest outside the City of London, and has many jobs, not just in banking, but in other financial services, such as equity markets and insurance funds. Many of the people who use those funds and many investors live not in Scotland, but in other parts of the United Kingdom.

There are many questions to be asked about the currency that will be used, and the regulations. We can take it as certain that the EU will take a precautionary approach, and will ask for those issues to be tested and examined in great detail. As yet, the Scottish Government have not produced a comprehensive document setting out the proposals. At the moment, they seem to think that the rest of the UK will continue to act as the financial regulator, but there is no guarantee that it would be tempted to do so. Why would it take on the risks and responsibility for institutions outwith its borders and over which this Parliament would have no direct control or responsibility? The UK Parliament’s risk would increase.

Given the gridlock of other membership requests, and that other EU states are much less relaxed about national referendums for secession, there is every risk that the application and negotiations could drag on with consequent risks and uncertainty to our economy and particularly our financial services. I would be interested to hear today the Foreign Office’s perspective on such a scenario. Will the Minister confirm what the legal standing of a separate Scotland would be with the World Trade Organisation if at the point of secession it was not a member of the EU? Have the Scottish Government ever asked his Department for information about that? Has there been any formal dialogue with the EU Commission on the proposal for another EU member’s central bank to be Scotland’s bank of last resort?

We have discovered in the last few weeks that the truth can be difficult to admit, but surely anyone who believes that a country’s citizens should be able to make the right choices also believes that they should be provided with full answers to those tricky questions, because they will not go away.

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

I will call the Front Bench Members at about 10.40 am. Although I am not going to impose a time limit, it would be helpful if Members kept their contributions to not much more than five minutes.

09:49

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) on securing the debate. Although it may not be a regular occurrence, I concur with a lot of what she said.

I confess that I have always been puzzled by the Scottish National party’s policy of independence in Europe, or whatever its particular slogan is at the time. Although I profoundly disagree with independence for Scotland, there is logicality in believing that Scotland should be a master of its own destiny: that it should break away from a currency, a monetary and fiscal union, and a political union, and decide matters for herself. I do not agree with that, however. I think that the union has been one of the most successful political, social and economic entities that the world has ever seen, and it would be a tragedy if Scotland split away from it. There is, however, logic in saying, “We want to be masters of our own destiny and decide policies for ourselves.”

What I find illogical is the argument that being in one union is so disadvantageous to Scotland that we should split away, destroying 300 years of shared history and experience, and then rush straight into an even bigger one. That is illogical, and I contend that in such a union, Scotland would have a far weaker influence than it currently has in the United Kingdom.

[Mr Weir]

I do not understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument. The UK is part of the European Union and has surrendered some sovereignty to joint decision making, but that is different from an encompassing political union, which some in the EU want. I presume that he is very much against that, but that is the position in which Scotland finds itself within the EU, and there is nothing illogical in seeking to get out of the United Kingdom in order to join together with other nations in the EU, to a restricted degree.

[Iain Stewart]

I am tempted to go down the path of having a debate on the wider issue of the EU’s direction—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) would be only too happy to join in—but I think I might exceed my five-minute allowance. The point is that if Scotland became an independent member of the EU—I will come on to why that will not be a straightforward process—it would be joining an ever-deepening union. I do not want the United Kingdom to be part of that, but that is what Scotland would be forced to sign up to. Under the terms of the EU treaties, all new member states are obliged to make the political and legal commitment to join the economic and monetary union, and to adopt the euro as a currency.

[Mr Weir]

That is simply not the case. Under the EU treaties, a nation has to join the exchange rate mechanism II before moving on to the euro. ERM II is voluntary, and in the case of Sweden, it has made it clear that it is not moving towards the euro, although it joined the EU later. Scotland would be in the same position. There is no obligation on Scotland to join the euro.

[Iain Stewart]

I profoundly disagree with that analysis. Sweden is obligated to join the euro once it has satisfied the economic conditions. That is the position, and I disagree profoundly with the hon. Gentleman’s position. He has said nothing that dissuades me from the view that an independent Scotland would be sucked in to a full economic and monetary union, and that would not be in Scotland’s interests.

It is far from certain that Scotland would become an automatic, independent member of the EU. There is no precedent for a current EU member state splitting up into constituent parts, with the part that broke away becoming a separate member. Therefore, we must look at what the treaty on European Union says, and article 4.2 is clear that the EU must respect the fundamental, constitutional and political structures and the territorial integrity of a member state, which has exclusive competence in such matters. The EU cannot therefore recognise a unilateral declaration of independence by part of a member state. Furthermore, according to article 49, the hypothetical new state would need to request membership and attain the unanimous support of the European Council for that request, and have its membership approved through an accession treaty, to be ratified by the Parliaments of all member states.

If one looks at the political reality of other member states in Europe, that is far from a foregone conclusion. Would Spain, for example, agree to it with its issues in Catalonia and the Basque country? Would Belgium, whose constitutional integrity is under question, agree? I do not believe that that process would be automatic. I am not suggesting that Scotland could not become an independent EU member, but I ask at what time and at what cost. Croatia’s accession to the EU has been mentioned, and that has been going on for over 10 years. Slovenia made an objection to that process, and although it was overcome, it took time.

I ask again what the cost to Scotland would be. What uncertainty would be created for business at a fragile time for the global economy? What else would she have to surrender to get membership agreed? I believe that euro membership would be inevitable. What about Scotland’s budget contribution, which is a topical issue? The SNP contends that Scotland has a budget surplus in the United Kingdom. I think that issue is far from settled, but for the purpose of the argument, let us accept that the SNP is correct and that Scotland pays more into the United Kingdom coffers than she receives from it. Does that not mean that Scotland would be forced to pay a much higher contribution to the EU budget? Has that been factored into anyone’s calculations? I do not believe so. What about other issues, such as Schengen and the common fisheries policy? What influence would Scotland have to protect her current freedoms? It is all uncertain.

As the hon. Member for Glasgow North said, the Scottish Government are making it up as they go along. There is no certainty, which I believe we should have. The United Kingdom should remain strong and intact. The debate about our position in the EU is a broader question; personally, I want to get us back to more of a common market, and certainly not into a deeper political and monetary union. However, we are better off fighting this together and not splitting up into component parts, when we would have no certainty and Scotland’s interests would be subsumed into the wider interests of Europe.

09:57

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Crausby. I am sure that when you got up this morning you realised you had picked the short straw in chairing this debate, given some of the dreary contributions that we have heard thus far. I sometimes think that we should reorganise the furniture when we are debating Scotland’s constitution, given that so many hon. Members agree, and that everything seems to be put to the Scottish Government and the SNP. I feel, sometimes, that we should be sitting in the Minister’s place—perhaps that would be more helpful, in terms of responding to the debate.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) both on securing this morning’s debate and on turning up on time. We were all here two weeks ago, practically in the same spot. It was a shambles. We were ready to go, but the hon. Member who had secured the debate came rushing in several minutes late. It sometimes seems as though Labour cannot organise a Euro-rant in a Belgian brewery.

Listening to hon. Members’ contributions today, there is not exactly the warm glow of positivity—more like the deep chill of relentless negativity, which is what characterises these debates.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. There are 640 of you guys and only six of us, so I will use my time, if that is all right.

Over the past few weeks, the debate has fallen to a new all-time low, with some appalling personal attacks. Things were said in the Scottish Parliament that would never have been allowed by you, Mr Crausby, or the Speaker, and yet, the guys who made such remarks complain about the comments in the online section of The Scotsman sinking to such a low spectacle. What are they saying? Not only are they saying that we will not get European membership, but according to the former Prime Minister, we will be little more than a British colony. According to the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling)—their campaign leader—independence would be nothing more than the road to “serfdom”. People cannot say too poor, too weak and too stupid any more; they know that that is not a great way to enlist the Scottish people’s support. They only hint at that now. The most comical remark, the one that I have enjoyed most in the last two weeks, was that the music that I had spent 15 years making would no longer be my music—British music would not be ours any more—as if music, the ridiculously free-spirited and wonderful thing that it is, has frontiers or boundaries, but that is what these people are saying. They are scaremongering on culture. Welcome to the positive case for the Union.

Of course, the plat du jour this week is scaremongering on Europe. That is what they are doing, and doing well. Barely a day goes past without another instalment in the scaremongering stories, always in association with their friends in the press. Their message to the Scottish people when it comes to Europe is, “You cannae dae this, we’re no gonna let you do that and don’t even think about this!” If I have got their position right, it is something like this: “You’re not going to get into Europe. You’re going to go to the back of the queue behind all the accession states.” That is their position; I think that that is their top line. But if we do somehow manage to get into Europe, it will be on the worst possible terms and conditions. I think that I am right in saying that this is their position. Then if we do manage to get into Europe and on the worst possible terms and conditions, we will be forced to join the euro—but do not worry, because we will not get into Europe anyway.

[Ian Murray]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I said that I was not giving way.

These people need to get their act together on the scaremongering, so that we can understand what they are saying.

The subject of this debate is the constituent parts of the UK and EU membership. Scotland is a constituent part of the United Kingdom. We are currently a member of the European Union. After independence, we will continue to be a member of the European Union. We are in the European—

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

We are a member of the European Union because the UK took us into the European Union, the old EEC, back in 1973, but the European Union is not the only union. The UK is a union. It is based on the Act of Union, which brought together the Scottish and English Parliaments three centuries ago, so when Scotland secures its independence, the Act of Union falls and there will be two successor states. That is what will happen. Whatever happens to an independent Scotland will happen to the rest of the United Kingdom. It will be just like what happened with Czechoslovakia: the Czech Republic and Slovakia were treated as two new nations. These people sometimes like to use the example of Russia—

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I am not giving way to the hon. Lady.

These people sometimes use the example of Russia when it comes to these situations, but not even the most rabid cybernat has ever compared the United Kingdom to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. That is how ridiculous their argument has become. When it comes to European membership, whatever happens to an independent Scotland will happen to the rest of the United Kingdom, but let me reassure all the English Members who are sitting here today: their European place is safe. There is simply no precedent or process to kick a constituent part of the European Union out. That just does not happen—there is no way. This fox was effectively shot by Graham Avery of Oxford university, who is a senior adviser at the European Policy Centre in Brussels and honorary director general of the European Commission, when he said to Westminster’s Select Committee on Foreign Affairs:

“For practical and political reasons the idea of Scotland leaving the EU, and subsequently applying to join it, is not feasible.”

It is not feasible.

[Ann McKechin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I am not giving way to the hon. Lady.

There is only one part of Europe that has left the European Union—the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) will recall this—Greenland. It took something like two years for Greenland to get out of the European Union, and it wanted to go. It had a vote that said that it wanted to leave the European Union. It was only after complex negotiations that it was allowed to go.

These people believe that somehow Scotland will be stripped of its European Union membership and all the European rights that we have built up in the course of 40 years. Scotland is actually enthusiastic about Europe, unlike the hon. Member for Stone and his hon. Friends. It is absolutely absurd to suggest that an independent Scotland would not be welcomed with open arms to the European Union. We are talking about oil-rich Scotland, fisheries-rich Scotland, renewable-energy-rich Scotland. Scotland complies with every single piece of European legislation and is enthusiastic about its European membership. The idea that Scotland would be kicked out of the European Union is totally absurd.

These people also say that we will be forced into euro membership. That was blown out of the water by Dr Fabian Zuleeg, chief economist at the European Policy Centre, who reminded the Scottish Parliament’s European and External Relations Committee that euro membership is based on strict criteria. My hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mr Weir) is absolutely right about this. There are five conditions for joining the euro. One is membership of the exchange rate mechanism. Joining the ERM is voluntary. That is why Sweden is not in the euro. I do not know how many times we have to explain this to Labour Members. Scotland will not join the euro, because Sweden has not joined the euro, because it is based on ERM membership.

There is a threat to Scotland’s European membership. It does not come from an independent Scotland. It comes from the Union; it comes from the Westminster Tories, because they are at it again. They are even prepared to defeat their Government to ensure that they get this country out of the European Union. I looked at William Hill yesterday. It is offering odds of 2:1 that by 2020 there will be a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU—a straight in-out referendum. It is offering odds of 6:1, which I think are very generous, that the UK will be out of the EU by 2020. That is the threat to Scotland’s EU membership. It does not come from an independent Scotland; it comes from the Westminster Tories. Westminster Tories are running absolutely terrified of the UK Independence party, which is now odds-on favourite to win the next European election. That is what is informing Government policy when it comes to Europe. What we have now is a surly, sulky UK as a member of the European Union. That is what Scotland has to put up with as it secures its EU membership. The UK is looking for the “Out” door—

[Ann McKechin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I am not giving way to the hon. Lady; I have told her that.

That is what we have in terms of Scotland’s EU membership represented by the UK. What would be better? An independent Scotland, independent in Europe and seated at the top table. Our number of MEPs would be increased from six to 13; there would be 13 champions putting Scotland’s case. That is what Scotland needs; that is what Scotland requires.

There is a clear choice facing the Scottish people when it comes to European Union membership: independence in Europe, a seat at the top table, our own representation in Europe, or isolation in a United Kingdom that is on the way out of the European Union and almost relaxed about its decline and failure. I know the choice that the Scottish people will make in 2014. It will be the positive choice—it will be for Scotland’s independence and national liberation.

10:06

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am fascinated by the line that has just been taken with respect to the situation of the United Kingdom in relation to the European Union. There are many of us who believe that the time has come not only to have a referendum, but to leave the existing treaties. The reality is that 56% of the British people have recently indicated that that is what they would like, and that raises very interesting and very important questions. It is also highly relevant to what is going on here in this debate today with respect to Scotland. Of course, there is also the question of Northern Ireland and of Wales, neither of which has even been touched on so far in the debate. One thing that we have to remember is that the—

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that, having listened to the very eloquent disquisition on the place of Scotland at the top table, and given this week’s announcement about the G8 coming to Northern Ireland, we can look forward, in the halcyon days in the future of Scotland’s independence, to a G9 coming to Northern Ireland, with Scotland at the top table?

[Mr Cash]

That is an extremely apposite remark, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for it.

One thing that needs to be considered is the implications that would arise for the European Communities Act 1972, which has not yet been mentioned, because of course if we have a referendum and if the vote is yes—at the moment, that seems extremely unlikely, but I will not presume to say that it will not happen—the reality is that that in itself will not create the legal and constitutional consequences that would flow from that political decision. The reality is that we then have to look at the 1972 Act. All the obligations under section 2, through our own enactment here, of which Scotland is currently a part, would have to be dealt with. It will be an extremely complex business to deal with the issues between the United Kingdom and Scotland, let alone between Scotland and the European Union or the United Kingdom and the European Union.

I would like to refer on the record to the extremely good—extremely well written—note from the House of Commons Library. I mention that on the record because I think that many people who will want to consider this question will do well to look at that note if they can get access to it. It draws together a lot of the complications that arise in international law and constitutional law. It includes a lot of discussion about the allegations made against the First Minister; I will not enter that debate, but simply say that there are complex questions.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) pointed out, there is no provision in the European treaties for the secession of states. He mentioned article 4.2 and the unanimity of all 27 member states. The European Commission made some comments on that in response to an MEP, but that was on the basis of the thinking then. If I may say, having read all the papers, I do not think that there is a settled view about what would happen.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) is right to say that there would be massive uncertainty. For example, in respect of financial regulation, the jurisdiction has been already transferred, extremely unwisely, to the European institutions, but the consequences are that it is already being done in relation to the City of London with serious consequences, of an unlawful nature, for voting rights between ourselves and member states in the eurozone. There are so many uncertainties that the issue will have to be given much more consideration. There is also the question of the repeal of the Act of Union. None of the legal consequences of the referendum, even if there was a yes vote, are capable of being unravelled until we have got to grips with the constitutional implications of the matters I mention.

Despite the fact that we have one and a half hours, going into all the questions today would be far too complicated, so that is all I want to say. I put down a marker that a yes vote will be monumentally bad for the UK, monumentally bad for Scotland and monumentally bad for the people governed under the Act of Union. I and many others take that view, and I think it will prevail.

There are implications for the European Scrutiny Committee, in that it must look at all the legislation as it applies to the UK, in respect of those matters that apply to it under the Standing Orders. I will leave my contribution at that. The complications regarding Scotland have not been thought through. It is not only an emotional question or even a purely political question, but a question of grave uncertainty. The more the vote tends towards no—the direction that public opinion seems to be going—the better.

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

To accommodate all Members who wish to speak, it would be appreciated if Members kept their remarks to four minutes.

10:13

[Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)]

Thank you for that challenge, Mr Crausby. I thank you for presiding over the debate today and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) on securing this important debate. I am pleased to follow the previous two contributions and the rant from my neighbour, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). I must admit that there is significant confusion in many people’s minds and I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to blow away that confusion when he gets to his feet.

We have already heard that Scotland benefits from being part of the EU through the UK’s membership, but it is not clear whether an independent Scotland would become a member of the EU, and the contributions from SNP Members today do not make it any clearer. A long list of people, whom I feel that I should be able to trust, suggest that Scottish membership would not be automatic and might be subject to application, queuing, objections and delays. Those individuals include: José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission; Romano Prodi, a former President of the Commission; Joe Borg, a former European Commissioner; Dr Jo Murkens, European and constitutional law expert; and Professor Robert Hazell, University college London. Will the Minister say whether those are trustworthy sources and whether their comments are appropriate, or should I trust the contribution from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire?

As has been said, the First Minister wants to retain the pound sterling. We all know the potential difficulties and drawbacks that would have for monetary policy in an independent Scotland. If Scotland becomes independent, and an EU member at some point in future, perhaps the First Minister will not get his way. Is it the Minister’s understanding that between 2004 and 2007 every accession state also agreed to join the euro?

As has been mentioned, we recently discussed the accession of Croatia to the EU in the House. In the negotiations, significant emphasis was placed on Croatia being able to regulate its own financial institutions. How can Scotland do that? Alex Salmond wants to retain the pound and rejoin the EU, but if he keeps the pound, he will not have an independent national central bank, because he wants to use the Bank of England. That in itself may prevent him from using the pound and force an independent Scotland into the euro on day one.

People appreciate the benefits of our opt-out from the Schengen agreement, which was touched on this morning. If and when an independent Scotland is successful in its application to join the EU, I am concerned that it will have to comply with the agreement. Will the Minister confirm that new EU member states are bound to implement the Schengen agreement as part of the existing body of EU law? If that is the case, surely Scotland would have to make all the efforts it could to police its borders to ensure security, not only for itself, but for the rest of the Schengen-operating countries. Because the rest of the UK is not signed up to Schengen, that would mean border controls between Scotland and the remaining UK, including the land border with England.

That issue was raised in a debate I took part in recently in Scotland. Keith Brown MSP, the housing Minister in the Scottish Government, went out of his way to tell the audience, in no uncertain manner, that an independent Scotland would not implement the Schengen agreement. Like so many other assertions made by the SNP on European issues, it seems that it was an assurance that the SNP is perhaps unable to effect. If my interpretation of the matter is wrong, I am sure that the Minister will be delighted to point out the folly of my ways.

My third and final point is linked to the UK’s general opt-outs and rebate. Professor Hazell says:

“An independent Scotland would not inherit the opt-out the UK negotiated for the Treaty of Maastricht.”

There are also the benefits to the UK from the 1984 rebate negotiations, which, according to a House of Commons paper, result in Scotland’s contribution to the EU being £16 per head. It would be more than £90 per head without the rebate. It is unreasonable to assume that Scotland would benefit from similar treatment on rebates.

SNP Members’ claims of automatic entry into the EU, which they presumably feel would happen on the same day as any transition to an independent state, do not seem to have the support of the people needed to make it happen. The President of the Commission does not agree with them. The vice-president of the European Commission and Commissioner for Justice does not seem to agree with them. The Spanish Foreign Minister does not seem to agree with them. Cyprus does not seem to agree with them. That does not appear to be a very good start.

Alex Salmond is desperate to ride roughshod over the Electoral Commission’s role in the forthcoming referendum, and he appears to feel that he can do the same with Europe and EU membership or take the Scottish people for mugs. He cannot be a player and a referee in the referendum. I tell Members here and now that there is no way that the powers of Europe will allow him to carry on in his delusional approach to future European negotiations, and there is no way that the Scottish people will be conned by that shambolic and disrespectful approach to such an important issue for Scottish economic prosperity.

10:19

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) published a speech that he would have made, entitled, “The Speech They Feared”. The scariest thing about it is that his incoherent, negative rants are actually scripted. He is fond of attacking the pro-UK cause as “negative”, but unbelievably that speech attacked the negativity of others before they had even made their contributions. We will take no lessons today from the SNP about talking Scotland down, when he does just that in a prepared speech.

Today, I want to be as clear as possible about Scotland’s future in the EU and to bust some of the myths put about by the SNP—myths dressed up as reality and opinion dressed up as fact. Let us start with some words from the hon. Gentleman’s speech:

“When Scotland becomes an independent nation Scotland will remain a member of the European Union.”

He did not write that Scotland might have to apply, that there will be a process and that the process carries risks, but that,

“Scotland will remain a member”.

That is an assertion, not a fact. It is an opinion and nothing more.

That is a completely different position from that of Graham Avery, a senior member of St Anthony’s college and a senior adviser at the European Policy Centre, whom the First Minister and the hon. Gentleman have quoted. The SNP asserts that his comments justify its position. Indeed, it positively hangs on the man’s every word. I see the hon. Gentleman nodding in agreement. The First Minister has said,

“I have read out Graham Avery’s credentials. Given that he is an honorary director general of the European Commission, I suspect he knows rather more about these issues.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 1 November 2012; c. 12926.]

I agree with the First Minister, so let us examine what Graham Avery actually said. First, he has said:

“The EU has no historical precedent for dealing with Scottish independence.”

Uncomfortable as it is, we now know—if we did not already—that anything the SNP says on the question of EU membership is based on opinion, not fact or precedent. He has also said:

“Scotland has been in the EU for 40 years; and its people have acquired rights as European citizens.”

Note that Mr Avery is very clear in his choice of words: the people of Scotland might well have acquired rights, but that is not the same as the legal entity that would be the separate state of an independent Scotland.

In his next paragraph, Mr Avery said that

“negotiations on the terms of…membership would take place in the period between the referendum and the planned date of independence. We do not know at this stage how long that period would be; complicated negotiations…would have to take place”.

Therein lies the rub of any deal: six words to ring alarm bells in the heart of the pro-separation camp—

“negotiations on the terms of…membership”.

For even if we accept everything that anybody in the SNP has ever said about Scotland’s being welcomed as a member of the EU following an application to join, it is the terms of membership that are important. Those terms are crucial to the rights of our citizens and the security of our borders, and are essential for determining whether we use the euro. For no one—not the hon. Gentleman nor even Alex Salmond—can say with certainty what will happen.

Let us refer again to Mr Avery. He said:

“In accession negotiations with non-member countries the EU has always strongly resisted other changes or opt-outs from the basic Treaties”.

The expert on whom the SNP is so fond of relying is holing its argument below the waterline. What terms would Scotland be forced to accept on application? Not the SNP’s terms, but those of other member nations. The common theme that runs through such contradictions is that nationalists assume the right to make their own rules and that everyone else will abandon theirs to abide by those of the nationalists, and that every member state will act not in its own country’s or citizens’ interests, but in the interests only of Scotland. We all know that the opposite is true.

That means that Scotland might well be forced to join the euro. I accept that it may not, but it might. That is not good enough for the people of Scotland or those who do business in Scotland. It is not good enough for the SNP to say, “Maybe it is aye; maybe it is no.” It is not good enough for them not to be straight and honest with the people of Scotland on the risks of independence. It might also mean, although we cannot be sure, Scotland losing its opt-out on Schengen. For people listening or watching outside this House who are not familiar with what that would mean for Scotland and Scots, let us be clear: the Schengen opt-out means that travellers from EU states entering the UK are subject to border and passport controls, and losing that opt-out would mean free entry into Scotland with all the implications of that.

There may or may not be controls, and the hon. Gentleman and Alex Salmond cannot be sure whether or not there will be—they cannot state it as fact. For the 800,000 Scots living in England and the thousands of Scottish families with relatives in England or Wales, “not sure” is simply not good enough. Whatever else happens in the debate on Scotland’s future, the people of Scotland deserve answers, honesty and transparency, and a debate based on facts, not assertions, and on reality, not myths.

10:24

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) on securing the debate. I associate myself with the comment by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) when he congratulated her on turning up on time this morning.

Scotland’s membership of the EU has been discussed in pubs up and down Scotland during the past few weeks. That is not, sadly, because it has been in the news, but because of the Scottish Government’s failed attempt to keep secret the fact that the First Minister lied to the Scottish people about seeking advice on the matter. In fact, he did not just lie about seeking legal advice. We know that he was told by his Lord Advocate and Solicitor General that a separate Scotland would not automatically be an EU state. Not only Scottish Government lawyers say that. In the past two weeks, a plethora of expert opinion has confirmed what everyone, including the SNP, already knows—that Scotland would not be guaranteed membership of the European Union.

It was incredibly kind of the hon. Gentleman to give me and the entire world advance notice of his speech today. He did not stray far from what was on his website two weeks ago, when he published even the well-rehearsed bad jokes that we were robbed of the chance of hearing. In publishing that, he single-handedly wiped out any lingering notion of the SNP’s ears being open to the facts. His only intent in this debate has been to propagate his party’s myths. His speech was without substance when he wrote it two weeks ago, and it had not matured well by today. I cannot understand why he still feels that a Scotland separate from the UK would automatically be a member of the EU, when everyone outside his party disagrees.

Most of the people in this room are here because they share my love and concern for Scotland, when we have a Scottish Government who have repeatedly been caught being dishonest about the facts that will inform voters’ choice in 2014. They simply cannot be trusted. Scotland benefits from being in the UK in the EU, and Scottish people deserve to have laid before them the actual facts, rather than the Scottish Government’s version of them. It is their responsibility to provide clarity and evidence about their proposals for the future, not to waste taxpayers’ money on unnecessary court cases. The First Minister misled the Scottish people, but now we are expected to trust him.

In contrast, the UK Government have made it clear that they have received legal advice. They have stated that, in the event of Scotland separating from the UK, the residual UK would be considered by the EU to be the continuing state; and Scotland would legally be a seceded, new state and therefore not a member state. I would appreciate it if the Minister confirmed that he agrees with the President and vice-president of the European Commission that a new state wanting to join the EU has to apply like any other.

[Pete Wishart]

Two new states.

[Pamela Nash]

No, not the residual UK.

Earlier this year, Salmond declared that

“the negotiation on Scotland’s representation would be conducted from within the European Union.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 19 January 2012; c. 5500.]

That is not impossible, but it is not automatic, and it would be a difficult negotiation. There is no need to take only my word for that; notable members of the European political community and academics have said the same over the past few months.

Accession would need to be approved by all 27—soon to be 28—member states. Although Spain has not confirmed that it would block an application from Scotland, it has said that we would need to join the queue. It is difficult to see how the Spanish Government could reconcile their position on Catalonia with a new Scottish state joining the European Union.

There is also the issue of the euro. Contrary to the proclamations of the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir), all new EU member states have been required to sign up to the eurozone. Sweden joined the EU in 1995, but it is still obliged, when conditions are met, to join the euro.

[Mr Weir]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Pamela Nash]

No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because his colleague, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, did not have the courtesy to give way to any of mine.

The UK is one of only three countries that currently benefit from an opt-out. The SNP has said that a separate Scotland could opt out of the euro, but the evidence suggests otherwise. There is also the small matter of the Schengen agreement, and of many other opt-outs from which Scotland now benefits as part of the UK. The Schengen agreement would involve passport controls at the border with England, as we have heard in the Scottish Affairs Committee. The SNP has simply dismissed that as scaremongering, because that does not fit with its campaign strategy, but the evidence again suggests otherwise.

In conclusion, this issue is too important for the people of Scotland to be continually misled from one side of the debate. I hope that today’s debate helps inform them, and helps them make an important decision in two years’ time.

10:29

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) on securing this debate and on speaking with such authority and passion in her opening remarks. One of my best decisions since being elected to this House three years ago was last November when I asked the Commons Library to publish a paper on the implications for Scotland of the debate around separation, in particular what it meant for continuing—or perhaps not continuing as we have uncovered in this debate—EU membership. Indeed, many of the points in that document will form the basis of the rest of the debate today.

As a member of the Labour Movement for Europe, I care passionately about our having a positive engagement with the European Union. Scotland can best protect, embrace and progress its national interests as part of a large state—the United Kingdom—which has a good degree of influence, and which, under the new arrangements, will have proportionately more votes within the Council.

The process for new accession countries—which Scotland would clearly be, according to the consensus of advice coming from the European Commission and the important statement from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office a couple of weeks ago—is arduous. As we explored in a debate in the main Chamber a couple of weeks ago, Croatia went through stringent steps in establishing the independence of its central bank, to show that proper procedures were in place to control its financial system, and to prove that it had a system to regulate and guarantee deposits. None of those concepts has been dealt with in the proposals from those who argue for Scotland to separate from the rest of the UK. Indeed, none of the countries that has acceded to the European Union has relied on the central bank and financial institutions of another state to show that it has sufficient financial independence in its own territory. The position put forward by the Scottish Government simply does not add up.

I want to put on record a couple of points that are important in relation to international constitutional law—perhaps a reference back to my old life before I became a Member of this House. The Scottish Government have relied on a couple of arguments: one in relation to the Vienna convention; and the other in relation to EU citizenship.

First, on the Vienna convention, the Scottish Government have said that Scotland would sign up to all the treaty commitments that the United Kingdom has at the moment, but, frankly, that is fatuous. The Vienna convention is primarily concerned with the process of decolonisation. Indeed, the International Law Commission withdrew a category of quasi newly independent states to deal with cases of secession. A new state is not entitled automatically to become a party to the constituent treaty and a member of an organisation as a successor state simply because at the date of secession, its territory was subject to the treaty and within the ambit of the organisation. That principle, which is recognised in article 4 of the Vienna convention and is the declared legal opinion of the International Law Commission, is entirely contrary to the position of the Scottish Government.

Citizenship of the EU is not distinct from being a citizen of the member state. It does not provide a legal basis for re-entry to the European Union. As other Members have said, that must come about as a result of a process of negotiation and unanimity with what will soon be 27 other member states. When the Soviet Union was dissolved, only Russia was able to succeed to most international agreements. [Interruption.] I am not saying that the United Kingdom is remotely like the Soviet Union. It would be absurd for any Member of this House to make an assertion that the two states were in any way comparable.

This debate matters hugely. The referendum must proceed on the basis of fact and law, not assertion and bluff. The debate has been important in distinguishing those two characteristics this morning. I care passionately about our future. If we want Scotland to thrive within Europe, that means that we will continue—and I hope that people will vote to have us thriving—within the United Kingdom.

10:35

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) on securing this important debate today. It is not surprising that those who have different views on the relationship between Scotland and the UK should also try to find different arguments to support their position about Scotland’s relationship within the European Union. There are arguments on both sides that draw on various legal authorities. The arguments put forward by people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) are much stronger than those that have been put forward by the SNP. None the less, I accept that arguments can be found from various sources to support different positions in the debate. Of course this is not just a legal and constitutional argument. Ultimately, whatever the legal position is, it is also a political issue that the European Union will have to face if Scotland were to become independent. Whatever side of the argument one takes, it is inevitably the case that if Scotland were to be independent, whether or not one regards it as one of the successor states to the UK or as a new state, there would have to be a new treaty. That is undoubtedly the case whatever one’s legal analysis of the position.

The new treaty would require a negotiating process, and we have heard today a number of the issues that would have to be clarified and resolved in that process. There are the institutional relationships and structures of the EU, internal matters such as the rota for which country takes over the presidency, and the number of MEPs and the number of votes. Even those matters have in the past been the subject of many years of negotiation in relation to new treaties.

There are also much weightier issues, such as the UK rebate and whether Scotland would succeed to some share of that, which would require substantial negotiation. There is also the common fisheries policy. Given the SNP’s position on fisheries issues over recent years, one assumes that it would want to see the repatriation of the common fisheries policy towards an independent Scotland. One cannot imagine that that is something that can be simply agreed within negotiations in a matter of weeks or months. It will clearly require considerable and lengthy negotiations as part of a new treaty. The same could be said of many other issues that have been referred to in this debate.

Such issues may eventually be resolved. However, in trying to resolve them, there are two factors that will have to be taken into account. As a strong supporter of UK and Scottish membership of the EU, I can say that the EU does not do things quickly. We all know that it does not resolve outstanding issues quickly, because it is a complex organisation with many member states.

[Mr Weir]

Following the precedent of Greenland, will the hon. Gentleman not accept that even if he is correct and there will have to be negotiations, those negotiations will be done not outwith the EU but within, as happened with Greenland when it wanted to leave the EU. Scotland will still be a constituent part of the EU after independence until negotiations are complete.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

That is an arguable position. I will not go into that debate now. My point is that there will have to be lengthy negotiations whatever happens. Moreover, wherever those negotiations take place in an organisational sense, they will be the subject of horse-trading and of give and take. Let us take, for example, the fisheries policy. If the SNP wanted to achieve its objective in relation to the fisheries policy, another country somewhere in the EU would demand something else. If the SNP were to get the opt out of Schengen, which it seems to want, someone else in the EU would want to achieve something else. Even with goodwill on all sides, which may be a matter of some question given that other member states might not wish to encourage easy secession, to put it mildly, from another member state, this is a process that will be lengthy and complex. That is why it is right to point that out and right to ask the question, “At the end of the day, would the benefit from leaving the UK be worth the substantial negotiations and the period of time that would be spent in undertaking those negotiations?” More importantly, it also means that it is only reasonable to ask another question: “What would be the outcome of this process?”

For the SNP to suggest that even asking those questions is in some sense disloyal to Scotland does a disservice to the people of Scotland, who are asking those questions themselves. They want to know at the end of the process what will be the relationship of Scotland with the EU? To know what that relationship would be, we need to ask the questions and we need to try to get some answers from the Scottish Government and the SNP. We then need to find out from debates and discussions with other European states what the likely response would be to the demands coming from the Scottish Government and the SNP if independence were to be supported in a referendum.

Once we have that information, the Scottish people can decide in the run-up to the referendum whether they should support independence or oppose it because of what I believe is the situation—the fact that we would be worse off in a smaller member state, even if that smaller state were able at the end of the day to enter into and complete negotiations, than if we were part of a larger member state, with all the negotiating strength that we have at the moment and that I would not want to see us lose.

10:41

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) on securing this debate.

It is the passionate belief of the Labour party that the United Kingdom is stronger together and that the United Kingdom is stronger in the world as a member of the European Union. The referendum on Scottish independence in 2014 is an incredibly serious matter that will affect all of us in the United Kingdom and, as has been stressed by several of my hon. Friends, when the Scottish people vote in that referendum they deserve to have at their disposal the full facts about the implications of a separate Scotland.

Unfortunately, far from providing clarity about the facts, the Scottish Government have created a great deal of confusion about the potential consequences of Scottish separation for Scotland’s relationship with the European Union. It is pretty extraordinary—indeed, it beggars belief—that, as has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North, in response to a freedom of information request from one of our colleagues in the European Parliament, the Labour MEP Catherine Stihler, the Scottish First Minister initially said that he would not disclose legal advice, only for him to be contradicted by the deputy First Minister of Scotland who said that such legal advice had not even been sought, let alone received.

[Ann McKechin]

Just in the last hour, it has been announced in the Court of Session papers regarding that FOI request that the Scottish Government stated that to reveal whether or not they had received legal advice would cause mischief. That is an extraordinary statement, given the Scottish National Party’s supposed links with the people of Scotland and given their ability to know what the facts of that case are. Does my hon. Friend agree that that lack of transparency, which included taunting people for the number of FOI requests that they had put in to the Scottish Government, is indicative of a Government who are actually scared of telling the truth?

[Emma Reynolds]

That lack of transparency is of concern to all of us, and it has blown a hole in the credibility of what the First Minister has said on this issue.

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has made a speech today, which I have had the fortune—or misfortune—to have read before the debate, in which he made some strange references to giant pandas and “The X Factor”, but remarkably he made no reference to the European treaties and perhaps more tellingly he also did not refer to any other European Union member state. If he had cared to take a look at them, he would have seen that those treaties make it very clear that new member states must apply for membership of the European Union. Article 52 of the treaty on European Union lists the members of the European Union, including the UK, and article 49 of that treaty states that new member states must apply for membership of the European Union. Moreover, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) has made clear, the European Commission President has also stated the clear facts. He has said recently:

“A new state, if it wants to join the EU, has to apply to become a member of the EU, like any state.”

[Mr Weir]

The hon. Lady keeps going on about new states, but the point is that Scotland is already a member of the EU. We have already cited the position of Greenland. Scotland is not a new state; it is already a member of the EU; we have rights as European citizens, as has been said by other experts; and we will not be starting from the same place as Croatia, which keeps being mentioned by Labour Members.

[Emma Reynolds]

I beg to differ with the hon. Gentleman. The four nations of the United Kingdom are a member of the European Union, by virtue of being part of the United Kingdom. I will quote another European Commission President, Romano Prodi, who was a very respected President. He confirmed that

“a newly independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the European Union and the treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply any more in its territory.”

Beyond the pronouncements of European Commission Presidents current and past, there is the brutal truth that the SNP must face up to—that this decision about a separate Scotland’s membership of the European Union would be a political decision and one taken by all of the other 27 member states, who are soon to be 28.

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman—he should listen to this carefully—that, as has already been stressed in this debate, the pronouncements by the Spanish Foreign Minister are not encouraging. That is hardly surprising. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North has already pointed out that the context in which we find ourselves in the European Union is one in which we are going through the most challenging and volatile period in European history. In September, 1.5 million Catalans took to the streets in Barcelona in an independence rally.

[Mr Cash]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Emma Reynolds]

I will give way, in a minute.

It is therefore unsurprising that the Spanish Government are concerned about any precedent being set and it is equally unsurprising that the Spanish Foreign Minister recently told the Spanish Senate that an independent Scotland would need to “join the queue” and negotiate its accession as a new member state. In addition, as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) set out in his very eloquent speech, there are other EU member states that would also have great concerns about any precedent being set by Scotland; Belgium is one of them. Furthermore, the EU member states that do not wish to recognise the independence of Kosovo—namely Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Slovakia and Spain—would be concerned about a precedent being set by Scotland. It is within that context that the framework of any hypothetical case in which an independent Scotland—if there were one—applied to join the European Union must be seen.

Unfortunately—I say this with regret—there is enlargement fatigue in the European Union. For example, France has said that for any future accession beyond that of Croatia there will be a referendum in France. Two weeks ago, we discussed the case of Croatia and we know that for a period of 10 years there has been negotiation about Croatia’s accession, and the last member state to join the EU in less than five years was Finland, which joined in 1995.

Consequently, it is absolutely clear that the SNP and the Scottish Government have no basis on which to make the claim that Scotland’s membership of the European Union would be automatic. They also have no basis on which to make the claim—made by the First Minister in the interview with Andrew Neil earlier this year—that a separate Scotland would also inherit the United Kingdom’s opt-out from the single currency and Schengen. The facts fly in the face of that assertion. There has been no member state since 1973 that has negotiated an opt-out, since the agreement in Maastricht, from the single currency. With regard to Schengen, an opt-out from that agreement would have to be negotiated.

It is also clear that Scotland would have to negotiate its own contribution to the European Union budget, and according to the House of Commons Library—[Interruption.] Maybe the SNP Members want to listen to the objective facts, as set out by the Library. According to the House of Commons Library, without a rebate Scotland’s contribution to the European Union is likely to rise from £16 a head to £92 a head.

Leaving the United Kingdom would leave a separate Scotland in limbo in Europe. There would be no automatic accession and no automatic opt-outs. Instead, there would be a sensitive and difficult negotiation with the 27—soon to be 28—other member states of the European Union.

10:49

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you this morning, Mr Crausby. May I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) on securing this important debate? May I also congratulate hon. Members on both sides on their contributions and on the insight they have provided on this critical issue?

I need not remind hon. Members that the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union touches the lives of all our citizens. Much of our trade is with the EU: our total exports to the EU in 2011 were worth £234 billion. The single market underpins a large portion of our economy, allowing our businesses to trade freely across a market of half a billion people. The EU facilitates collective action on issues that are too big for any one nation to tackle on its own. It magnifies our voice in the world on pressing international questions, such as the current situation in the middle east and our concerns over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

It is the United Kingdom, of course, that is the member state: it is named in the European Union’s fundamental treaties as such. It is the Government of the United Kingdom that must therefore negotiate in the EU’s various formations in the best interests of all its citizens. That means that we take into account the interests of the devolved Administrations when formulating the UK’s position on EU negotiations that touch on areas of policy that fall to the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive. That is good for people in businesses in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, as well as in England; it means that they all have a strong voice in the formulation of policy that matters to them.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Swire]

The hon. Gentleman was not even in the debate.

The voting weight, capability and credibility of the UK’s negotiations in the EU are mobilised in the service of all UK citizens. However, that does not mean the devolved Administrations are involved in EU policy only when we are coming up with an agreed negotiating position for the UK. The Government have been open to having Ministers from the devolved Administrations in the room, where appropriate, during the negotiations themselves.

The current devolution arrangements allow the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to be championed by one of the largest and most influential member states. Scottish independence, with a complex accession negotiation and no guarantee of favourable terms of membership at the end of it, would inevitably put a stop to that. Those advocating splitting off from the UK need to be clear about what that means in practice and to use evidence to set out their position.

As we have heard this morning, some advocate a fundamental reworking of the existing constitutional settlement that so benefits the people of the UK. Those who argue for an independent Scotland suggest that only independence will give their nation a voice in Europe. Their argument is underpinned by the assertion—it is only an assertion—that an independent Scotland would simply continue in membership of the EU, automatically inheriting the same arrangements that pertain to the UK now.

We learned only a few weeks ago, and we heard again this morning—the SNP was forced to reveal this following a freedom of information request—that it had not previously commissioned any legal advice on an independent Scotland’s place in the EU. Yet, the SNP has been making assertions that it had for several years while in government. Many will find it absolutely astonishing that while seeking to make its case for splitting Scotland from the UK, the SNP has been basing its case on unfounded assertions, rather than cold facts.

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), whom I like very much indeed, referred to his earlier musical career in Runrig. He will remember a song, which he may have written, called “The Message”. It says:

“You take your message to the waters

And you watch the ripples flow”.

Perhaps it is time he and his colleagues made sure that that message was backed up by substance and fact.

I do not need to remind hon. Members that the UK has, over the years, managed to negotiate exemptions from membership of the euro and the Schengen common visa area, ensuring that the UK can maintain control over its monetary and border policies.

[Mr Bain]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Swire]

I am afraid I have no time. I will at the end if I have time.

In addition, hon. Members will be only too aware of the importance of the UK’s rebate, negotiated with great skill and determination more than 25 years ago. The rebate continues to ensure that the UK taxpayer is relieved of some of the burden of supporting some of the most imbalanced parts of the EU budget, which is of great concern to us all at the moment.

The UK therefore has a permanent opt-out from the euro and from the Schengen border-free zone; a permanent rebate on our net contributions to the EU budget; a choice whether to join new EU laws in justice and home affairs; and a protocol on how the charter of fundamental rights applies to the UK. However, if Scotland left the UK and applied to join the EU, all those issues would be subject to negotiation, and there is no guarantee whatever that it would obtain any of the special rights the UK currently enjoys.

It is precisely the UK’s weight and influence as one of the largest member states that has helped us to succeed in negotiating such arrangements. Scotland, like England, Northern Ireland and Wales, derives enormous advantage from them. I can see why the SNP is so keen to suggest to those voting in the referendum before the end of 2014 that those arrangements would simply continue in the event of independence, as if nothing had changed. However, the fact is that if Scotland became independent, everything would change. Independence is not simply an extension of the devolution arrangements that have worked so well; it is not merely a further point on the constitutional continuum; it is a fundamental change—a definitive split from the rest of the UK, and an irreversible step. Independence would bring devolution to an end.

As set out in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office memorandum to the Foreign Affairs Committee inquiry into a separate Scotland, independence would create a new state, one that would have to take its place on an already crowded international stage. England, Northern Ireland and Wales would continue the international legal personality of the UK; Scotland, having decided to leave the UK, would start afresh. The overwhelming weight of international legal precedent underscores that point. There are many examples. One is India and Pakistan: following independence, India continued the UN membership, and Pakistan joined the UN as a new state. Another, as we have heard, is the USSR: Russia continued the legal personality of the USSR, and the other former Soviet Union states were treated as new states. There are also Ethiopia and Eritrea, and Sudan and South Sudan.

The new state would need to decide which international organisations it wanted to belong to, in the context of its overall foreign policy. Obviously, it could not simply assert its membership of any of those organisations. The most likely scenario by far is that an independent Scotland would have to apply to join the EU as a new state, involving negotiation with the rest of the UK and other member states, the outcome of which cannot be predicted.

Scotland would no longer be represented through a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Nor would a separate Scotland qualify for the G8 or the G20. In answer to the question from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) about the WTO, there have been no discussions with the Scottish Government on the issue. We are not in the business of pre-negotiating, as we do not believe the people of Scotland will vote for independence.

The UK Government are not alone in taking a factual and legally based approach to the issue. José Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission, made clear:

“A new state, if it wants to join the European Union, has to apply to become a member like any state.”

Recent correspondence between the Spanish Government and Commissioner Reding on the issue also supported that interpretation.

In simple terms, an independent Scotland could not just assert that it would be a member of the club; the other members would need to agree as well. The comments of the Spanish Foreign Minister, José Manuel Garcia-Margallo, to the Spanish Parliament on the 23 October must be noted:

“in the hypothetical case of independence, Scotland would have to join the queue and ask to be admitted, needing the unanimous approval of all Member States to obtain the status of a candidate country.”

The Spanish Foreign Minister was referring to the list of candidate countries wanting to join the EU, which include Iceland, Serbia, Montenegro and Turkey. Those are the remarks of a Foreign Minister of a major EU member state with an obvious interest in this issue. The Scottish Government must be prepared to respond and to be up front about the uncertainties surrounding their position.

An independent Scotland would not, therefore, simply continue automatically in membership of the EU. The EU treaties would have to be amended to allow it to join, and that would involve a negotiation. What terms would Scotland secure? Would it be able to avoid the commitment to join the euro or the Schengen area, which every new member state since 1992 has taken on? The simple answer is that we do not know—none of this is clear.

In contrast to the SNP, the UK Government are taking a transparent approach to analysing the legal issues, including by engaging with eminent legal experts. On 2 October this year, the Advocate-General for Scotland—one of the UK Government’s three Law Officers—delivered a speech at the Edinburgh Centre for Constitutional Law, setting out the Government’s initial view on the legal questions. The Government have also made it clear that we will provide detailed evidence and analysis so that people in Scotland can make an informed decision about whether to stay in the UK and about the implications of leaving it. We will publish that analysis over the course of 2013.

It is the clear position of the UK Government that Scotland is better off in the UK, and the UK is better off with Scotland in it. We are backing up that position with a robust programme of analysis and evidence. Those advocating independence for Scotland are making assertions and pursue their argument with no solid foundation in fact.

Housing Benefit (Under-25s)

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

I am grateful to have been chosen to lead this important debate under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby.

I want to say first that although I understand that the Government have not yet adopted the policy in question, the mere suggestion that the Prime Minister proposes to cut housing benefit to those aged under 25 has raised great concern nationally. I have received—for which I am grateful—briefings from several relevant organisations, including the Prince’s Trust, Places for People, Crisis, Shelter and the National Housing Federation, organisations that help and support the most vulnerable young people aged under 25. I intend to draw heavily on their evidence in the debate.

We all know that cuts are necessary to balance the country’s books, but the burden of paying for them must, as we all know and believe, fall on the shoulders of those most able to pay. That does not include those who are just starting out in life, or young people who, through no fault of their own, have no family support to help them into adulthood and towards independence. Nationally, the policy would affect more than 380,000 households. The cuts would save £1.8 billion, but cutting housing benefit to under-25s is a false economy, as I shall demonstrate.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I represent one of the youngest constituencies in the country. About a third of my constituents are under the age of 24, and there is an explosion in the number of 20-year-olds moving into the constituency. Nationally, last year, a third of those accepted by their council as homeless were aged 16—that is very young— to 24. Of those, 10,000 said that the reason they lost their previous home was that their parents would not or could not house them. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s approach seems to ignore the reality of family breakdown? It is a reality for many young people in my constituency.

[Mrs Glindon]

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will refer to those statistics. Unless we have been through the same situation as those young people, none of us can imagine it, and I wonder how it will affect their future.

Of those aged under 25 who claim housing benefit, 17% are in work, but, as the Prince’s Trust has pointed out, they need that benefit to close the gap between their earnings and accommodation costs. Many young people earn only low rates of pay, and the national minimum wage for 16 to 17-year-olds is only £3.68 an hour; it is £4.98 an hour for those aged 18 to 20. Young people on apprenticeships earn only £2.60 an hour. The Low Pay Commission has found that young people are disproportionately likely to be paid the minimum wage for their age: 13% of young people aged between 18 and 20 are on the minimum wage of £4.98 an hour. Most young people who claim housing benefit are not in work, but young people all want to work. In a recent survey by the Prince’s Trust, young people who had previously been unemployed were asked how many jobs they had applied for, and the most common response was that they had made more than 100 applications.

The Government say that they want young people to take up their apprentice schemes, but apprenticeship wages are low, at £2.60 an hour. If the Government take housing benefit from those young people—particularly the most vulnerable, whom we want to get into apprenticeships—it will be yet another barrier to their future in work. The Prince’s Trust has also pointed out that young people who want to strike out on their own in business, and take up the trust’s enterprise programme, are often lone parents who claim housing benefit. They need housing benefit to supplement their incomes until their business is profitable enough to allow them enough salary to cover accommodation costs. Why should those young people be denied opportunity because they cannot afford a roof over their head, while the very rich get huge tax breaks from the Government?

The Government have said that some young people will be exempted from the cuts, but how will those exemptions be worked out, and who will be eligible? I hope that the Minister will tell us.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The issue will be one of the biggest in my constituency, and I perceive great difficulties, come next year. Is the hon. Lady aware that there have been discussions with the Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly about changes that may help the system to work? Perhaps the changes proposed for Northern Ireland could be brought across to the rest of the United Kingdom. We are not getting everything we want for Northern Ireland, but I understand that we are getting some helpful concessions. Would the hon. Lady want to suggest that the Government might discuss that with her, and that they might enable the changes to be made UK-wide?

[Mrs Glindon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and hope that the Minister will have listened to what he said.

Many young people live with their parents, because that is the only way they can manage work; they simply cannot live in a home of their own. The consequences for young people who cannot live with their parents are serious. Crisis has found that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) said, one third of those accepted as homeless by their councils were under 25, and 10,000 had lost their home because their parents could not or would not house them. What will happen to those young people if housing benefit is cut?

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. I have a concern about the night shelter in my constituency, which receives a third of its funding directly through housing benefit. The hon. Lady mentioned exemptions, and representatives have raised with me the question whether the shelter would be supported exempt accommodation under the new rules. Has the hon. Lady considered that point? Perhaps the Minister would respond to it.

[Mrs Glindon]

That is a concern of several agencies and organisations that are in the same boat. I hope that the Minister will say something about it.

Half the young people who receive housing benefit have children. Moreover, 28,000 young people receiving housing benefit are sick or disabled. How would the Minister expect those people to cope without any housing benefit at all? While places such as St Mungo’s provide accommodation to more than 17,000 people every night and help thousands more who are sleeping rough or are at risk of homelessness, we can only wonder what it would be like if those who rely on housing benefit were to lose it and no longer have that safety net. How would those figures be magnified?

I am pleased to say that in my constituency, there is a scheme called Maritime Court, which is run by Places for People as an individual support project. It is a customer-led service that offers support and guidance. Everyone using the scheme is encouraged to discuss their needs, and appropriate information is provided to assist them to make informed decisions. They get advice and support on issues such as life skills, benefits, budgeting, employment and education, with the ultimate aim of developing life skills to enable independent living within the community. The service offers a low to medium level of housing-related support. It has 24-hour staffing all year round. Young people get support for up to two years, living in accommodation there until such time that they are able to move into accommodation in the community. As has been mentioned, such projects are concerned about proposals for the future.

[Jim Shannon]

The issue of affordable housing is one that Barnardo’s, Save the Children and many other organisations are raising. Does the hon. Lady feel that the Government need to address the issues of affordable housing and of housing that is suitable within the housing benefit range?

[Mrs Glindon]

The hon. Gentleman has raised a particularly important point—one that we come back to time and again. When we see the low wages for apprentices and many young people, how else can they afford a home, with or without housing benefit?

I want to give a couple of examples to show how young people’s lives need to and can be turned around, and why housing benefit is crucial; obviously, I will use supplemented names. The following case study is from Maritime Court. A young woman, Sue, went into the project when she was 17, with a number of support needs. She had been re-homed and resided in one of Depaul UK’s lodgings within a family home environment, because she had been asked to leave her parents’ house. She had some skills but no experience of living on her own or managing a tenancy. She had led a chaotic lifestyle, as a lot of young people do, which was compounded because her mother had moved around, having had a lot of debt and rent arrears. Her parents had separated, and she had an awkward relationship with her mother. She was often left to fend for herself and her young sister from an early age. She received no family support when she was at home with her mother, so she was a young person on her own. She had also suffered domestic abuse from family members and friends, so she was a vulnerable young person. The support that she needed was with money management, how to develop relationships and tackling offending behaviour. She also had mental health and communication problems, to say but a few.

During Sue’s time with the scheme, the massive support she received enabled her to overcome many of her problems, and she became a mature person, who was able to deal with difficult situations. She has moved on through Maritime Court and has been able to work with North Tyneside council and get into independent living. The case study explains how the staff worked through issues with her and provided support. She has now moved on—she is starting a placement and is looking forward to training for a new career. That would not have happened had it not been for Maritime Court and for housing benefit.

Another referral that was made to Maritime Court was from North Tyneside council’s men’s direct access unit. Lee, as I will call him, had mild learning difficulties and cerebral palsy. He engaged well with staff from day one, but he seemed to rely on staff for company. He would often go out and have a good drink, but he was never aggressive. Staff realised that he was a very vulnerable person because the only way he could have friends was by allowing people into his flat in Maritime Court. He lived on the ground floor, so the staff moved him upstairs, which helped to solve some of his problems.

Lee was on a lot of benefit because of his disabilities, but he would often come back with no money once he had got paid, because people were taking advantage of him. The people at Maritime Court took over the management of his money and helped him with his benefit. He started to turn his life around. Eventually, staff found him a place in South Shields, which is across the river, in an area near where his girlfriend lives. With all the support he had, he was able to set up in Dock street in South Shields, and he is still doing extremely well there.

I could go on, but I cannot give more examples in the time allotted. What I want to put to the Minister is that, should the proposals go ahead, as I and others have said, thousands of young people who are now able to enjoy a roof over their head will be made homeless.

[Meg Hillier]

One concern in my constituency and nationally is the number of under-25s who themselves are parents. I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that it would be helpful if the Minister clarified the Government’s current thinking on those young people.

[Mrs Glindon]

As I have asked, and as my hon. Friend has pointed out, what will become of those young parents and their children? What will become of the organisations that enable young people, such as the ones I have talked about in Maritime Court, to have an independent life, with housing benefit as a crutch until they are able to stand on their own two feet? The system will be complicated. How will exemptions be worked through? I hope that the proposal never becomes policy, and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure all of us present who, on behalf of probably many other people and many of our colleagues, feel that such a move would be wrong and would simply condemn many young people to a life of misery.

11:17

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Don Foster)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) not only on securing the debate, but on presenting her case so passionately. May I also say how pleased I am to see the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) in his place? He has taken a keen interest in the issue, and I will refer to him again towards the end of my remarks.

The hon. Lady said that the idea is something that the Government might effect, but the fact that something was said at a Conservative party conference does not mean that it becomes coalition policy. At the moment, it certainly is not. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) will know that both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have said that, were such a move to become reality, vulnerable groups, particularly those in care, will be protected.

I say to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that the Government are willing to seek what advice they can from Northern Ireland. We will certainly look forward to any comments that he can forward to us. On the important issue of affordable housing, he is absolutely right that one of the key things we have to do is increase its availability. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington knows only too well, when the Labour Government were in office, we saw a reduction of some 421,000 social homes.

The Government intend to ensure that we move forward with the provision of affordable housing by committing to provide 170,000 affordable houses by 2015.

My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) mentioned night shelters. Clearly, as that is not a Government policy, I cannot comment on who would or would not be affected by that, because I currently have no details and such details may not be forthcoming.

The hon. Member for North Tyneside raises an important issue, and I recognise that young people face difficult circumstances. The effects of what is, after all, the worst recession in a generation continue to cause hardship for households across the country. That is why homelessness and housing support remain a key priority for me, my Department and the Government as a whole, but we need to keep the issue in perspective. As a result of the work of local authorities, their partners and the Government, and of the investment we are making, homelessness is half the average rate that it reached under the previous Administration. The homelessness rate remains lower today than in 28 of the past 30 years. Of course, I recognise that that is no comfort to those currently dealing with the trauma of homelessness, and we are determined to take every opportunity to move forward. That is why the Government are providing support through investment, reform and leadership.

The homelessness prevention grant was protected in the spending review, and we are investing £400 million in homelessness prevention over the four-year period. We recognise that continuing financial pressures have made it hard for many people, which is why we provided an additional £70 million last year to address homelessness. That included a £20 million homelessness transition fund and a further £18.5 million for the first ever single homelessness prevention fund.

Additionally, the Government are providing £390 million to help families in difficult situations adjust to changes in the welfare system. I recognise what the hon. Lady said about troubled families, and she will be aware of the Government’s successful work to address that issue.

In addition to the funding, we are reforming the system. The Localism Act 2011 gives local authorities more freedom to move people quickly out of expensive temporary accommodation and into suitable settled homes, thereby reducing costs on councils and housing waiting lists. That power allows local authorities to use good quality accommodation in the private rented sector so that households are not left sitting in expensive and inappropriate temporary accommodation while they wait for social housing.

The Government take homelessness seriously, and we have established a ministerial working group on homelessness that brings together eight Departments to address the complex causes, which include not only housing, but, just as importantly, health, work and training. The group provides the leadership we need to address homelessness.

The group produced its first report, “Vision to end rough sleeping”, in July 2010. Since then, we have made significant progress and provided £20 million through the homelessness transition fund to help roll out, for example, the Mayor of London’s “no second night out” approach. We announced the most recent tranche of grants for the fund in August 2012 with a further £3.6 million to 21 homelessness charities. Five areas, including 51 local authorities, have now introduced “no second night out”: Merseyside, Greater Manchester, Cheshire, Kent and Northamptonshire.

We have committed to a new rough sleeping helpline that will ensure that anyone who is concerned for someone sleeping rough can contact the right service to get them help. StreetLink, as it is to be called, will be in place by Christmas 2012, and the website is already live.

Preventing youth homelessness was a key part of the ministerial working group on homelessness’s second report, “Making every contact count”, which we published in August. The report considered how to address the complex underlying causes of homelessness, how to prevent homelessness at an earlier stage and how to deliver integrated services. It focused on youth homelessness and set out an innovative approach to addressing that important issue.

The Government are providing investment, reform and leadership, but we are also calling on local agencies across the country to respond with innovation and passion. England has one of the strongest safety nets in the world for families with children and for vulnerable people who become homeless through no fault of their own. Sixteen and 17-year-olds, care leavers under the age of 21 and people over 21 who are vulnerable as a result of being in care are priority groups and, as such, should they find themselves without a roof over their head, they will be housed by local authorities.

Local authorities already know that it is in nobody’s interest for things to get that far. Preventing homelessness, through supporting young people to resolve issues at home—the hon. Lady raised that point—and stay with their families, must remain a priority.

My Department continues to work with the Department for Education to support local authority homelessness and children’s services to prevent homelessness and to address its effects on young people. We have funded youth homelessness charity St Basils to support local authorities and their partners in that work. Thanks to the work of young people’s homelessness charities such as St Basils, Centrepoint and Depaul—and others mentioned by the hon. Lady—and to the work of local authorities, it is now very rare for young people under 18 to end up on our streets.

Many people experiencing homelessness have had a range of negative experiences in their childhood or youth. We accept that young people are a key risk group—35% of those accepted by local authorities as homeless in 2011-12 were under 25. As the hon. Lady rightly said, family breakdown is a prime cause of youth homelessness. Young people with experience of care are particularly vulnerable, with 16% of rough sleepers surveyed by a recent study having experienced care at some point during their childhood.

Supporting vulnerable young people to make a successful transition to adulthood helps them avoid long-term benefit dependency and expensive interventions by specialist health services, social care, the criminal justice system and, of course, homelessness services. Homelessness is a stigmatising experience for a young person, and an integrated approach to preventing that is needed.

[Mrs Glindon]

I am pleased to hear about all those programmes and about the investment the Government are making. What commitment is there to keeping housing benefit for those young people under 25? Once they have benefited from all the support, not being able to work may stop those in rented accommodation being able to pay the full rent. What assurance is there that that cushion will remain for as long as people need it so they can live in a home of their own?

[Mr Foster]

The hon. Lady tempts me to predict what announcements will be made in due course, which I cannot possibly do. I cannot give her an assurance one way or the other. All I can do is tell her that that is not currently the Government’s policy. We will both have to wait to see what emerges.

The hon. Lady will be aware that, as a country, we are facing a very difficult financial crisis, and we have to address that. Unless we get the economy straight and create the growth that we desperately need to get people back into work, problems will continue to multiply. That will continue to be our first priority.

[Mrs Glindon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Foster]

We have about two seconds remaining, but I will give way if the hon. Lady wants the last word.

[Mrs Glindon]

As I said at the beginning, cannot that burden be put on the very rich, rather than on these areas?

[Mr Foster]

The hon. Lady is well aware of the Deputy Prime Minister’s statements on the importance of ensuring that those with the broadest shoulders make the greatest contribution.

I end by saying to the hon. Lady that we have worked with charities to develop a pathway to try to ensure that we provide the necessary support. I hope that she will listen to her colleague, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, who on 13 December is organising a huge event in Parliament on youth homelessness. He is to be congratulated on organising that event, and I hope we will be able to continue the debate on that occasion.

I congratulate the hon. Lady on raising this important issue, which the Government take seriously and are doing an enormous amount of work to address.

11:30

Sitting suspended.

Cycling Safety

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Dai Havard in the Chair]

14:30

[Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)]

I am pleased to open this debate on cycling safety and the wearing of cycle helmets. I know that the topic is incredibly important to many Members and many of our constituents. Rather appropriately, we are in the middle of road safety week, organised by the charity Brake, which is held every November to raise awareness of death and injury on our roads and the steps that can be taken to improve road safety, including for cyclists.

Since the last debate here in February, we have had the Olympics. I want to take a moment to put on record the enormous contributions of our cycling sportsmen and women to cycling and to raising its profile internationally. The Olympics showcased the best of British. Some of our cycling Olympians, such as Sir Chris Hoy, were already household names, but others have joined the sporting pantheon. In addition, individual gold medals were won by Jason Kenny, Laura Trott, Victoria Pendleton and Bradley Wiggins. In the Paralympics, Sarah Storey won a sensational four individual gold medals, and David Stone, Anthony Kappes, Mark Colbourne and Neil Fachie also won individual Paralympic golds. Team gold and silver medals and individual silver and bronze medals were won as well, adding up to a record medal haul. Also, the incomparable Bradley Wiggins kicked off our summer sporting celebrations by winning the Tour de France, a truly magnificent achievement.

For those of us glued to the television or lucky enough to be in the velodrome, each British win was a memorable moment. It was a golden summer for British cycling. Undoubtedly, when a country does well in a particular sport, as we did in cycling, and produces new sporting heroes, it inspires a new generation to take up that sporting discipline, or at least think seriously about taking it up. Sometimes, it even inspires those of us who are a bit longer in the tooth to take up an activity once again. I am sure that all Members will agree that that is a thoroughly good thing.

Cycling obviously has positive benefits for individual health and the environment. The organisation CTC has cited studies showing that the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by a factor of 20 to 1. Estimates from the Department for Transport—perhaps the Minister will give us more detailed figures if he has them—suggest that 11% of adults in England now cycle for at least 30 minutes once a month. However, that is still some way behind numerous other European nations.

One key thing that holds people back from cycling is concerns about road safety. In the past few weeks, there have been a number of road accidents involving high-profile individuals, which has brought the issue of road safety for cyclists to the top of the national agenda once again. Early this month, Bradley Wiggins was knocked off his mountain bike by a van coming out of a petrol station near his home in Lancashire. He was taken to hospital with bruises to his right hand and ribs. The next day, Shane Sutton, head coach for the GB cycling team, was knocked off his bike by a car while cycling along the Stockport road near a junction. He suffered a concussion and small bleeding on the brain, but thankfully, his condition soon stabilised.

As we all know, those accidents made the national news. They even took the US presidential election out of the top news spot for a while. “Newsround”, the BBC children’s news programme, asked its viewers whether they felt safe on their bikes. Many did not. One caller said:

“Although it helps you to keep fit, I think riding a bike on roads is dangerous and unsafe because vehicles may not be able to see you.”

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. On the point about road safety, does he also accept that the Government recently made available an additional £30 million to tackle dangerous junctions and £15 million for infrastructure, including cycle routes and facilities at stations and across the country?

[Alok Sharma]

Of course. I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government have made additional moneys available to the £600 million sustainability fund, to which I will return. Funding is right, and it is one aspect of ensuring that we have a road infrastructure that works for everyone.

To return to the issue of children and cycling safety, if there is a perception among the young as well as adults that being on a road is dangerous, it is a serious deterrent to cycling, which is particularly bad news. The latest statistics from the Department for Transport are concerning. In the year ending June 2012, the number of pedal cyclists killed or seriously injured on our roads increased by 9% compared with the previous year, and so far this calendar year, 108 cyclists have been tragically killed in the UK. The total for 2011 was 107. More than 3,000 people were seriously injured on UK roads while riding a bike last year, a 16% increase in the number of reported serious injuries to cyclists.

It is absolutely clear that more must be done to improve conditions for cyclists on our roads. Cycling organisations such as British Cycling have been calling on the Government to put cycling at the heart of transport policy to ensure that cycle safety is built into the design of all new roads, junctions and transport projects. I absolutely endorse that view. In the 21st century, we must plan for and ultimately have a transport infrastructure that is safe and fit for purpose for all users: drivers, pedestrians, commuters and cyclists.

In recent years, there have been a number of campaigns to improve safety for cyclists. One of the latest, launched in February this year, is The Times newspaper’s Cities Fit for Cycling campaign, which involved the publication of an eight-point manifesto. The campaign, which has attracted cross-party support, was launched by The Times after one of its reporters, Mary Bowers, sustained serious injuries in a collision with a lorry while cycling to work. It is an excellent campaign that has provided an impetus for a continued focus on road safety for cyclists. It is also helping provide funding for the all-party group’s report, which will be published next year.

I know that Members present will be familiar with the eight-point manifesto, but I will set it out again for the record. The Cities Fit for Cycling campaign calls for heavy goods vehicles entering city centres to be fitted with sensors, audible turning alarms, extra mirrors and safety bars; identification of the 500 most dangerous road junctions, and their redesign or fitting with priority traffic lights and Trixi mirrors; a national audit of cycling; the earmarking of 2% of the Highways Agency’s annual budget for next-generation cycle routes; improved training of cyclists and drivers, including making cycle safety a core part of the driving test; a mandatory default speed limit of 20 mph in residential areas where there are no cycle lanes; invitations to businesses to sponsor cycle schemes, as has happened in London; and the appointment of a cycling commissioner in every city.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on cycling, who unfortunately could not be here, secured a debate in February relating to the campaign. It was incredibly well attended, and I know that some Members present today also contributed to that debate. In his response to that debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) set out the Government’s thoughts at the time on the campaign’s manifesto points. On the first point, my hon. Friend responded that his Department was involved in discussions at European level about improving standards for heavy goods vehicles to help reduce accidents. I would be grateful if the Minister responding to this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), updated us on any progress in those European discussions.

On the second manifesto point, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes noted that he had already given all local authorities in England the authority to install Trixi mirrors as and where they deem it appropriate. Again, it would be useful if the Minister provided us with any statistics his Department may have on the number of Trixi mirrors installed by local authorities over the past six months.

On the third point, relating to a national audit of cycling, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes explained that his Department had commissioned a new question in the Sport England active people survey, to provide more detailed information on cycling at local level. I was pleased that in August the Department published for the first time ever local authority data on cycling, based on responses to the active people survey. I hope that the Minister will tell us how often he expects these data to be published, so that we can start to gauge the trend in cycling across individual local authorities. This should, over time, prove to be a powerful tool in helping to focus on which authorities are good at encouraging cycling and which need to try harder.

Regarding the earmarking of 2% of the Highway Agency’s annual budget for next generation cycle routes, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes was understandably hesitant about adopting a specific figure, but mentioned that the Department was undertaking a stocktake of Highway Agency routes to consider what might be possible in future. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister has an update on that stocktake and what this may mean for improved cycle routes.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman might know that I am chairman of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety. Will he include in that stocktake the fact that we must go back to having targets for accident reduction, whether in respect of cyclists or other category of road user, including pedestrians? We have in the past two years renounced targets, but we know that if there are no targets across Europe casualties start to increase. Will he make a plea in his speech for getting back to targets, so that we can get accident reduction for cyclists and other road users?

[Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has eloquently put on the record his views on targets. I am sure that the Minister will give us his thoughts, and those of his Department, on that point.

On improving training for cyclists and motorists, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes also talked about the work of the Department’s Bikeability initiative, among other matters, as well as noting that he had established a cycle safety sub-committee of the stakeholder forum. I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister has in recent weeks led his Department’s THINK! Cyclist campaign. I am grateful for the work that he is doing to improve road safety, but it would be useful to have some feedback on, and his view of, the work of the new safety sub-committee.

With regard to the sixth issue in The Times’ campaign—the 20 mph speed limit— my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes noted in February that he had already taken action to make it easier for local authorities to introduce 20 mph zones and a 20 mph limit. Does my hon. Friend the Minister have any update on the number of new 20 mph zones introduced in the past 12 months by local authorities? If he has, I hope that he will provide that in his response.

The Times’ campaign’s seventh manifesto point relates to encouraging businesses to follow the lead of Barclays in London and back cycling schemes and initiatives. There is universal support in the House for this idea. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes said that his Department would send out the message to encourage this. Will the Minister update us on whether the Department has had any traction in this respect with other potential business sponsors?

The manifesto’s final point calls on every city to appoint a cycling commissioner to champion cycling-friendly reforms. Clearly, this is a matter for local authorities, but I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes wrote earlier in the year to the leaders and chief executives of each council across England, encouraging them to consider whether someone in their organisation should take a lead role on cycling. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister provides some feedback on the responses that he has received and on the number of local authorities that have appointed a cycling champion.

I have asked my hon. Friend to respond to a range of issues, but I also want to put on the record that I know, having talked to him, that he is committed to improving road safety for cyclists. His Department has provided £600 million through the local sustainable transport fund to support local authorities in their use of transport to lever growth and cut carbon locally. Many of the 96 projects have a cycling element. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) mentioned a number of other funding streams that have come on line from the Department and I am sure that the Minister will give us a full view on everything that his Department is doing to provide further funding to help cycling and cyclists.

[Rehman Chishti]

On road safety and cycling safety, the figures that I have from the DFT say that in 2011, 111 people were killed in cycling incidents and 3,085 were seriously injured. Does my hon. Friend have any evidence showing how many of those incidents, whether fatality or serious injury, could have been avoided if those persons were wearing a cycling helmet?

[Alok Sharma]

I will talk about an independent report produced for the Department for Transport in 2009, which demonstrated that the use of cycling helmets absolutely makes a difference in reducing fatalities and injuries. Let me come on to that later.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Is not it absurd that Members of Parliament still pretend that wearing a cycle helmet increases the risk?

[Alok Sharma]

My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a good point. There is clear evidence that using a cycling helmet, whether as an adult or a child, reduces the risk of injury. I will talk about cycle helmets, but in this debate there is almost a gulf between those hon. Members who believe that cycle helmets should be made compulsory and others who do not. Organisations out there have similar or differing views, as well. My hon. Friend is right—it has been concluded in independent reports and reports produced by the Department—that wearing a cycle helmet makes a difference in terms of improving safety.

I was talking about the contribution that the Minister and the Department have made. He is also committed to supporting Bikeability cycle training for the remainder of this Parliament, which is welcome. I am pleased about that good news. However, I shall return to my central theme. All hon. Members who are supporters of cycling want cycling to be put at the very heart of transport policy. I hope that the Minister will tell us—apart from all the funding streams and all the work that is going on—how cycling will be, or is already, a central part of his Department’s policy.

Proper provision for cyclists on the road is not just something that cyclists want. Hon. Members will know that the AA recently undertook a survey of its members, and 62% of the 20,261 AA members who responded to it said that there are not enough cycle lanes. An increased number of cyclists on busy roads is leaving many motorists feeling insecure about how to interact with cyclists. The majority view is that clearly defined cycle lanes would be good news for both motorists and cyclists. That means a lot more than slapping down a few white lines intermittently along the pavement, as happens, unfortunately, in my home town of Reading.

Ahead of this debate the Mayor of London’s office was in touch with me—I am sure that it was in touch with other colleagues as well—setting out the Mayor’s commitment to making London even more of a cycling city. The aim of the Mayor’s cycling strategy is to increase cycling by 400% by 2026, from 2001 1evels. I understand that record levels of investment in cycling over the past four years have supported the cycling strategy, with investment levels now approaching those of other leading European cycling cities. A number of European cities have significantly higher per capita spending on cycling than we do in many of our cities. It will be interesting to hear the Department’s view on that, and on how the situation can be rectified. Alongside the Mayor’s flagship schemes of Barclays cycle hire, cycle superhighways and biking boroughs, a range of complementary activities has led to a 70% increase in cycling in the capital over the past four years. Many of our cities, towns and local authorities can learn from the example of London and, no doubt, Members will have other best practice from their own areas to share.

The second part of the debate relates to the wearing of cycle helmets, which can be a controversial subject, but I have no wish for a particularly emotional debate. We need to be dispassionate in discussion, and to debate on the basis of evidence rather than emotion. I asked for the debate today because I was prompted by a recent meeting with the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust, a national, award-winning charity based in Reading. The trust is committed to saving young people’s lives by promoting safer cycling and, in particular, the use of cycle helmets. The organisation was founded in 1988 by a paediatric nurse who, through her work, saw the devastation that head injury can cause, not only to the child but to the whole family. Since the charity’s conception, it has grown in drive and commitment to be an advocate for the child and young person. It also provides a community service by highlighting the need for safer cycling practices that incorporate the distinctive needs of children and young people. The charity is a national resource working with parents, teachers, police, road safety officers, Departments and health care professionals by promoting and providing educational programmes in schools on the need for helmet use and safer cycling practice throughout the United Kingdom.

The trust has worked successfully with the Department for Transport in the past and it recently submitted another proposal, for a project that aims to complement the Bikeability programme. It would engage with areas in need, which may not be part of training programmes due to social challenges, and work with young people to develop their understanding of road safety and self-safety. As part of its proposal, the trust wants to work in local communities to develop partnerships and to draw on local private sector organisations to provide safety packs to children who, because of the cost, might be without helmets, lights and reflector bands, or without access to training. I hope that the Minister will agree to meet representatives of the trust and me, so that we can explain to him in detail the objectives of the latest proposal, and that we will secure his personal support for the project.

The Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust is absolutely committed in its advocacy for children and young people to wear cycle helmets. I very much share that view, and the statistics on serious injuries to cyclists bear out why wearing a cycle helmet is so important, especially for children. In 2011, just over 3,000 seriously injured road casualties involving pedal cyclists were recorded by police. In addition, almost 16,000 incidents of pedal cyclists being casualties in slight accidents were recorded. Of the 3,000 serious injuries, 349 casualties—or 12% of the total—were children aged nought to 15. However, according to NHS statistics, almost 9,000 emergency road traffic hospital admissions last year involved pedal cyclists, so there is a threefold understatement in police-recorded injuries compared with NHS admissions. One reason for that is that not every injury or incident takes place on a road—it can be off road, in particular for children, and I will focus on that as I progress. Furthermore, of the 9,000 emergency road traffic hospital admissions, more than 3,000 were of children aged nought to 15—35% of the total. The understatement in police-recorded injuries compared with NHS admissions for children in connection with cycling injuries was therefore tenfold. That demonstrates that, when children are involved in accidents, a lot of the time, they do not happen on the road or the highway, but off road. Children may be cycling with friends in the playground or in woods, and we must bear that clear distinction in mind when we discuss cycle helmet usage as potentially compulsory for children as opposed to adults.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. I am sure that anything we can do to make cycling safer would receive broad support, although I draw to his attention the attempt by the former Member for Carlisle, Eric Martlew, to introduce a private Member’s Bill. The manner in which he and the Bill’s supporters were attacked was absolutely unbelievable, yet beneath it all were people with a genuine desire to see children cycling safely, whether on roads, on footways as toddlers, in playgrounds or elsewhere. We need to do something to tackle that, to see a definitive decrease in the number of injuries.

[Alok Sharma]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and he makes it passionately. It is vital that we see a reduction in injuries and fatalities not only for children but for adults. I will come to the 2004 private Member’s Bill, but we have moved on since then, because there is more evidence. As I said at the start of the debate, however, there is clearly a chasm between those who believe that wearing helmets should be mandatory and those who do not.

Members might remember a few weeks ago when Bradley Wiggins tweeted on the subject. In my view, he is an absolute god, but even Bradley Wiggins came in for quite a lot of stick, and he of course then made further statements about his views on the compulsory wearing of helmets. Yet we cannot get away from the fact that wearing helmets saves lives and cuts down on injuries.

[Mr Sheerman]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when we organised the seat belt legislation some 28 years ago, a passionate group attacked us for undermining individual liberty? Many made the argument that wearing seat belts would make people drive faster and therefore kill more people. The proud record is that we have saved many lives over that 25 years.

[Alok Sharma]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and I will come on to that. That Bill eventually became law because of the courage of Members in the House at the time, and it is now second nature for us to wear seat belts. There is no question but that wearing seat belts saves lives, and there is no kind of negative impact.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend is generous in giving way. I wanted to reinforce his point. According to emergency departments that see children, 90% receive injuries from non-vehicle-related accidents. We always hear, “Oh, it’s because you are going to be knocked over by a car”, but most accidents do not involve a vehicle and are cycling accidents alone.

[Alok Sharma]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point and for reinforcing the fact that we are discussing wearing helmets not only on roads but off road.

We were discussing the understatement in police records compared with NHS records of injuries and why that could be. One of the key reasons, for children, is that many such injuries take place off road, as my hon. Friend has just pointed out. The total figure for cycle-related hospital admissions, however, includes only patients who occupy a bed. Those who attend A and E are not included in that 9,000. That, of course, does not include any gap between unreported and reported incidents involving only slight accidents, so the total number of cycle-related injuries receiving hospital treatment is likely to be much higher than any of the statistics that I outlined suggest. It is appropriate that the debate about cost includes not just the human and social cost, but the financial cost of cycling injuries and fatalities. We must look at the broader picture, and the larger figures.

Head injuries ranging from fatal skull fractures and brain damage to minor concussion and cuts are common in cyclists. I understand from the information published by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents that hospital data show that an estimated 45% of child cyclists admitted to hospitals have suffered head injuries. That is a high percentage indeed. Undoubtedly, some of those injuries would have been reduced or may not have occurred if a cycle helmet had been worn.

A recent Transport Research Laboratory report, which was published in 2009 and commissioned by the Department for Transport, reached several conclusions about the efficacy of wearing cycle helmets. It concluded that helmets, assuming that they are a good fit and properly worn, are effective in reducing the risk of head injuries. They are expected to be effective in a range of accidents, particularly the most common accidents that do not involve a collision with another vehicle but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough said, are falls or tumbles over handlebars.

The report concluded that a specialist biomechanical assessment of more than 100 police forensic cyclist fatality reports predicted that between 10% and 16% of fatalities could have been prevented if the cyclists had worn an appropriate helmet. Those who do not believe that we should have compulsory wearing of cycle helmets say that, at the end of the day, helmets will not save lives. It has been shown conclusively in an independent report produced by the Department that in some cases they do.

Most interestingly, the report concluded that cycle helmets would be particularly effective for children. I could go into the reasons for that, but I am sure the Minister, if he has time, will explain them. Yet a 2008 Transport Research Laboratory report, commissioned by the Department for Transport, estimated that only 18% of children and 35% of adults wear helmets on the road.

Apart from the terrible human and social cost of cycling fatalities and serious injuries, there is a financial cost to the country and to society. According to the Department for Transport’s own report, the total value of preventing reported road accidents in 2010 was estimated to be £15 billion. Let me put that in context. The entire transport budget for 2010-11 was just over £12 billion, and The Times manifesto calling for 2% of the Highways Agency’s budget to go towards cycle routes would amount to around £80 million. The average value of preventing every reported road accident was almost £1.8 million for a fatality, over £200,000 for a serious accident and over £20,000 for a slight accident.

One clear way of cutting down on the human, social and financial cost of cycling accidents, particularly those involving children, is through wearing cycle helmets. I am pleased that all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate so far agree. The time has come for the Government to consider very seriously the case for introducing the mandatory wearing of cycle helmets for children. I know that this is a controversial issue, and the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) shakes his head, so I presume that he does not agree.

The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) said that a private Member’s Bill in 2004 did not make progress, but it was supported by a wide range of organisations including the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the safety charity Brake, the Child Accident Prevention Trust, the Child Brain Injury Trust, and the brain injury association Headway. Last year, the British Medical Association welcomed a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly to make wearing helmets compulsory, but unfortunately it did not make progress. The World Health Organisation has also stated that laws mandating helmet use can be effective in reducing road traffic accident injuries.

Many countries in Europe have laws on wearing cycle helmets, and we would not be the first to introduce such a law. In Europe, it is mandatory in Finland, where all cyclists are required to wear cycle helmets; in Spain, it is mandatory outside built-up areas; in the Czech Republic, it is mandatory for children under 16, in Iceland, for children under 15, in Sweden, for children under 15, and in 2010, it became mandatory in Austria for children under 10. Outside Europe, helmets are mandatory in Australia, New Zealand, 20 states of the USA and some Canadian provinces. We would not break new ground by at least considering the introduction of such a law.

Introducing a cycle helmet law will not suddenly solve the problem of road safety, and many hon. Members in previous debates have made that point. That is why I started this debate by talking about other measures that need to be introduced to make our roads safer. They include segregated and dedicated cycle paths and routes.

Returning to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough made, we can make our roads safer, but that may not reduce cycling injuries in children, because many of their injuries occur off road. The argument that we would drive people off the roads and discourage them from cycling does not hold water.

Wearing cycle helmets saves lives and reduces injuries, and even the most hardened opponents of cycle helmets acknowledge that. A key argument by anti-helmet campaigners is that making them compulsory will put people off cycling, will therefore not help in reducing carbon emissions and will discourage a healthier lifestyle. Some organisations have produced statistics showing that the mandatory wearing of helmets might save tens of lives, but that a reduction in the number people cycling would result in people perishing earlier than expected because of obesity. I am not sure that that is a serious contribution to the debate.

International evidence suggests that mandatory helmet wearing, particularly for children, does not result in a long-term drop in cycling. Some studies have concluded—one in Australia is often cited, but it was about 20 years ago—that introducing compulsory helmet wearing may result in a temporary decline, but that the medium to long-term effect is likely to be negligible. Other studies have concluded from experience in the States and elsewhere, particularly where laws were introduced only for child cyclists, that there has been no reduction in cycling following the introduction of such laws. International experience suggests that the wearing of helmets can be introduced successfully without resulting in a long-term decline in cycling.

Logically, a rule affecting only children should not discourage adult cyclists. The right hon. Member for Exeter has in previous debates made the point that the more people cycle on roads, the safer it will be. Children of five, six, seven, eight, nine or 10 are not part of a group that consistently cycles on roads, so introducing a cycle helmet law for them will not deter adults from cycling.

One thing that puts children off wearing cycle helmets, of course, is peer pressure, especially as they enter secondary school. It is not always considered cool to wear a helmet, but if we can change attitudes by introducing a law, so that it becomes the norm—almost second nature—to wear cycle helmets from a young age, that will stick with children in adolescence and adulthood. I have two young daughters; we go out cycling fairly often, and they were brought up wearing cycle helmets. I must admit that I do not always wear one, but when I cycle with my daughters, the peer pressure works the other way, and they absolutely insist that I wear a cycle helmet, too. If we can get children into a mindset whereby they think it is absolutely the norm to wear cycle helmets, we will see a change in attitudes, and they will wear cycle helmets into adolescence and adulthood. That change will mean that we see significantly fewer fatalities and injuries, not only on the roads, but off them.

The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who has left his place, made a good point about wearing car seat belts. I was a teenager when the law was introduced, and wearing seat belts certainly was not the norm. I was not a particularly rebellious teenager, but I did not always follow the rules. However, after a few months, when everybody else is doing it, we do it too, and it absolutely becomes the norm. Thinking back, people will say, “Wasn’t it astonishing that people railed against the introduction of a law on seat belts?” If we get to the point where we can introduce a law making it compulsory for children to wear helmets, I hope we will look back after a few years and wonder what the fuss was all about.

The Department for Transport’s report concluded that wearing helmets is beneficial, especially for children. I am asking the Department to commission a definitive, independent report on the benefits and costs of introducing a law requiring children to wear a cycle helmet. In particular, I want it to look at whether such a law would deter cycling in the longer term and whether parents would support it. I am a parent; I cycle, and my children cycle. I am not part of any lobby or group. There are millions of people like me and my children, and they are the ones we should be listening to and whose views we should be getting, before we decide whether it is right to introduce such a law.

The Department could make a pretty easy start by introducing a few extra questions in the Sport England Active People survey. It could ask cyclists whether they regularly wear helmets or ask their children to wear helmets. It could ask them whether they would support a law making it mandatory for children to wear helmets.

The Horses (Protected Headgear for Young Riders) Act 1990 made it mandatory for young children riding a horse on the public highway to wear protective headgear. If such a law makes sense for young horse riders, surely it should make sense for children on bicycles. We are talking about a measure that will save lives, and prevent injuries and unnecessary cost. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Order. Before Members start, I should point out that it is 3.13 pm, and four Members have indicated that they wish to speak. To help you manage your time, I should say that that is roughly five or six minutes each, if we are going to have interventions. If Members could bear that in mind and help one another, it would be appreciated.

15:13

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Havard. Let me say at the outset that, given the time the hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) has taken for his speech, I do not intend to take interventions.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman very much on securing the debate, which is one of a number we have had recently on cycle safety. This is a very important issue, not least given the worrying news that this year, for the first time in many years, there has been an increase not only in deaths and serious injuries on the road, but in cycle deaths and injuries. The hon. Gentleman made a brilliant speech about a whole range of measures that could be introduced to help take those figures back in the right direction, and I was absolutely with him until he came to cycle helmets. I was even with him, to start with, when he talked about encouragement and exhortation, but I am afraid that as soon as he used the term “compulsion”, he lost me, and I will outline briefly the reasons for that.

I urge those hon. Members who press for compulsory cycle helmets, and the organisations that have lobbied them, to study the evidence. The hon. Gentleman said he wanted a policy that was based on evidence, and we should study not only the evidence, but the myriad debates we have had in the House since I came here in 1997. We should also talk to the organisations that represent cyclists. I speak as a lifelong cyclist, a former chairman of the all-party group on cycling, a former Health Minister and someone who cares deeply about the safety of cyclists and young cyclists in particular.

The reason why the House has repeatedly rejected the idea of compulsory cycle helmets is that, overall, it would create a public health disaster, and I will explain why. Wherever cycle helmets have been made compulsory —whether in Canada, New Zealand or Australia—that has had such a detrimental impact on cycling rates that the overall impact on children’s health and the health of society as a whole has been deeply negative. The hon. Gentleman used an important statistic, which is essential to the whole subject of cycle safety, when he said that the benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by 20 to one.

In Western Australia, which has had a lot of experience of this issue because it has had a law on it for more than 20 years, cycling decreased by more than 30%, and it decreased faster among young people. That has been the experience in every country that has made cycle helmets compulsory. By all means encourage, by all means exhort and by all means have campaigns, but please do not, based on the best intentions, pursue a policy that is deeply counter-productive and that will cause more premature death, more obesity and more ill health among young people.

This is completely different from the seat belt issue. The last time the British Medical Journal was asked for its opinion on this issue, its board of education and science concluded:

“Cyclists are advised to wear helmets but legislation to make them compulsory is likely to reduce the number of people choosing to cycle and would not be in the interests of health”.

The BMJ added that research suggested that

“non-cyclists tended to be most in favour of helmets. In fact, a much greater number of lives would be saved if pedestrians and car occupants were encouraged to wear helmets.”

An analysis of the experience in Western Australia, which was the first place in the world to impose uniform mandatory cycle helmet legislation, showed that the legislation increased hospital admissions per cyclist on the road, reduced the popularity of cycling, damaged public health and increased all road casualties.

I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to go back to the evidence and the debates that we have had in this House, and to pursue with all his energy and time the many measures that will help to protect children and improve child health and cycling safety. He himself cited the excellent campaign by The Times and its eight-point wish list. I gently suggest that The Times took great care in assessing the most important things that needed to happen to save the lives of cyclists and young cyclists. Compulsory cycle helmets were not among them, and there is a reason for that.

15:18

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), although I am afraid I agreed with virtually nothing that he said. I welcome the new Minister, for whom we have great hopes. He is following on from an excellent Minister, who is now in the Northern Ireland Office, and whose work on cycle helmets we certainly appreciate.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) on being brave enough to introduce this really important debate. By the time he leaves this room, the Twittersphere will be filled with hate mail for him. It is extraordinary how members of the public and cycling groups can object to anyone who suggests that we recommend wearing a helmet; that is so wrong.

There is a simple statistic that always amazes me: 15% to 21% of young people wear a helmet and 35% to 40% of adults wear one. So parents are happy to go out and put a helmet on their heads to protect themselves, but will not do it for their children. I do not think anyone would regard me as a pinko lefty liberal. That is not the view of me in the House. Yet it is clear to me that the right thing to do is to bring in the mandatory wearing of cycle helmets for young people. I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to that effect. The reason for that is simple. Children’s skulls are not developed, so the protection of a helmet is even more important for them than for an adult. Children cannot assess the dangers as an adult can. If adults freely decide to wear helmets it is absurd not to tell children that they must wear them.

My hon. Friend talked about horse riding. We now require children to wear helmets on the cricket field when they are batting and if they are keeping wicket. That has worked well, and now more adult players wear helmets, both when they keep and when they bat. If I had been wearing a helmet when I tried to hook this guy for four off a bouncer, I would not have lost most of the sight in my right eye. I was old enough to make that decision, but when it comes to cycling, surely we should protect children by law.

I know that that is not the Government’s view, and I entirely understand their point of view. The previous Minister made it clear; but he also made it clear that he would do anything outside legislation to promote the wearing of cycle helmets, and in the past few months I am afraid that things have gone backwards from that. I want to read from a letter to the Prime Minister, from the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust, which is a splendid organisation. I deal with many charities in my role as a Member of Parliament, and there are those that do something at grass roots, and care about something, and those that just talk about things and are worried about their next grant. The trust is a small charity that cares and does something about it. Angie Lee is a feisty lady who has been fighting on this question for a long time. She is a trauma nurse and sees the results of dreadful injuries. I think she needs to be supported. She has written a powerful letter to the Prime Minister, which is dated 16 October, and which unfortunately has not been replied to or even acknowledged by him, but she puts the case much better than I can. She says:

“When we last communicated back in March this year, you conveyed to me that the Government and the DfT encouraged the use of cycle helmets, especially for children. This offered me some assurance along with the confidence we had in the then Roads Safety minister, Mike Penning. I have not had the opportunity to meet his replacement, Stephen Hammond, as yet.

However, what you conveyed to me is in reality not the case. There is a fundamental conflict between sectors of the DfT, the road safety sector and the sustainable transport unit, with helmets being the ‘sell off’. Over the last two years we have seen a systematic move to undermine helmet use and its benefits and to exclude stakeholders, like ourselves, from being included on forums where cycling and helmets are discussed. It was only through the commitment of Mike that helmets remained high on the agenda.

Your coalition minister, Norman Baker, has publicly voiced his negative views on helmets and their use. Mr Baker’s personal choice and opinion have been widely used by cycling trainers and organisations to legitimise opposition to helmets. The attached document used by the UK’s largest provider of Bikeability training, Cycle Training UK, demonstrates this. This organisation also uses your picture to support its stance. We understand that Mr Baker has set up and leads a forum of selected cycle stakeholders. This is not open to all, but only a selected few who appear to us to be of a similar opinion. Mr Baker appears to be using his ministerial position to support his personal preference not to wear a helmet.

This is not the only conflict to be of concern to us. Last month the DfT launched a new Think! Campaign. The poster design is dreadful. It depicts a ‘green man’ cyclist without helmet, bike lights or reflector band. The ‘green man’ car driver has no seat belt on. These fundamental safety actions were all identified by a group of ten year olds whom I showed the poster to. I also understand that the DfT had discussed using Olympic cyclist, Bradley Wiggins, to launch this campaign but the CTC objected and Mr Wiggins was excluded because of his positive views on cycle helmets. If this is the case, then there is a serious strength of bias that is undermining the independence and impartiality within the department.

These conflicts, bias and segregation are damaging the work of organisations like ourselves, who have little or no access to DfT funding. We had drawn up a business case following a meeting we had with Mike Penning but since his departure, this, not surprisingly, has not progressed as we were expecting. We have invested vast amounts of energy, conviction and hard earned funds in the attempt to protect child and youth cyclists and support the road safety agenda. We have the skills and knowledge to take child cycle safety forward. However, we are not able to overcome constructed obstacles, bias and use of poor science.

Both adult and child cycling casualties are increasing. This is down to poor guidance, personal obstruction and a failure to be open and objective to all views in the interest of a holistic approach to this issue.

I have had the support of the DfT for 20 years, working with changing Governments and numerous ministers over this period. It is, however, the first time that I truly believe that children and young people are being ‘sold off’ in the interest of sustainable transport. Who are the winners? Who is gaining the most and what checks and balances are in place to evaluate this?

You know how hard our charity works. We have been held up as the true ‘big society’. Child cycle safety needs people who are in tune with child and youth needs, who are not financially driven and who are determined to lead on this issue despite external negative extremists.”

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Order. This is a very long quotation. Quotations are meant to be quotations rather than essays.

[Mr Bone]

I am conscious that I may be running over time, so I will not complete it, but I think the Minister has got the flavour of what Angie says. The issue is important; if possible would he nudge the Prime Minister to reply on that vital issue? I know that the Minister’s sympathies are with people wearing helmets, but I think that there has been a movement away from that in his Department in the past few weeks.

15:28

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Havard, on the first of two occasions. I congratulate the hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) on securing the debate, which comes after some high-profile cycling incidents, and today’s report in The Times.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Bradley Wiggins being knocked off his bike on 7 November in Wrightington in my constituency. For obvious reasons the case received significant national media coverage and highlighted the dangers for cyclists on the roads. Prior to the incident Bradley Wiggins had often spoken about the need to improve road safety for cyclists. Our roads grow ever busier, and there is an absolute need for all road users, whether cyclists or motorists, to take individual responsibility for being as safe as possible on the roads. That responsibility means not behaving in a way that endangers other road users, but for cyclists it also means taking the appropriate precautions to keep their bikes and themselves safe, including always wearing a helmet. For motorists it would include not speeding, and being cautious when passing cyclists.

Today The Times not only showed the serious dangers that cyclists face, but referred to the fact that this year, which is unparalleled in terms of the success and popularity of cycling, the number of cyclists killed on British roads is sadly on course to reach a five-year high. According to analysis by Transport for London, which was quoted in the article, 56% of cyclists’ deaths are caused by motorists’ “unlawful and anti-social” manner, yet only 6% of collisions are caused by cyclists behaving in the same way. Some people argue that we need to consider how properly to integrate cycling into the modern transport network. I would not, however, encourage anybody to follow the example of West Lancashire borough council, which has invested section 106 money building a cycle path to junction 4 on the M58. We certainly do not need to encourage cyclists towards the motorway network.

It is important to discuss whether making cycling helmets compulsory can improve cyclists’ safety. It does improve it, but the reality is that there are times when a helmet does not offer enough protection from dangerous driving. In such cases, we need to consider how motorists who cause fatal collisions are dealt with through the judicial process. At present, a view is that the inconsistencies in the charging and sentencing of motorists involved in collisions with cyclists is very worrying.

Everybody knows of Bradley Wiggins, but people will not know of Christine Favager, who was another cyclist involved in a collision in my constituency. Tragically, this time it was a fatal accident. Sixty-nine year old Christine was cycling along a rural road, Asmall lane, in Scarisbrick. The accident happened at about 7.40 pm on a July evening in 2011—not on a dark, wintery night. The 19-year-old driver was travelling between 59 and 63 mph as he raced into a bend. He was travelling too fast and too close to another car as he entered that bend, and witnesses saw the car swerve right across two lanes. In over-correcting, the driver was forced across the road to avoid hitting the car in front, which meant that Christine was hit head on. She had been cycling in the opposite direction. Initially, the driver was reported as being arrested under suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving. He subsequently pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving. A 20-month custodial sentence in a young offenders’ institute and a three-year driving ban were handed down to him. Christine’s family lost a very dear member.

That case highlights one of the complaints from cycling groups, which is that often the lesser charge of death by careless driving is pursued, as opposed to the charge of death by dangerous driving.

[Mr Bradshaw]

My hon. Friend gives an example of someone receiving a custodial sentence. I am sure she is aware that in a great many cases, drivers who kill cyclists and pedestrians do not even get that.

[Rosie Cooper]

I appreciate my right hon. Friend’s point. The case I described happened in my constituency, which is why I referred to it, but there truly is great outrage out there at the sentences being handed down to motorists who kill in such circumstances.

If we are to improve the safety of cyclists on our roads, there has to be an extensive range of measures that will offer protection and act as a deterrent to erratic and dangerous behaviour on our roads. All road users, whether they are cyclists, pedestrians or motorists, depend on us getting the law right.

15:34

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I will move fairly quickly over some of the issues that have been raised, and I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) on securing the debate. He comprehensively covered the whole range of measures that we need to take to improve cycling safety. With cycling, there must be a package of measures, right through to dealing with those important instances highlighted by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper), when we are all concerned about sentences perhaps not matching the incident in question. I understand the points that she made.

For a long time, I have been involved, in a fairly small way, in promoting cycling. It is so important—environmentally, for transport purposes, for health and leisure, as well as for family activities. In the early 1990s, I was chair of planning and highways at Poole borough council, where we introduced a big network of cycleways. We are moving forward; how exciting it was this year with the Tour de France, Bradley Wiggins, the Olympic success, and then seeing all those youngsters out on their bikes. It was absolutely amazing. I am still staggered walking the streets in London to see the number of people on bikes. It is all absolutely fantastic. I wholeheartedly support The Times campaign, which has driven this issue much further forward than we could have hoped to do by ourselves as parliamentarians.

I want to touch briefly, however, on the issue of cycle helmets. I, too, have worked with the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust, and I have also worked with local organisations. I am a patron of Headway Dorset and in Dorset, we have an organisation called Streetwise. It is a safety centre that covers all aspects of safety education, but it and the volunteers who work there are very concerned about cycling safety. A competition has recently been promoted among schools to design cycle helmets to raise awareness of how important it is to wear them. Raising awareness of that issue is crucial, and if we could achieve all that was needed to be achieved by doing that, we would not have to look any further.

I sometimes wonder why we need to go further. I look at BMX cycling on the television, and they are all wearing helmets, as, for the most part, are the children at the local skate parks. However, there does seem to be a common issue that it is not quite cool enough to wear one. It is certainly not good for a young person’s hairstyle at the age of 12 or 13, and it does not help if their friend is not wearing one. I have spoken to so many parents who say, “If only there was a law about this, I would feel happier about my child cycling.” When I raise such issues—I am thinking of this from the children’s standpoint—I have only ever looked at the possibility of a law for 14-year-olds and under. There is an issue of freedom of choice, but it is a vulnerable age group, and are we doing everything that we can?

It is suggested that my comments will result in the next generation of children being obese, but I find that difficult to believe. I would like to join the call made by my hon. Friend, not for the setting up of the law, but for a review of the evidence. I have heard the Australian evidence quoted to me so many times, but we need to know whether we would be deterring children in large numbers from cycling. There must be a lot of evidence out there; we should look at it and at the end of the day, ensure that we put our children first.

15:38

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) on securing the debate, which comes at a time when cycle safety is so high on the public agenda, and on the compelling case that he made for improving cycling safety.

The work of campaigning organisations, coupled with high-profile accidents, has raised awareness and led to demands for better protection for cyclists. It is heartening to see Members on both sides of the House here today, and I hope that anyone watching the debate will be left in no doubt that MPs are taking cycling safety seriously. Politicians have a duty to promote cycling and to help create environments in which cycling can flourish. The health benefits of cycling are well known, and we now have a better understanding of how high levels of cycling can lead to cleaner and stronger communities. However, safety concerns are a serious barrier, especially for those people considering making the switch to cycling. It is imperative that those barriers be lifted. I pay tribute to the cyclists’ organisations that have lobbied for higher standards for many years, as well as to the Cities Fit for Cycling campaign by The Times.

Although cycling is generally a safe activity, there are still issues to be tackled. There are many areas where cyclists’ safety can be improved, but it is equally important that we do not undo the progress that has been made. Cycling casualties rose by 12% last year, with serious injuries rising by 16%, as we have heard. The Times reports today that fatalities are now set to outstrip last year’s toll, making this year the worst for cycling deaths since 2007. Although that tragic rise may not have a single cause, the abolition of national safety targets was condemned by many in the cycling community, and my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) was right to raise that issue today.

National targets had been in place in one form or another since 1987 and had enjoyed cross-party support. Although there is scope for reform of national targets, I wanted to highlight their importance early in this debate, because I hope that this is an area where a new cross-party consensus can be achieved. Indeed, the need for national safety standards is a theme that should be emphasised. Better training for both cyclists and drivers would cut accidents and fatalities, but local programmes are too often dependent on bids for central Government funding. Labour has called for long-term dedicated funding for cycling proficiency training under the Bikeability programme to be restored, along with the restoration of school travel plans to raise awareness of walking and cycling among children. Cycle safety should also become an integral part of the driving test.

Cyclists would also benefit from dedicated funding for improvements to existing infrastructure. That is why Labour has called for a portion of the roads budget to be ring-fenced—so that communities can build up networks of cycleways. Too many junctions are dangerous for cyclists and need to be redesigned. That approach has been highly successful in northern Europe, and we should seek to replicate that success. Those improvements can be delivered, but planners need to know that funding will be available.

We also back the call by The Times for cycling commissioners in every city, to encourage local initiatives. They would benefit from a cycle audit, which would help to map out danger spots, as well as a new planning toolkit that drew on the lessons of the successful cycling city and towns programme, which was axed by the current Government. A new test—a cycling safety assessment—should be met before new road and major transport schemes are granted planning approval. Our existing roads were not designed with the needs of cyclists in mind, but we can at least correct that historical imbalance in the future. The “Manual for Streets” guidelines, which placed pedestrians and cyclists at the top of the user hierarchy, represented a good start. We should look to build on that principle.

Everyone agrees that reducing speed will improve road safety and save lives. Real progress has been made on lowering speed limits in residential areas, with a city-wide 20-mph limit being introduced in Portsmouth and many additional schemes in other towns and cities. We are looking at ways to support more local authorities to make the switch to 20 mph, but the removal of funding for speed cameras and the possible raising of the motorway speed limit mean that we have had mixed signals on road safety from this Government.

We also need to see action on one of the major safety hazards for cyclists—heavy goods vehicles. They account for a disproportionate number of deaths and serious injuries on the roads—a risk that was brought home to us last year when Mary Bowers, the young Times reporter, almost lost her life after being crushed by a lorry. A collaboration by Queen Mary, university of London and Barts and The London NHS Trust looked at the effect of heavy goods vehicles on cyclists’ safety. The conclusions that they reached are startling. Of patients brought to the Royal London hospital, cyclists hit by a car suffered a mortality rate of 6%. For those hit by HGVs, the rate was 21%. Of the most seriously injured cyclists, 82% had been hit by some form of motorised vehicle, but the overwhelming majority—73%—had been hit by a heavy goods vehicle. According to Transport for London, goods vehicles now account for half of all cyclist fatalities in the capital.

There is a clear need for action, and we have set out our support for reform. We would work with the industry to equip lorries with safety equipment, including blind-spot mirrors and side protection to help to stop cyclists falling under their wheels. Those upgrades could be funded through the proposed HGV road-charging scheme. We would invest in on-street infrastructure, including Trixi mirrors at junctions. More rigorous and comprehensive training is needed for lorry drivers, and we would work with the industry to achieve that as a priority.

According to the Department for Transport’s own figures, rail freight use would have gone up by 732% by 2025 if the decision had not been made to allow longer HGVs. Rail freight is now projected to go up by 262% instead. I hope that, in the interests of tackling congestion and improving road safety, the Government will look again at the issue, with a view to reversing that change.

All the measures that I have described would have safety benefits in their own right, but the overall impact is of vital importance as well. The wider effect would be to normalise cycling. I have seen for myself how cycling is a way of life for a striking number of people in Copenhagen and Malmö, where the long-standing determination of national and local politicians to deliver investment has reaped dividends. We need the same quality of leadership on cycling in the UK. We should not accept the Government’s retreat from promoting national standards.

That leads me to the issue of helmets and the case that some people have made for them to be compulsory. I have no doubt that helmets can effectively protect cyclists, particularly in low-impact collisions, and I would encourage their use, particularly by children, but I do not believe that compulsion is the answer. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) explained, where compulsory helmet laws have been introduced, they have been associated with a decline in bicycle use, including by children. After helmets became mandatory in Australia in 1991, cycle use in Perth dropped by up to 40%. In New Zealand, cycling levels halved between 1994 and 2006. Compulsory helmet laws in both Israel and New Mexico were deemed to be unsuccessful, with cycling levels dropping to the point at which the viability of bicycle-sharing facilities was put at risk.

Any substantial drop in cycle usage can in itself have a serious impact on safety. The safety-in-numbers effect means that when cycling levels increase, so does driver awareness and demand for infrastructure investment; conversely, when levels fall, individual cyclists may be at greater risk. An example of the safety-in-numbers effect can be found in the Netherlands, where cycling levels are high and relatively few people wear helmets. British cyclists are three times more likely to be killed on the roads than their Dutch counterparts.

There is simply no quick fix for these issues. If we want more people to take up cycling, we need sustained investment and a more supportive attitude to cycling in general. British Cycling has said:

“Helmets can help save lives in many incidents and we recommend they are worn…What would contribute much, much more to making cycling safer is better road infrastructure.”

My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) noted that there have been some unhelpful comments in the media about the causes of accidents, and I would like to deal with that point. Everyone on the roads has a duty to act responsibly. For cyclists, that of course includes using lights at night and cycling in a safe and law-abiding way. However, the truth is that cyclists are at fault only in a minority of collisions. That is why alongside training for cyclists, we urgently need better training for motorists and lorry drivers in particular. As I said, we need dedicated funding for infrastructure improvements. We need the Times Cities Fit for Cycling manifesto to be implemented in full and we need national standards to be upheld.

As a regular cyclist myself, I appreciate the importance of cycle safety standards. If we are serious about modal shift and tackling inactivity levels, we must make our roads safer and more attractive for cyclists and pedestrians. This debate has provided another vital opportunity to highlight the work that has been done and the work that we still need to do. Labour will continue to advance proposals to make our roads safer, and we will keep the pressure on the Government to strengthen their position on cycling safety.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Mr Hammond, would you like to give all those answers to Mr Bone’s 10-year-olds and on behalf of the Prime Minister?

15:49

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

I am delighted to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Havard. I think that it would be presumptuous of me to provide an answer on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but I certainly listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) said and I will come to his comments in a moment.

I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) and congratulate him on the debate. He made an excellent speech—a serious speech. A number of questions came up, and I will try to tackle as many of them as I can in the short time available. I am sure that if I do not respond to them all, he will want to write to me, and I will be happy to put the replies on the record. I particularly welcome the debate.

I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) said, and yes, of course there is more to do, but I hope that she recognises the great deal that the Government are doing. We take the promotion of cycling, the ability to cycle safely and our responsibilities seriously. Cycling is not just a convenient, healthy and green way to travel, as hon. Members have said, but relatively inexpensive, and therefore accessible to many. There has never been a better time for people to get on their bikes, and that is exactly what we are seeing.

The trend started after Beijing 2008, which reignited the passion for cycling for many people. As my hon. Friend pointed out, after the heroics of the Olympics, Paralympics and Tour de France, not only have we seen thousands more people cycling, but we expect hundreds of thousands more people to take to two wheels. In some parts of London, cyclists already seem to outnumber other vehicles.

I commend The Times’s excellent cycling campaign; we have taken much of it on board. The hon. Member for Nottingham South was right to commend also British Cycling, Sustrans, the Bicycle Association of Great Britain, London Cycling Campaign and C2C, all of which lobby heavily, carefully and thoughtfully for cycling. It is distressing that, although the number of cycling fatalities has been falling—fatalities decreased between 2010 and 2011—the number of serious injuries has increased. As road safety Minister, I am determined to ensure that our roads are as safe they can be for everyone who uses them, whatever the mode of transport.

The Government have invested substantially in road infrastructure and other safety angles, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) pointed out. The local sustainable transport fund is targeting £600 million of investment over four years to look at local networks. Almost all the projects funded so far include infrastructure improvements for cycling. I could give examples, but will not due to the time. Improvements include landscaping, resurfacing, repainting, new lighting and adding new parts to junctions to improve the safety of cycle routes.

The Department is working on other ways to reduce risk. We have made it considerably simpler for councils to install Trixi mirrors to improve the visibility of cyclists at junctions and to put in place 20 mph limits and zones. I strongly encourage councils to consider the greater use of such 20 mph zones in residential areas, because they clearly have an impact on the safety of cyclists and pedestrians. We have also made it easier for councils to introduce contraflow cycling by changing signage laws, so fewer signs need to be used. I am working closely with cycle safety stakeholder groups on other issues and infrastructure measures that the local sustainable transport fund can bring forward. We have made £30 million available to local councils up and down the country to tackle the most difficult and dangerous junctions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West mentioned HGVs. The hon. Member for Nottingham South is right that training is crucial for HGV drivers, operators, transport managers and employers. That is why I am pleased that the Freight Transport Association, with Government support and backing, introduced a cycling code last year. I was delighted to be at the launch of the Mineral Products Association’s new drivers’ awareness campaign. It targeted young cyclists at Hyde park, where a number of them stopped to see how difficult it is for even the most well trained drivers to spot cyclists, even in the most well equipped lorries with a blind-side mirror and other safety implements. The Government are behind that awareness campaign, and I support the investment from the MPA and the FTA.

All EU member states have implemented the European legislation, which applies to almost all HGVs used in domestic and foreign trade. We continue to drive that agenda in Europe, to ensure that mirrors are required for new vehicles. We have provided £30 million to make potentially hazardous junctions across England safer for cyclists. Of that, £15 million is going to London, because we recognise that in London in particular there has been a huge increase in cycling and in the number of people wishing to access the roads more safely.

We are working with partners, through the Department for Transport cycling stakeholder forum, on a wide range of issues, including safety. I will meet the group in the near future. It is inclusive: it includes cyclists, motorists and representatives from local authorities and the Freight Transport Association, because not having all those people on such a body would mean missing out on opportunities. We strongly encourage local authorities to follow the example of some of the schemes that we have set up and those set up previously to consider actions to improve safety for cyclists

In the short time available, I shall touch on helmets, because the issue has come up a number of times today. In 2009, the Government commissioned and published a report entitled, “The potential for cycle helmets to prevent injury”. It concluded that helmets could be expected to reduce fatalities and injuries in the event of an accident, particularly if a vehicle was not involved. No evidence was found of helmets adding any additional injury risk. Let me make it clear that the Department for Transport supports the promotion of cycle helmets, through measures such as Highway Code rule 59. I was also pleased to initiate the recent THINK! campaign in September. The Government are putting more money into Bikeability cycle training and have committed more money to it over the next three years. The Department also makes its support clear on its webpage and through other schemes.

We equally accept that helmets are a matter of exhortation rather than compulsion. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough made a powerful speech. He is right that the former Minister was excellent and showed strength on this matter—I am not sure that I will live up to my hon. Friend’s hopes. I entirely agree with him; anything outside legislation to promote and exhort the wearing of cycle helmets, I will do in my role as road safety Minister. I am happy, first, to nudge the Prime Minister to ensure that he answers my hon. Friend, and, secondly, to accept his invitation to a meeting. I am sure that he will write to my officials about that.

One of my first acts as road safety Minister was to announce the first THINK! Cyclist campaign. Many will know that we have used the THINK! label for a number of road safety campaigns, but we have not had a campaign dedicated to cycling for 10 years. It concentrates on the behaviour of cyclists and motorists, by getting those who cycle, who are often motorists as well, to think about how they behave on the road as motorists and how they want people to behave towards them as cyclists. I would like to go into more detail on that campaign, but I accept the comment that the little green man should have been wearing his helmet. A number of cities have taken up the campaign and I continue to spend time promoting it. I am convinced that THINK! Cyclist can have a beneficial effect on road safety.

I am acutely aware that we are coming to the end of our debate. Cycling offers huge benefits to both the individual and society. The challenge, which remains a challenge for the Government, is to continue to ensure that our roads are as safe as we can make them. Investment is therefore going into infrastructure and the training of young people, and we exhort people to wear cycle helmets. I hope that when we have a debate on this subject in a year’s time, as I am sure we will, the trends will not only seem to be downwards, but be proven to be downwards.

Dyslexia (Prisons)

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to raise this important issue. I am doing so because of a whirlwind or, as some might say, a force of nature, who entered one of my constituency surgeries earlier this year—my constituent, Jackie Hewitt-Main. She came to tell me about a project she had undertaken in Chelmsford prison, “Dyslexia Behind Bars”.

During that project, she assessed more than 2,000 offenders for special educational needs, and attempted to work with them to help them understand their learning difficulties and to succeed where the education system had so far failed them. The effect on the re-offending rates of the inmates who took part is truly astounding, and I want to bring that to the full attention of the House and the Government. I believe that Jackie’s work gives an invaluable insight into how we can break down the barriers that prevent offenders from becoming safe and productive members of their community, once they have repaid their debt to society.

I will explain Jackie’s project and her findings later, but first I want to analyse the extent of the special learning needs among our national inmate population. The sad truth is that no one is at all sure how many people in our prisons actually suffer from dyslexia or other learning difficulties. In most cases, the information accompanying people into prison is unlikely to show whether learning difficulties or learning disabilities have been identified.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. On collation, is she saying that the Government should collate information on offenders with dyslexia who go to prison?

[Rebecca Harris]

There is good reason why that information should be collated nationally. I am aware that the Government are moving to a system of payment by results, under which market mechanisms might pick up such issues and ensure that we address them properly.

[Rehman Chishti]

On that point about payment by results, does my hon. Friend agree that when an offender enters prison and has a health needs assessment looking at speech and language communication, a dyslexia assessment should be undertaken at the same time?

[Rebecca Harris]

I absolutely do, and given what I will be saying, I hope that many others will agree with my hon. Friend and me about that.

According to the Prison Reform Trust report “No One Knows”, fully half the offenders in British prisons have problems with basic literary skills. It notes:

“The most consistent information about the number of offenders with learning difficulties or learning disabilities is that no one agrees on how many exist.”

With regard to dyslexia, for example, estimates of prevalence among offenders range from 4% to 56%. However, the general average in prison-based studies is about 30%, although rates of serious deficit in literacy and numeracy generally reach up to about 60%. According to Ministry of Justice figures published earlier this month, we currently have more than 86,000 prisoners, so we can estimate that about 26,000 offenders in UK prisons suffer from some form of dyslexia, but we do not know for certain.

I was surprised and disappointed to learn that, historically, the Government have kept no data whatever centrally on the numbers or percentage of the prison population who have special educational needs, such as dyslexia, or even on how many are illiterate. I was surprised and disappointed because the two main aims of our penal system are to punish effectively and to rehabilitate offenders. “The Oxford Dictionary of Law”—my learned colleague, my hon. Friend, will know more about it than I do—defines rehabilitation as:

“Treatment aimed at improving an offender’s character or behaviour (including education, counselling, employment, training, etc.) that is undertaken with the goal of reintegrating the offender into society.”

All Members would agree that one of the most basic necessities effectively to integrate into our modern society is the basic ability to read and write.

With that in mind, I find it hard to see how the Government can allocate and target rehabilitation resources, or commission them effectively, if those data are not collected. Similarly, the Government cannot properly analyse any causal link between the lack of basic literacy and offender behaviour, or assess how far educational failure or the failure to pick up dyslexia in schools leads to offender behaviour in later life.

[Rehman Chishti]

On literacy and dyslexia, does my hon. Friend agree that prisoners’ literacy skills are lower than average, which reflects their social background, and that greater emphasis must therefore be placed on that?

[Rebecca Harris]

There should be a great deal more scrutiny on all factors, because there are others. In addition to literacy problems, there is a huge number of social factors, as well as the fact that many members of the prison population have had head injuries or personality disorders.

If we are to drill down, deal with our re-offending rates and our prison populations and, ultimately, achieve what we want by keeping our streets safer, all those factors need proper consideration. We always want to hear that people have been locked up and put away, so that they cannot be on the streets to offend, but they come out again and if we do not stem the tide, we will not address the problem. The issue is not new. For many decades, various social commentators have explained that there is a link between educational attainment and the propensity to commit crime. That only underlines my dismay that we are not doing more, and do not have a proper audit.

As I have said, one key advantage of having payment by results for rehabilitating offenders is that, through the introduction of market mechanisms, organisations—whether third sector or charitable ones—will put greater emphasis on identifying the causes of educational failure in our prisons and ensure that such factors are brought to bear on rehabilitation, whereas under previous Governments, we had one-size-fits-all solutions, particularly for education and training in prisons.

I speak as a dyslexic myself. That is why, when my constituent came into my surgery, everything she told me rang a bell and struck a chord. She came to the right Member of Parliament, because I was extremely interested. I know exactly how embarrassing and frustrating it can be to work very hard in school on a piece of work—coming up with all sorts of fantastic ideas and arguments—only for the teacher to hand it back with red marks all over it because of poor spelling or grammar. That is soul-destroying, actually. I also know what it is like to be told that I am stupid or lazy, or both. It does not take very long for someone in that situation to feel that they cannot trust their own judgment about themselves or about their peers and others around them.

Even worse, such people—perhaps to save face or from confusion and frustration—find it easy to begin to act up to the very labels they are given. Young men in particular often become difficult and disruptive, and that can lead them down a nasty and dangerous path from which it is hard to turn back. I was lucky enough to be diagnosed with dyslexia before I sat my A-levels, but, in fact, a large number of people with dyslexia have always slipped through the net of our education system. For those who leave school hampered by their dyslexia to the extent that they still cannot properly read and write, the frustration and embarrassment they felt in the classroom too often becomes a part of their daily life.

Many dyslexics, if not most, are very good at creating coping strategies and at adapting their day-to-day life to avoid situations in which they are hampered by their dyslexia. Certainly, the vast majority of them never become criminals; I have become a Member of Parliament—I am well aware that many members of the public think that the two are very similar. It is also true that a significant number of dyslexics try to avoid altogether any situations in which they have to read or write. If that aversion to reading and writing is severe enough to make it daunting even to fill in a simple form, they are really lost. Basic literacy is essential for interacting with the rest of society, while illiteracy can be a source of immense frustration and impoverishment and, of course, a factor in crime.

I will talk about the detailed findings of Jackie’s report in a moment, but one fascinating insight that she discovered was that a number of the dyslexic prisoners whom she interviewed were locked up for offences relating directly to their aversion to reading and writing, and specifically to form filling. She found that 10% of dyslexic offenders were serving sentences that were related to strings of driving offences involving driving without a proper licence or insurance. When Jackie asked them why they were not properly licensed, she found that most either could not pass the theory test or simply had not bothered trying because they knew that they would fail. If it is difficult to get through life without reading and writing, it is also quite difficult to get through life without driving a car.

[Rehman Chishti]

At the moment, education providers use a hidden disabilities questionnaire, which has been developed by Dyslexia Action, to test anyone who shows signs of having a learning difficulty and/or disability. Does my hon. Friend think that test is working?

[Rebecca Harris]

The evidence from the insightful review written by my constituent, who is a dyslexic herself, seems to show that it is not working. We are not picking up people and, more to the point, we do not know how to reach them and treat them when we do pick them up.

The examples that I have given show not only how important it is to identify dyslexia in prison but why we should improve dyslexia screening provision throughout the education system, but that is a debate for another day and another Minister. I seriously believe that a greater focus on dyslexia will lead to a fall in reoffending rates and that the report from the “Dyslexia Behind Bars” project provides enough evidence and insight for the Government to look at the matter more seriously.

The project took place in Chelmsford prison and, on first glance, its methodology seemed simple—first, to assess the level of illiteracy and special educational needs related to dyslexia in the prison and secondly, to set up a stage-by-stage, one-on-one mentoring scheme among the offenders using Jackie’s teaching tools and methods to teach them outside the traditional classroom setting.

Jackie began work with 20 prisoners with exceptionally low literacy levels. They were generally prisoners who would never have engaged with the prison education service because they saw it as the same pen-and-paper classroom experience that they had previously hated and been failed by, which is why the approach of Jackie, a fellow dyslexic who was undiagnosed until her 40s, was so different. I can entirely identify with the relief simply of being diagnosed dyslexic, let alone being diagnosed by a fellow dyslexic who has overcome the condition. It is a huge opportunity for someone to reappraise how they view themselves and to give them an incentive to try again.

The prisoners who had been taught to read and write by Jackie offered to share their experiences with other prisoners. Literate prisoners also came forward, wanting to learn how to teach and mentor greater numbers of inmates. Jackie trained 40 of them to support fellow prisoners through the project. In that way, her unique, multi-sensory and original teaching and mentoring programme spread to all wings of the prison. More than 200 prisoners were individually taught and supported over the first part of the project by Jackie and her trained mentors, but that figure quickly grew as the project developed and spread. A further 70 prisoners were successfully helped by mentors who transferred to Wayland prison to extend the reach of the project to another part of the prison estate.

Fifty male prisoners went through learning workshops with Jackie. Their literacy levels were at the lowest pre-school level, and they needed to develop early learning and life skills. They discovered that they had a range of strengths which they could build on to develop their learning and to gain self-esteem. They were all helped to create their own highly individual learning plans to understand how to manage their own life, attitudes and behaviours.

Overall, 53% of the 2,029 offenders interviewed at Chelmsford during the project were diagnosed with dyslexia, which is a huge statistic. When they came out of prison, the great majority of them were either working or in education. Within weeks, several prisoners with the literacy skills of an average four-year-old had learned enough to write their first letters home and to read the letters that they received back.

A testimonial from Prisoner J said:

“Jackie has shown me things that no one else has ever been able to do before: reading, writing and sums. I have learnt more in 8 weeks than in all 41 years of my life.”

Jackie and the mentors helped prisoners to learn how to read and fill in forms, to take and pass the driving theory test and to take and pass the building site construction skills test, which meant that they could legally work in construction. That helped to give a sense of optimism and direction to prisoners in preparation for their release.

The project also transformed the prison as a whole—I am sure that the Minister would like to know that. Prison officers commented on how much calmer even the most violent prisoners became as their self-esteem rose along with their progress, resulting in a calmer and happier atmosphere across the whole prison. In the two years, prisoner-on-prisoner and prisoner-on-staff assaults fell dramatically—the figures really are quite dramatic—which prison officers have attributed to the “Dyslexia Behind Bars” project, although, unfortunately, they rose after the project ended.

All prisoners involved in the project improved their literacy skills to a level advanced enough to extend their choices of work and leisure activities and prepare more effectively for their lives outside. Of the 17 prisoners in Jackie’s first two groups who were released four years ago, only one has reoffended. That represents a 5.9% proven reoffending rate within four years, compared with the national rate of 55% within two years, or 68% within five years. Clearly, that sample is too small to be statistically reliable. However, it is a useful indicator that shows that the reoffending rate of the project participants is less than a tenth of the national average. An example of that reduction in recidivism is the case of three serial offenders who had each been in and out of prison more than 40 times—none of them has reoffended since their release four years ago.

Of the first 17 prisoners to be released, four are employed in trades, two in building, one a fork-lift driver and one a film producer; two are employed by charities, one teaching disabled people the skills to get into work and one mentoring young offenders; two are voluntary workers, one mentoring adults with learning difficulties and one supporting men on probation; two have started their own businesses; five are currently unemployed; one is at a top university doing an engineering degree; and just one went back into prison.

Moreover, of the first 40 offenders to become mentors, 10 were also trained in PTLLS—preparing to teach in the lifelong learning sector—qualifications. All 10 finished the course and passed with those qualifications. Chelmsford prison has now received many personal requests to transfer, as prisoners and their families hear on the grapevine of the success of the project.

I should like to extend my thanks to the Minister. I wrote to him on this matter earlier this month and received an extremely helpful letter and an offer to meet me and Jackie, for which I am grateful. Moreover, I also welcome the announcement yesterday by the Secretary of State for Justice that he will be reviewing the educational approach taken in the youth custody estate, where we are currently detaining about 1,800 young people, with a 70% likelihood of reoffending. It seems highly likely that among that cohort, there will also be a large proportion with undetected learning needs. There is an opportunity to use an innovative method of reaching and teaching them before they are released back into society. I am quite certain that that will dramatically reduce their reoffending figures.

Historically, education in prison has not been held in high regard by the public as an effective tool to rehabilitate offenders—a fact that was mentioned in an Education and Skills Committee report in 2005. Sadly, I do not believe that that perception has changed in the minds of the public today. The public does not have much confidence or belief in the educational work of the prisons and their ability to rehabilitate. The first role of our prison system should always be to punish offenders and so act as an effective deterrent to reoffending. My aim is not to raise the plight of dyslexics or in any way to excuse any form of offending behaviour but to highlight a way in which we can drastically reduce reoffending rates and ultimately keep our streets safer for the British public.

16:18

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) on securing this debate on a very important subject. I am grateful to her, too, for introducing me to the work of her constituent, Jackie Hewitt-Main. I look forward to meeting her and my hon. Friend on 5 December to discuss this matter further.

It is clear that Ms Hewitt-Main’s project, “Dyslexia Behind Bars” contains some interesting approaches to a substantial problem. Using a multi-sensory and mentoring approach, she has offered a great deal to the inmates of Chelmsford prison, and there is a great deal there that we will wish to explore. As far as I know, this work has not yet been assessed or reviewed by an independent organisation and although its initial results are promising, further work will be necessary to ensure that they are as good as they appear to be. It seems sensible to explore with my hon. Friend the ways in which we can change things to improve what is on offer.

It is also worth saying that the National Offender Management Service is considering a review of the evidence on effective working with offenders with learning difficulties and disabilities, and I will come back to what is already being done in a moment.

The particular areas of Ms Hewitt-Main’s work that my hon. Friend highlighted, and that are particularly interesting in the context of what my hon. Friend said we are doing more generally in the Justice Department, include peer mentoring. I have seen very good examples of peer mentoring in the prison system, with older, more established prisoners assisting younger and newer prisoners in a variety of ways. The work that my hon. Friend described is only one of those ways.

As my hon. Friend also said, teaching and learning in a non-classroom environment are important. We must recognise that the classroom environment did not work for a great many of the prisoners we are talking about at school, and it probably will not work for them in custody either, so we have to find new and imaginative approaches that, as she said, involve the whole prison.

It is also worth noting that, as I understand it, Ms Hewitt-Main’s programme involved some mentoring of people after they leave prison. As my hon. Friend will have picked up from the speech yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice, that is also an area on which we wish to focus.

It may be helpful if I set out some of the work that is already being done, at which we are having another look to ensure that it is being done in the best possible way. Since taking up this post, I have been very keen to ensure that the importance of learning and skills within the prison estate and beyond is high on the agenda. Indeed, my hon. Friend will have noted that the Prime Minister also mentioned learning and skills in his recent speech on offenders.

In particular, of course, the low levels of literacy and numeracy among prisoners as a group should concern us all, not only because of the impact on those individuals and their ability to function in a world where reading and writing are essential skills, but because a lack of sufficient literacy and numeracy skills excludes people from the vast majority of employment opportunities. I am sure, as are many others, that having a job can make a significant impact on reducing reoffending, and that skills such as organisation, communication, teamwork, writing, speaking and listening are necessary to perform effectively in most, if not all, work roles.

Prisoners with dyslexia are, of course, disadvantaged in that respect, not only because dyslexia presents them with particular issues in terms of competence in reading and writing, but because dyslexia is recognised as impairing organisational skills. My hon. Friend obviously has a clear personal perspective on dyslexia and its effects, which has been extremely valuable in the debate.

Of course, engaging with prisoners on learning and skills can be difficult, as my hon. Friend recognised. Some prisoners may have had negative experiences in their education and even been excluded, and consequently they see little value in education. Statistics that I have seen recently suggest that nearly half of prisoners identified themselves as having left education with no qualifications at all. Dyslexia magnifies that problem. It can be very difficult to recognise and is often masked. Not all schools will have had the specialist provision to support children and young people who have this difficulty.

Since reading and writing are “gateway” skills that enable children and young people to engage confidently with their wider educational experience, as well as in many basic social relationships, poor educational experiences can create reluctant learners. The experience of being excluded from positive experiences of learning to read, write and communicate more widely remains with many prisoners into adulthood. That presents an additional challenge in custody, where engaging with reluctant learners can be particularly difficult if memories of the classroom act as a barrier to taking the opportunities that education can provide.

Dyslexia is only one condition in a range of learning difficulties and disabilities that prisoners may present with, and that require specialist and systematic approaches. We need to provide as much support as we can to prisoners with LDDs, to improve their chances in the workplace as well as their confidence, self-esteem and social skills. Without dedicated input, the impact of much learning support in reading and writing may be reduced or lost.

The NOMS learning disabilities and difficulties working group exists to oversee the national implementation of an LDD screening process for prisoners, and to develop a broader LDD strategy across prisons. Apart from various officials from NOMS, membership of the group includes officials from the Department of Health, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and the Prison Reform Trust. I welcome, as I am sure my hon. Friend does, the contribution made by the group, as these issues can be resolved only by partners across Government and the voluntary sector working together. The group is involved in the development of NOMS guidance for better outcomes for offenders with LDDs. It is also developing guidance on reasonable adjustments for prisoners with LDDs, to ensure that they are integrated into the prison community and that they have the best opportunity to participate in activities that support their rehabilitation. Further commitments for the current year include improving staff awareness, as well as prisoner and peer training.

Returning to a point that my hon. Friend made about the crucial importance of our knowing how many people in prison have dyslexia and other learning disabilities, a learning disability screening questionnaire has been piloted on three sites, and NOMS is considering whether it should be used across the prison estate. The Youth Justice Board is using a similar tool—the comprehensive health assessment tool—with young offenders. That will go some way towards addressing the point that she raised and on which my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) focused: identifying the number of people we are dealing with.

My hon. Friend and also mentioned the Skills Funding Agency and its hidden disabilities screening tool, which of course identifies issues wider than LDDs. It has been used by all the SFA’s custodial Offender Learning and Skills Service providers since August 2009. Our aim is that this tool will eventually be adopted and used by all OLASS providers, both in custody and in the community, and ultimately by all mainstream providers.

We are also making radical changes to the way that learning and skills are delivered in prisons, which will encompass the support that we want to be made available to all prisoners with LDDs. As part of that radical programme of change, we have published a document that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point may have seen—if she has not seen it, I commend it to her—called “Making prisons work: skills for rehabilitation”. That is the new offender learning strategy, which was published jointly with BIS. The strategy recognised that improving prisoners’ literacy skills was central to rehabilitation, as we have discussed today, and we are taking steps to ensure the implementation of the report’s recommendations.

To give an idea of the scale of the problem that literacy and numeracy difficulties present in prisons, in the academic year 2010-11 almost 30% of prisoners had such low levels of reading and writing skills that, in order to bring them up to a basic functional level, individual learning aims for literacy and numeracy had to be set for them. Overall, 65% of prisoners enrolled on literacy and numeracy programmes were successful in achieving the literacy and numeracy functional skills goals that had been set as part of their individual learning plans. For some, it meant learning to read and write, while for others it meant improving their basic literacy and numeracy so that they could operate with more confidence and competence.

The revised Offender Learning and Skills Service, which is OLASS 4, was implemented as a result of the “Making prisons work” strategy, and it will make additional provision against assessed need. OLASS 4 requires education providers to identify the support needs of offenders with LDDs or special educational needs through a learning difficulty assessment, or LDA. Requirements identified through the assessment should be addressed through personalised, customised programmes delivered by specialist qualified staff. My hon. Friend will recognise the importance of that approach, because not all offenders have identical needs. OLASS 4 providers understand, and are able to deliver, the specific and systematic approaches to learning that are required by prisoners with such difficulties.

Crucially, however, through OLASS 4 and the work that we are doing more widely with other Departments, we are more strongly linking skills to employment, and I believe that there is still more work to do in that regard. Arrangements are also in place to allow OLASS 4 providers to draw together funding to support prisoners with LDDs, through a specific adult learning support allocation that is designed to match the support that mainstream learners in colleges or training organisations receive. A budget for additional learning support of £7.1 million is available to the OLASS 4 providers, to enable the introduction of specific assessment processes to identify offenders with LDD needs and to provide those offenders with the expert teaching and support that they require.

In addition, my hon. Friend may be aware of the work of the Shannon Trust’s “Toe by Toe” reading scheme, which is also available in prisons. Again, this scheme uses peer mentors, supported by volunteers, teaching staff and prison officers, and it is based on best practice developed through teachers’ experiences of enabling children with dyslexia to read. That is enormously beneficial to many offenders.

In conclusion, I welcome today’s debate, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I assure her that, although we believe that much good work is being done already, there is still a great deal more to do, and we are certainly open to new and good ideas, including those that I look forward to discussing with her and her constituent.

Mobile Technology (Health Care)

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the second time today, Mr Havard. I welcome the Minister to his place. We were occupants of neighbouring offices in this House, but I tend not to see him quite so much now, with his promotion to the Government ranks.

In every aspect of our lives, technology is driving innovation, improvement and increased efficiency. Health care is no different, where the use of mobile communications technology is becoming increasingly important. We are reaching a point where mobile technology can take an increasingly strategic role in meeting today’s health care demands. That is because a number of critical factors are converging, including several extremely demanding health care challenges that, taken together, require new approaches and solutions; the remarkable computing power now available on portable devices such as tablets and smart phones; and the development of specific mobile technology-based health-care focused solutions that can improve quality, efficiency and a patient’s experience of their care. I shall cover each of those in turn.

Our health service faces unprecedented challenges that go way beyond the £20 billion cuts to national health service spending, and most health care systems across the world face similar situations. We are, as a population, living longer. That is undoubtedly a good thing, but it brings with it demands. Older people with multiple and complex health care needs constitute the majority of interactions with the NHS, and their care consumes the majority of health care expenditure, to the extent that health care costs are growing faster than gross domestic product. New drugs, diagnostics and treatments mean that we can treat conditions that years ago were simply considered beyond the reach of modern medicine. They are welcome developments, but they inevitably involve significant financial cost.

A less welcome reason for increasing health costs relates to the increase in long-term and chronic diseases. Over recent years, we have seen the rise in the prevalence of obesity, type 2 diabetes and other conditions that have a significant lifestyle-related component. They contribute directly to health care requirements and lead to secondary complications. For example, the single most significant risk factor to the development of dementia is cardiovascular health. The NHS needs to address all those challenges while delivering an unprecedented 4% year-on-year compound efficiency savings. The Minister, as a former member of the Select Committee on Health, on which I still sit, will be aware that the Committee has correctly pointed out that such a level of savings has not been achieved by any other health care system.

I think we can accept that the face of health care and the challenges it faces are changing. How can mobile communications technology help deal with the challenges? It is worth reflecting that the power of today’s mobile communications technology—they are long words, but we would just call them tablet computers and smart phones—is comparable to some of the faster supercomputers of just a decade or so ago. I was interested in what is termed “always on” connectivity, which means that one can always be reached if devices are switched on, through secure wi-fi, 3G and the emerging 4G technology. Such devices can connect instantly with extremely powerful networks. That means that working practices established 10 or more years ago can be radically transformed. Through harnessing the power and capabilities of mobile communications technology, the health service can better support its health care professionals. Technology can reduce the time spent on administration and give professionals much more needed time to care.

Specifically, modern mobile communications technology can help patients and the public make healthier decisions, enabling individuals to manage their conditions more effectively and therefore to live independently. It can also help health care professionals collect information more effectively, which leads to improved efficiency, patient safety and care quality. I will draw on a few examples that relate to those areas. Mobile technology can help patients take more control of their health by encouraging healthier lifestyle choices; by giving patients more control and information to manage their conditions effectively; and by supporting more comprehensive remote monitoring.

I think the Minister is aware that there is already extensive clinical evidence that shows that patients who take an active role in their care do better. For example, a study in Toronto showed that diabetic patients who monitored their blood pressure using smart phones experienced a 25% drop in cardiovascular mortality. The Government have committed to giving patients the right to book general practitioner appointments, order repeat prescriptions and talk to GP practices online. That represents just the tip of the iceberg. The effect on the population’s health would be much stronger if patients were encouraged to monitor their care with support from their health care professionals.

Much closer to home, Leicestershire’s nutrition and dietetic services and the university of Chester in the UK have pioneered a secure smart phone solution to enhance the approach to adult weight management services. Achieving sustainable weight loss is hard, yet their service, known as LEAP—lifestyle, eating and activity programmes—weight management groups, based on national guidance, has achieved just that. They have found that the key to long-term weight loss is to provide follow-up support. After finishing the initial programme, patients take part in a three-month follow-up programme, focusing on self-monitoring with encouragement from staff via text messages. I understand that they are not alone in doing that kind of thing; the all-party group of which I was formerly chair, Slimming World, does something similar. To ensure patient confidentiality and data security, a BlackBerry smart phone is used with an application that converts text messages to e-mail and vice versa. That creates an accurate record of patient-practitioner dialogue. The results include statistically significant weight loss compared with a control group and an improved quality of life.

Those two simple examples show that by supporting individuals to use smart phones and tablets already at their disposal, people can take more control of their lives and make healthier decisions. There is scope for the NHS to become more proactive in encouraging such approaches without incurring significant cost.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. She is making a point about the importance of technology in preventing health care problems. As she will know, the preventive public health role is being transferred to local government. Does she agree that it is vital for the technology to have the funding needed when the preventive role is transferred, and that it is not left to local government, given the scale of the cuts that local government has suffered?

[Rosie Cooper]

A serious point is being made here: public health is being transferred to local government, and the funds that go with it need to be spent on public health and preventive means. I am worried that councils might use some of the money to do work to which they are already committed. So, yes, they do need support, and we need to ensure that the money they get is spent correctly and wisely. Mobile technology can help to improve public health.

One of the perennial challenges of modern health care is to keep accurate, comprehensive records without detracting from the care-giving process, which is quite difficult. Too often the supposed solutions feel burdensome. As a result, clinicians can sometimes be difficult to engage—in fact, there is a view that sometimes clinicians rarely engage—and the accuracy and completeness of records suffers as a result.

We can show that there are tried and tested solutions developed by and in partnership with NHS organisations that have been shown to work. For example, digital pen-and-paper technology, supported by mobile connectivity, can be used to complete patient records. In turn, that can improve patient safety, care quality and efficiency. That technology is pioneered by Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust and allows mums-to-be to keep their paper records as normal, and because the records are made using a mobile-enabled digital pen and paper, the maternity department instantly receives an easily accessible electronic copy of the expectant mum’s paper records. That happens while the midwife is still with the expectant mum in her home. As well as improving safety when mums arrive at the hospital without their notes, the technology’s deployment has brought about real efficiency by halving the time that midwives spend on administration.

As well as solutions that can help health care professionals in the community, we need to recognise that most acute hospitals are large complex buildings that, all too sadly, often span several sites. There is strong evidence that the accuracy of patient records and the quality of clinical decision making may be improved if clinicians record information themselves and have access to it when they are with their patients, rather than leaving the process to administrators who are removed from the care. Realistically, that can be achieved only by making it easier for clinicians to record and access information wherever they are.

I am told that organisations such as University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust are making real progress in mobilising information so that clinicians have real-time, secure access to patient records. The foundation trust is using tablet devices and smartphones to achieve such improvements. As the NHS looks to implement new solutions, we need to encourage people to focus on secure approaches that patients and clinicians trust, which means designing privacy into the entire system, with security measures built into mobile devices. We also need reliable connectivity, which is fundamental for effective mobile working. Even in areas with the most advanced mobile infrastructures, bandwidth can sometimes be limited, so it is essential to choose hardware that can switch seamlessly between different mobile protocols and wi-fi connections. Such functionality would minimise bandwidth-related costs. We need to focus on approaches that complement patient-clinician interactions and that make the most of existing technology. Mobile solutions that can be rapidly deployed and that integrate with existing infrastructure would ensure investments that have already been made can be enhanced rather than discarded.

As the former chair of Liverpool Women’s hospital, I know there are now solutions to some of the problems in enabling midwives to spend the maximum amount of time out on the front line. Such improvements are a godsend and enable our professionals to deal with patients efficiently and effectively. I am aware of the Government’s plan to introduce a fund for technology to improve midwifery and nursing care, and I very much welcome that. As the plans for the fund are developed, it is essential to learn from those trusts that have already pioneered new approaches. I ask the Minister, therefore, to meet me and some of the professionals who have been involved in developing the examples I have cited so that he can hear about their experiences. That might help future implementation. The truth is that mobile communication technology will be a core strand in the 21st-century health service. We very much need it, and working together we can deliver for all the people who depend on the health service to deliver their care.

16:45

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Havard.

It is also a pleasure to respond to this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) on securing it and on highlighting an important focus of future health care policy. She is right to highlight the Nicholson challenge: for the NHS just to stand still and to continue performing at the same level so that patients continue to receive the high-quality care that we all believe and know they deserve, it needs to make £20 billion-worth of efficiency savings and to put that money back into front-line patient care. A key part of the debate is that better IT will improve the way we communicate with patients and keep people well and better supported in their own home and community, on the basis that preventive health care is much better than curative health care, both for the patient and, financially, for the NHS. Of course, I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady and people involved in the IT industry at a later date to discuss things further.

Although we know that simple things such as in-ear thermometers, improved hoists in hospitals and better-quality equipment in operating theatres has improved the quality of patient care over many years and driven down the cost of providing health care, the hon. Lady is right to highlight the fact that we need to harness and better utilise more modern types of technology such as telehealth and mobile technology to support people better in their own homes and to drive down the cost of care.

Last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health outlined the NHS mandate, in which he set out the vision for the NHS and addressed some of the key challenges that we face. In her speech, the hon. Lady rightly highlighted that we have an ageing population with many people living a lot longer with long-term medical conditions such as diabetes, cancer, heart disease and dementia. The challenge for the NHS is ensuring that we deliver care in a better way that meets people’s care needs while ensuring that, where we can, at the same time as producing high-quality care, we reduce costs so that there is more money to go around to look after more people.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in the publication of the mandate that a real priority for the NHS is to improve the management of long-term conditions by helping people to better understand their conditions and to take control by supporting them to self-care, thereby realising the massive potential benefits offered by information technology both in supporting people to better understand and look after their conditions in the community, and in their own homes, and in supporting, better educating and better looking after the people who look after patients—the carers. That is an important part of providing high-quality health care.

We already know that there are 15 million people with long-term conditions, accounting for some 70% of all in-patient beds. We also know that many such hospital stays could be avoided through better management, including the better use of mobile technologies to prevent people from becoming so unwell in the first place that they need to be admitted to hospital. That would also help to prevent the revolving door of hospital admissions that sometimes happens when people do not necessarily have the support that they need and deserve when they are discharged from hospital, perhaps after a hip operation or similar stay.

Improving access and the quality of health care available to all patients is a key aim for the NHS, not just in meeting the Nicholson challenge but in improving day-to-day quality of care. Increasingly, technology will play a part in that: not just breakthroughs in simple day-to-day medical devices but changes in how we reach people in remote rural settings and in their homes and communities through the use of telemedicine, telehealth and mobile devices. We can and should take advantage of the deeply interconnected nature of modern society to improve people’s experience of health care and significantly increase our efficiency in delivering it.

There are infinite ways in which technology can transform how people access health and social care services. “Digital First”, a report published in July by the Department of Health, estimates that the NHS could save up to £2.9 billion by implementing just 10 simple actions to transform how people access health care. Those savings could be made almost immediately and with minimal investment by making use of existing technologies to reduce inappropriate face-to-face contacts.

There are many examples of simple things that can be done, such as having a doctor or nurse talk to a patient on the phone when they call to book an appointment or as an initial assessment. About one third of patients do not necessarily need a face-to-face GP appointment. Such conversations can reassure callers that they are okay and not that unwell, and that perhaps they should see how things go overnight or later in the day and call back if they need further help. They also help the patient access health care in the most appropriate way, as the GP triages the patient remotely.

Texting and e-mailing people to remind them of appointments has already been shown throughout the NHS to reduce the number of people who fail to turn up to their medical appointments. One big challenge in health care is getting patients to attend and comply with treatment, particularly those with longer-term conditions who must make multiple trips to a hospital or care setting. E-mails and texts are an effective way to remind people about their appointments and help educate them, removing the burden from the acute setting by ensuring that they understand how better to manage their conditions.

Those are simple changes, using the technologies that people use every day and are already familiar with, that can free hundreds of millions of pounds and provide more convenient access to NHS services, particularly for patients who live in more remote and rural parts of the country.

Technology can also improve the working lives of professionals. The funds that we are making available to nursing staff will enable them to access information faster so that they can spend more face-to-face time with patients, an important point that the hon. Lady made in her speech. Doctors, nurses and all health care professionals want to spend time looking after their patients. They do not want to be bogged down in paperwork. Technology, whether used on the ward or to access and look after patients remotely via telehealth or mobile technology, is a good way to ensure that front-line health care professionals have more time to do what they want to do and what they are trained to do: care for and look after the sick and patients.

I have seen at first hand the potential of telehealth and telemedicine to transform and save people’s lives. Earlier this month, I visited the telehealth hub at Airedale NHS Foundation Trust, which I know is on the other side of the Pennines from the hon. Lady’s constituency, but I am sure she will not mind my using it as an example. The hub is staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, by skilled nurses specialising in acute care. A consultant is also on hand if needed.

The aim of the service is to care for patients closer to home and keep them there whenever it is safe to do so. In other words, it ensures that people are properly supported and well advised in their own homes and other care settings, such as residential homes, so they do not become as unwell as they might otherwise. They are given appropriate health care advice, guidance and support in their homes and care settings, which helps reduce the burden on acute services in the area. It is particularly important in more rural areas, where the distances that professionals must travel to look after patients are so great that the only effective way to get around to as many patients as possible, in both financial and human care terms, is to use the benefits that telehealth brings to Airedale and the surrounding areas.

Evidence suggests that many patients are admitted into hospital when, as we have discussed, that is not always the best environment or the most appropriate place for them. Using telemedicine allows patients to manage their conditions with the hospital’s support. It can prevent time-consuming, costly trips to hospital for outpatient appointments. The patient’s GP is instantly informed and kept up-to-date about any consultations that occur via the telehealth care hub.

Importantly, the Government do not want such initiatives to take place in isolation. We believe, as I know the hon. Lady does, that we must ensure that they become day-to-day occurrences in the NHS as the years go on. Technology and the better use of information provide immense opportunities for improving the quality and accessibility of NHS care, not just in remote rural settings but in every care setting that we can think of.

The Government’s information strategy for health and social care, “The Power of Information”, is another example that highlights the importance of harnessing innovative new technology and delivering better health for patients. The strategy, of which I know the hon. Lady will be aware, was published in May, setting out ambitions for people to be offered online and mobile access to records, electronic communication with professional teams, online health and care transactions and the ability to rate services and provide feedback about how effective and convenient they were for the patient.

A small number of actions will need to be led nationally, such as setting common standards to allow information to flow effectively around the system. More detailed implementation planning will be led by organisations including the NHS Commissioning Board to ensure that current good localised initiatives in different parts of the country are rolled out nationally. We learn from areas such as Airedale, where looking after people in their own homes through the better use of technology is going well. Those examples should be rolled out to become the norm in the NHS. I know that the NHS Commissioning Board will be central to driving that through, which is why improving information technology was at the heart of the NHS mandate launched last week.

Mainstreaming assistive technology across the NHS is particularly important. As we have discussed, it is not good enough to have high-quality localised initiatives; we need a systematic, NHS-wide approach that embraces technology. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced at the Age UK conference last week that plans have been agreed that will ensure a further 100,000 people will be supported by telehealth in 2013, a sixteenfold increase in the number of people being helped by telehealth and telecare. It will make Britain the largest market in the world behind the USA, which is something that we can all be proud of.

The recently published results from the whole system demonstrator programme are potentially game-changing. We now have robust academic and scientific evidence that such technology can drive improvements not only in quality and value in the NHS but in patient satisfaction levels and outcomes. We all know that the most important people in all these discussions are the patients whom the clinician looks after and the telehealth provider wants to look after. Importantly, when we are designing telehealth services, like all other NHS services, we need feedback from patients in order to ensure that where services are working well, they can be rolled out elsewhere in the NHS, and that where improvements could be made and things are not going so well for patients, the NHS can learn from that and adapt technology to improve care in future.

At the Age UK conference last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced some significant steps on the road to supporting the 3 million people who stand to benefit from telehealth and telecare by 2017. As the hon. Lady said, the key is improving care for older people. They are the biggest users of NHS services, so they will see the most immediate changes and feel the most immediate benefits from telehealth. We have a growing elderly population and growing numbers of people with multiple long-term conditions. In order to meet the challenge of looking after them properly and providing dignity in elderly care, we must ensure that we keep them well at home and in their communities. One significant part of the answer is doing more for telehealth. The Government are well on the road to doing so. I welcome further discussions with the hon. Lady about what more we can do to look after people, particularly the frail elderly, in their own homes.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Thank you, Minister. I am sure that you will have interesting discussions with your colleagues in the devolved Administrations about interconnectivity as well.

Question put and agreed to.

16:59

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Written Statements

Wednesday 21 November 2012

ECOFIN

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Written Statements

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

The Economic and Financial Affairs Council was held in Brussels on 13 November 2012. Ministers discussed the following items:

Economic governance—“Two pack”

The presidency updated Ministers on the current state of play of trialogue negotiations with the European Parliament.

Revised Capital Requirements Directive (CRD IV)

The presidency updated Ministers on the progress of negotiations in trialogues since the Council’s 9 October meeting. After brief discussion the presidency indicated acceptance of the Council’s desire to maintain the general approach agreed in May.

Banking Supervision Mechanism

At the invitation of the presidency, the Commission updated Ministers on the current state of play. I made it clear that the UK would not be taking part.

Financial Transaction Tax (FTT)

The Commission presented its proposal for an authorising decision on a proposal for the introduction of a FTT by some member states using the enhanced co-operation procedure.

Mandate for Negotiations of Amendments to the Savings Taxation Agreements with Third Countries

Ministers discussed the mandate for negotiations. No agreement was reached. The presidency indicated that it would report to the European Council.

Follow up to the European Council on 18-19 October 2012

The presidency provided a brief summary of the discussion on deepening economic and monetary union at the European Council’s meeting on 18 and 19 October.

Follow-up to the Annual Meeting of the IMF and World Bank Group in Tokyo and the G20 Finance Ministers and Governors Meeting

Council briefly discussed the outcomes of these meetings.

Preparation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

Council adopted Conclusions endorsing the Fast Start Finance Report to be presented at the Convention.

EU State Aid Modernisation

Ministers noted the plans for reform set out by the Commission.

Ministerial Dialogue with European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Countries

Ministers met their counterparts from EFTA countries: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.

Local Government Finance

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

I am today publishing a policy statement that provides early confirmation of the Government’s policy decisions in a number of key areas following this summer’s technical consultation on the new business rate retention scheme. This policy statement will support local authorities, ahead of the provisional local government finance settlement, in their preparations for smooth implementation of the business rates retention scheme from April 2013.

The business rates retention scheme will enable local authorities to retain a large proportion of locally collected business rates to help fund the services they provide, thereby creating a direct link between business rates collected and local authority income, and reducing local authorities’ dependency on central Government grants. The scheme will give all councils a strong incentive to go for growth and could add approximately £10 billion to the wider economy by 2020.

The policy statement confirms Government’s intention to proceed with the implementation of a range of proposals that were set out in the technical consultation. It also sets out a number of changes to those proposals, in response to comments received to the consultation, including the Government’s intention to maintain the 1:1 proportionate levy but with a limit of 50p in the pound. This will translate into very real benefits for authorities, allowing at least 25p in each extra pound of business rates generated locally to be retained locally. In addition, the policy statement sets out the Government’s intention to fix the safety net at 7.5%—the most generous level within the range consulted upon. This guarantee will be maintained in real terms, since baseline funding levels will be uprated by the RPI for the purpose of calculating eligibility for the safety net.

Overall, Government consider that these policy decisions will result in a system that provides a strong growth incentive for authorities, while being underpinned by robust protections to help councils maintain effective services.

I have placed a copy of the policy statement in the Library of the House. The policy statement and a revised plain English guide to business rate retention are also available on the gov.uk website at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/giving-local-authorities-more-control-over-how-they-spend-public-money-in-their-area--2

Data consultation

I am also today publishing the data consultation on the 2013-14 local government finance settlement. The consultation sets out the majority of data that may be used in calculating the provisional baseline funding levels and revenue support grant allocations from 2013-14. This release will enable local authorities to begin checking the indicator data.

The consultation can be found on the gov.uk website at: http://www.local.communities.gov.uk/finance/1314/settle.htm.

Local Council Tax Support

In preparation for the introduction of local council tax support schemes in April 2013, the Government consulted on aspects of the funding arrangements to support authorities to offer council tax support.

Next week I will publish an update on these arrangements, including on the Government’s approach to addressing budget pressures to ensure all authorities have a fair starting point. Final funding allocations will be included in the provisional local government finance settlement.

I will also be publishing the council tax base regulations and the Government response to the consultation on providing certainty for the funding of local precepting authorities.

Also the final versions of two key council tax support regulations (first published in July) have been made and are soon to be published and laid before Parliament—the prescribed requirements scheme and the default scheme.

Links to the regulations will be available on the gov.uk website at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/giving-local-authorities-more-control-over-how-they-spend-public-money-in-their-area--2

Hurricane Sandy (Haiti and Cuba)

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)]

I wish to inform the House that, in response to the devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy in the Caribbean, the Department for International Development is today deploying vital humanitarian support to help save lives and reduce suffering.

This emergency relief will be provided to Haiti and Cuba, the countries outside the USA that were most devastated by the hurricane, following an urgent appeal by the United Nations on 12 November. The hurricane hit Haiti on 23 October and Cuba on 25 October. It caused widespread destruction, destroying crops, homes and public infrastructure.

The UK will contribute £7 million for Haiti and £850,000 for Cuba, to provide immediate life-saving support. Our priorities are to meet food, emergency shelter, water and sanitation needs. I have sent an assessment team from the Department to the region. The team will ensure that a rigorous approach is taken to assessing the most pressing humanitarian priorities so that UK funding is used to achieve the greatest impact on the ground.

The Department for International Development will continue to monitor the situation, consulting with other Government Departments, including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in our response to this humanitarian emergency.

Parliamentary Written Question (Correction)

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

I regret to inform the House that there was an inaccuracy in the answer given by the then Parliamentary-Under Secretary of State to parliamentary question 97198 on 1 March 2012, Official Report, column 450W, about Driving: Licensing.

The answer says:

VOSA identifies poor performing MOT testing stations through a transparent and proportionate disciplinary points system published in the MOT Testing Guide. VOSA cessate individual testers called Authorised Examiners (AEs) from carrying out MOT tests, not the test stations. AEs cessated in the last three years are 111 in 2008-09, 90 in 2009-10, and 89 in 2010-11 all after appeal.

The answer should be:

VOSA identifies poor performing MOT testing stations through a transparent and proportionate disciplinary points system published in the MOT Testing Guide. VOSA can take action against Authorised Examiners (AEs) and Nominated Testers (NTs). AEs are an individual, partnership or company approved to carry out MOT tests. NTs carry out the actual tests. In the last three years, the agency struck off 111 AEs in 2008-09, 90 in 2009-10, and 89 in 2010-11, all after appeal.

House of Lords

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Lords Chamber

Wednesday, 21 November 2012.

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells.

Rwanda

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

15:06

Asked By

[Lord Chidgey]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Amnesty International report Rwanda: shrouded in secrecy.

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)]

My Lords, the UK shares the concerns raised in this Amnesty International report. Our high commissioner in Kigali has raised illegal detentions and key concerns in the report with the Rwandan Government on a number of occasions. He has also regularly requested access to detention centres and, in September, was granted access to the Gikondo transit centre, a facility that has been mentioned in other international human rights reports on illegal detentions.

[Lord Chidgey]

I thank my noble friend for that response. She will be aware that the Amnesty report documents illegal detention and torture over more than two years while, over the past two days, the Rwandan military has been backing the M23 in its incursions. They have overrun the city of Goma in the Congo. Surely both of these events are serious breaches of a memorandum of understanding that Rwanda signed with the UK just this September, committing it to:

“The principles of good governance … respect for human rights”,

and,

“The promotion of peace and stability in the Great Lakes region”.

In the absence of any signs of compliance with the memorandum of understanding, can my noble friend tell us whether, during our Minister for Africa’s visit to the region—he is there now—we will curb Rwanda’s aid programme forthwith?

[Baroness Warsi]

My noble friend raised a number of issues, some of which relate to reports that were clearly leaked. It would be inappropriate for me to comment specifically on a leaked report but I can confirm that this Government take those concerns extremely seriously. That is why, among other reasons, the Minister for Africa is in the region. My noble friend will be aware of the United Nations Security Council presidential statement, which was issued only yesterday and deals with specific concerns about the M23 in Goma. I am sure he will also accept that our aid programme in Rwanda is, specifically, to deal with poverty in a country where almost 45% of Rwandans remain in extreme poverty. Real progress has been made since the genocide of 1994 in building Rwanda’s economy. I am sure he will accept that our support to the poorest in that economy is part of that.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

Does the noble Baroness not recall that in September, in reply to a Written Question that I tabled, her noble friend Lady Northover confirmed that some £344 million is being provided in bilateral aid to Rwanda between 2011 and 2015? In that same reply, she said that Rwanda,

“must adhere to strict partnership principles”,—[Official Report, 24/9/12; col. WA284.]

and that the Secretary of State was still considering whether those expectations were being met. Given what the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, just said about the fall of Goma—there are now 80,000 displaced people and refugees in that area—and what Ban Ki-Moon has said about using aid for leverage, will the Minister say whether we are reconsidering our decision to restore aid in that vast degree to Rwanda and who is arming and paying for the arms of the M23 rebels?

[Baroness Warsi]

I cannot comment on the last question that the noble Lord raised but, in relation to aid, in 2012-13 we have committed £75 million, of which £29 million is general budget support. The noble Lord will be aware that in July of this year, because of certain concerns that were raised, a £16 million tranche of general budget funding was not given over until September and, at that point, £8 million was given over as general budget support but £8 million was redirected to education and food. The next tranche is due in December and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development is looking at all these matters.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

My Lords, does the Minister have a view on how the Security Council could accept yesterday that M23 is getting external support but then perversely claim that it lacks evidence? Does she agree that it need look no further than the new, well documented evidence provided by Human Rights Watch on Rwanda’s provision of, for instance, logistical support and sophisticated weaponry to M23?

[Baroness Warsi]

We were heavily involved in that presidential statement at the United Nations Security Council yesterday. It was important that we raised our concerns, and we raised them. As the noble Baroness will note from that report, the support given to M23 is not entirely clear. Reference was made to it by the United Nations group of experts’ report via a leaked report. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on that leak, but these are matters that we continuously discuss with Rwanda.

[The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells]

My Lords, Rwanda: Shrouded in Secrecy paints a bleak picture of arbitrary arrest and torture inside Rwanda. What steps are the Government taking to urge the Rwandan Government to investigate all cases of unlawful detention, enforced disappearance, torture and other ill treatment by the military and to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice?

[Baroness Warsi]

I can assure the right reverend Prelate that human rights are an important component of the development work we do in Rwanda. The UK recognises that there are serious concerns about human rights in Rwanda, particularly about political rights and freedom of expression, as well as the concerns detailed in the Amnesty International report. We raise these concerns consistently in our discussions with the Rwandan Government at the highest level, and we will continue to do so.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

My Lords, do the Government acknowledge that in addition to the aid provided to Rwanda, this country is also one of the largest aid contributors to Uganda and is increasing its aid year after year to the Democratic Republic of Congo? That puts the United Kingdom in a unique position with our role in the Security Council and in the European Union to insist that the talks happening today in Kampala produce a long-term regional solution that involves all the countries of the region accepting their responsibility for the situation, not just at the moment in Goma, but the continuing violence over recent years. A regional solution that delivers peace not just for people in North Kivu, but for the rest of the region as well, is essential.

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord raises important points. He will be aware that the Minister for Africa is visiting Uganda, Rwanda and the DRC. We have strong relationships in the region, not just through our aid programmes, and it is important that we use them to further stability in the region. The noble Lord may not be aware that aid to the Ugandan Government has been temporarily suspended as a result of evidence emerging from an ongoing forensic audit of the Prime Minister’s office.

[Lord Avebury]

Considering that with 20,000 armed men and a budget of $1.4 million MONUSCO has been unable to protect the civilians of Goma from the aggression of M23, does the Minister think that it is time to consider more than just reviewing the mandate of MONUSCO? Has she seen the French proposals to give MONUSCO an aggressive capability? Will she discuss that with it to see whether we could support it in the Security Council accordingly?

[Baroness Warsi]

The MONUSCO mandate, as the noble Lord is aware, is specifically to protect civilians. They do not have, as he says, a more aggressive mandate at this stage but I will take what he has said on board and feed it back.

Health: Mental Health

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

15:15

Asked By

[Baroness Sherlock]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the remarks by Earl Howe on 8 February (HL Deb, col. 273), what action they have taken to ensure mental health is treated on a par with other National Health Service services.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as a director and former chair of Chapel Street community health.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, the Health and Social Care Act 2012 creates equal status for mental and physical health; the new mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board tasks it with delivering this goal. One of the eight objectives of the mandate is,

“putting mental health on an equal footing with physical health–this means everyone who needs mental health services having timely access to the best available treatment”.

The NHS will be expected to demonstrate progress by March 2015.

[Baroness Sherlock]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. The NHS constitution gives a patient the right to drugs and treatment recommended by NICE for use in the NHS where clinically appropriate. “Recommended” means that they have passed NICE’s technological appraisal. For mental health, the problem with talking therapies is that they are not appraised because they are not technological. Will the Minister reassure the House that “parity of esteem” will mean that the NHS constitution will give someone the right to any therapy or treatment recommended by NICE for use in the NHS, even if it has not passed the technology appraisal, provided that there is good evidence for its efficacy—for example, CBT for schizophrenia?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness made clear, the NHS constitution sets out that patients have the right to drugs and treatments that have been recommended by NICE for use in the NHS if their doctor says that they are clinically appropriate for them; that includes talking therapies for certain problems. The mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board is clear about everyone who needs mental health services having timely access to the best available treatment. The NHS will be expected to demonstrate progress in achieving that by 2015, as I mentioned. For many patients, there are few better therapies than talking therapies. Given that the board must deliver those outcomes, the rest follows.

[Lord Alderdice]

My Lords, I will press the Minister further on this. In his response to my debate on mental health on 8 October, he undertook to write on a number of issues. True to his word, as we have come to expect, he wrote a long, substantial, constructive and positive letter in which he discussed psychological therapies being available for disturbed people. I want to pick up on what the noble Baroness has said about schizophrenic disorders. There is a tendency for people with the schizophrenias simply to be given medication and social management. There are psychological treatments—family therapy and others—that are appropriate. Can my noble friend ensure that those who suffer from the schizophrenias will also receive appropriate psychological therapies and not simply be abandoned to medication and social management?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point, and I can reassure him on that. I know that he is concerned that IAPT services may be displacing other psychological therapies. In fact, having looked into this, I can tell him that data from the NHS finance mapping exercise shows that IAPT services are not displacing other therapies; I have figures here to prove that. Spending on non-IAPT psychological therapies has reduced very slightly, by just over 5%, but the overall picture is one of a dramatic expansion in the availability and range of psychological therapies.

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, as the mover of the amendment that put equality of mental and psychical health in legislation, I am pleased that the Government did not contest it again—albeit that it was won by a Division. I am also pleased that mental health is to be treated equally in the mandate.

[A noble Lord]

Question!

[Lord Patel]

I am coming to the question which is important. Having put it in the mandate, would it not now be right for the department to ask the Commissioning Board to produce a framework outcome for mental health so it can assess progress in treatment equality for mental health?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, we expect the equal priority for mental and physical health to be reflected in all relevant aspects of the NHS’s work. There can be no single measure of parity. As I said earlier, we expect the board to be able to demonstrate measureable progress towards parity by 2015. However, there are some specific areas where we expect progress; for example, relevant measures from the NHS outcomes framework, including reducing excess mortality of people with severe mental illness; delivering the IAPT programme in full and extending it further; addressing unacceptable delays, and significantly improving access and waiting times; and working with others to support vulnerable and troubled families. Those are very detailed objectives for the board, all of which bear upon the key question of parity between mental and physical health.

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

Given the real terms drop in mental health funding last year, which was even greater for older people’s mental health services—an area which has many challenges ahead for us; will the Minister tell us how the Government will ensure consistency and parity in local commissioning strategies, as clinical commissioning groups can obviously choose to prioritise or exclude what they want to have in those strategies? How will the Government deliver the Prime Minister’s dementia target?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the way in which mental health services are commissioned locally is of paramount importance. One of the features of the reforms is to bring together local authorities and the health service to plan services in a much more integrated way. Clinical commissioning groups will ignore the imperative of mental health at their peril, because they will be charged—under the commissioning outcomes framework, which the board will set—to deliver meaningful progress on all the indicators, including mental health indicators. It is an absolute necessity that good commissioning takes place at a local level.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, the Minister is well aware that only a third of people whose lives are being ravaged by depression and anxiety are receiving treatment. He rightly pointed out that the commissioning board has a responsibility here, but I understand that it does not regard this as one of its priorities. Will the Minister give a very clear signal to the commissioning board that Ministers regard the equal treatment of mental and physical illnesses as important, and that parity must be achieved?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, that objective is explicitly spelt out in the mandate. I have already spoken about some of the ways in which we expect the board to demonstrate that they have delivered that objective, and I can give the noble Baroness the reassurance that she seeks.

Young People: Staying Put Scheme

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

15:22

Asked by

[The Earl of Listowel]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to roll out the Staying Put scheme across England and Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

My Lords, the Government are encouraging all local authorities to expand staying-put arrangements so that more young people can stay with their former foster carers until age 21, particularly when these young people are in further or higher education. My honourable friend Edward Timpson, the Children’s Minister, has recently written to all directors of children’s services, urging them to ensure that care leavers always live in safe, suitable accommodation, including staying-put arrangements.

[The Earl of Listowel]

I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he share my concern that these young people, in particular, need enduring and reliable relationships in their lives because of their poor start? Does he also share my concern at the recent findings from the deputy Children’s Commissioner about the sexual exploitation of young people leaving care? Does that not highlight the urgency with which the Government should pursue their current activity in encouraging local authorities to spread this practice as far, and as soon, as possible?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I agree with the noble Earl on both points. Any help that he and others can give in raising the salience of the issue with local authorities would be very welcome. As I said, my honourable friend has written to all of them, and he will be monitoring the situation. I am glad that in the past year the number of young people in staying-put arrangements has increased—admittedly from a low base—by more than a third, so there has been some progress. However, we all need to keep the spotlight on it.

[Baroness Brinton]

Is the Minister aware of the bizarre anomaly that care leavers who are not in education, employment and training are eligible for a personal adviser only until they are 21 years old, while those who are in education, employment and training are eligible for support from a personal adviser until the age of 25? In light of this, will the Government consider extending the offer of personal advisers for NEET care leavers until they are 25?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I think that I am right in saying that the extension to the age of 25 for those who are in education was a fairly recent extension from the age of 21. I will take up the noble Baroness’s second point with my honourable friend Mr Timpson.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, I am sure that none of us as parents would want to be forced to turn our son or daughter out of the house on the day of their 18th birthday but that is happening to thousands of young people in care. The Minister has effectively said, as the Government constantly say, that it is up to local authorities. However, this is a very special case because these young people are in the care of the state; the Government have ultimate responsibility for their well-being and cannot pass the buck to local authorities. Will the Government give young people in care the entitlement to stay in their placement after the age of 18, if it is in their interests to do so, and ensure that local authorities provide the support for that to happen? Will they further ensure that any planned changes to housing benefit and welfare reform being considered by the Government do not further disadvantage young people in care?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, it is not a question of the Government seeking to pass the buck to local authorities. As the noble Baroness will know much better than me, that is where the statutory responsibility lies and where we think that it should be. Given those statutory duties, I am sure she will have seen the recent Section 251 returns around the funding that local authorities are putting into looked-after children—it has shown a small increase over the past year, which reflects the priority that is being attached to it—and the statutory framework that is in place.

On the noble Baroness’s second point about whatever changes may be made to the benefits system and seeking to make sure that the interests particularly of this most disadvantaged group of care leavers are taken into account, she is right that we need to make sure that those concerns are properly considered. I know that my colleagues will be doing that as policy is developed.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

My Lords, I am delighted to see that Wales is included in this, as so many things are devolved to Wales. Will the Minister explain exactly how this scheme operates in Wales? Is it through the Assembly Government or directly from Whitehall?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

The Welsh Government are responsible for their own arrangements but, in parallel, they are carrying out a consultation looking into precisely the same issues and whether it is appropriate to introduce their version of staying-put arrangements into Wales. That consultation is going on at the moment.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has referred to the Children’s Commissioner’s report which came out today, in particular the dreadful findings about how many children in care have been sexually abused. Will the Minister tell the House the Government’s stance about that report, given that, apparently, people speaking on behalf of the Government to both the BBC Radio 4 “Today” programme and the Sun said that the report was overemotional and were trying to undermine its conclusions?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

The Government’s stance is that the report from the deputy Children’s Commissioner is helpful for the Government to have. We will reflect on the findings that it makes in terms of its recommendations and its estimates about the extent of the problem. I think I am right in saying that the report recognises that making any precise estimate is by nature very difficult, but the more information we have the better. Even before this report, the Government have been seeking to improve the systems for getting accurate reporting from various local agencies and authorities to make sure that we have as accurate a picture as possible to make sure that we do not underestimate or overestimate the problem. Everyone is very aware of the salience of this issue and the important issues that that report gives rise to.

Bahrain

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

15:29

Asked By

[Lord Avebury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they will make to the Government of Bahrain regarding the deprivation of citizenship imposed on 31 persons on 7 November 2012.

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)]

My Lords, we have told the Bahraini Government that revoking citizenship, which leaves individuals stateless, is a negative step and, ultimately, a barrier towards reconciliation. I understand that those affected have the right of appeal, but we regularly express our concerns about human rights abuses in Bahrain.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, I noticed that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary had been cosying up to one of the hereditary oligarchs of a regime that regularly kills, tortures and arbitrarily imprisons any of its opponents, and has now taken to depriving them of their citizenship. Would my noble friend agree to meet me with brothers, Jalal and Jawad Fairooz, former MPs of the al-Wefaq Party, who were deprived of their citizenship and are now stranded in London without visible means of support, without any citizenship, and separated permanently—as far as I can see—from their families in Bahrain? Will she also bear in mind that, if you are going to have a dialogue that will solve the constitutional problems of Bahrain, it can be done only if you free the political prisoners who are the leaders of the opposition and who are at present incarcerated for very long periods in prison?

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, I understand that officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are in touch with, and have had some contact with, the two specific cases to which my noble friend refers. I know that he has strong views in relation to this matter, but I would take exception to the description given to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. Indeed, earlier this week I myself met with Shaikh Khalid bin Ahmed al-Khalifa, who is the Foreign Minister, and indeed the individual to which my noble friend refers. It was a robust and frank exchange, and a conversation in which human rights were openly and frankly discussed.

[Lord Soley]

We are all aware of the influence of Iran in this area, but how much have we discussed with the Bahraini authorities the difficulties that they face as a result of the two branches of Islam—Shia and Sunni—and involving that in the constitutional discussions that are taking place? It is very important, and there are ways of addressing it. Have they discussed it? I should declare an interest as the chairman of the Good Governance Foundation, which operates in the region.

[Baroness Warsi]

Certainly, we have these specific discussions regularly around freedom of religion. I spoke with the Foreign Minister when he was here this week specifically about that issue, and we had a lengthy conversation about the Shia-Sunni dynamic in Bahrain. We also spoke about historic coexistence between these two theologies within Islam. Indeed, we had a lengthy conversation about my own history when I explained to him that I was half-Sunni and half-Shia.

[Lord Luce]

While acknowledging the importance of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would the Minister give some credit to the Government of Bahrain for setting up last year a very distinguished international commission on human rights, which at the end of the year made over 170 recommendations, of which the Government have so far decided to implement 140? Should we not give some credit to the Government of Bahrain for that?

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord makes an important point. Indeed, today is the anniversary of the publication of those first ambitions set out in the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry. He is right when he says that 143 of the 176 recommendations were accepted—and, indeed, a further 13 were partially accepted. Bahrain is trying to make progress on these matters, and we are supporting it in doing that.

[Baroness Uddin]

My Lords, given her recent discussion with the Foreign Minister, would the Minister tell the House what progress has been made, in her assessment, between the Bahrain Government and opposition parties? In asking this question I declare my interest as a member of the UK-Bahrain All-Party Parliamentary Group. Alongside the discussion that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is asking her to host, would she also engage with the all-party group?

[Baroness Warsi]

An amount of progress has been made, both politically and in relation to governance. Some underlying concerns, of course, need to be addressed before progress can be made politically. Much of that has been set out in the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry. I know that progress has been made on a special investigations unit, for example, which looks into the particular disturbances that led to the current concerns. Some progress has also been made in relation to constitutional amendments that will form the basis of reconciliation.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, does my noble friend accept that while some of the recommendations of the Bassiouni commission have indeed been accepted and enforced, the principal recommendation—which was about reconciliation and talks to resolve the differences between the two sides—rested on there being an opposition with whom to have talks about reconciliation? When so many members of that opposition might have been freed but then deprived of their citizenship and are, in other words, stateless, it is impossible to have discussions with them. What are the Government doing to speak directly to the Prime Minister, rather than the Foreign Minister, of Bahrain to ask that the revocation of these peoples’ citizenship be readdressed?

[Baroness Warsi]

We have discussions at all levels in relation to this matter, including with the Prime Minister. The specific issue regarding the revocation of citizenship has been raised and our concerns have been registered. There is a right of appeal. We are pressing the Bahraini Government to consider these matters seriously during that right of appeal.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I share the concerns expressed in the central proposition of the previous question. There has been progress but, on the most fundamental issues, the progress is woeful. It is against a background of a grim record and, if anything, Bahrain’s record is getting worse, rather than better. We have called for a dialogue but, for reasons that I understand, that dialogue has been limited. I noted that, at the end of October, the United States Navy Fifth Fleet was anchored off Bahrain, not because I think it intended to intervene but as a show of support. Can the Minister tell us whether a co-operating force of the United Kingdom and the United States—a diplomatic force, not a military one—might, if it took a sufficiently firm and determined view, have more impact than all of us trying to do it separately?

[Baroness Warsi]

That is something that I will take back. However, I can assure the noble Lord on our bilateral relationship. Earlier this week we set up a joint working group and political and diplomatic reform and assistance with human rights are central to it. We hope that we can use that working group as the basis for some of these more serious discussions.

Partnerships (Prosecution) (Scotland) Bill [HL]

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Lords Chamber

Motion to Refer to Second Reading Committee

15:37

Moved By

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That the Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.

Motion agreed.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Lords Chamber

Report (2nd Day)

15:38

Amendment 31

Moved by

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

31: Before Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
“Application for public interest immunity
(1) In any relevant civil proceedings in which the Secretary of State considers that—
(a) a party to the proceedings, whether or not the Secretary of State, would be required to disclose material in the course of the proceedings;(b) such disclosure would be damaging to the interests of national security; and(c) the interests of national security outweigh the public interest in the fair and open administration of justice,the Secretary of State must make an application for public interest immunity under this section.(2) An application for public interest immunity under this section must be made by the Secretary of State issuing a certificate relating to the individual documents in question and giving reasons why, in the Secretary of State’s view, disclosure of each relevant document would be damaging to the interests of national security.
(3) The court must, when deciding whether the material attracts public interest immunity on application under subsection (1), weigh the degree of harm to the interests of national security if the relevant material is disclosed against the public interests in the fair and open administration of justice.
(4) The court shall, in conducting the balancing exercise required under subsection (3), consider whether any of the following procedures may mitigate any harm claimed to the interests of national security so as to enable disclosure or partial disclosure of material subject to an application under this section—
(a) redaction;(b) orders for anonymity;(c) disclosure subject to confidentiality undertakings;(d) hearings in camera;(e) restrictions on reporting;(f) restrictions on access;(g) restrictions on the use of the material.(5) If, after conducting the process set out in subsections (3) and (4), the court concludes that the balance of the public interest lies in excluding any material, the court must uphold the application for public interest immunity made by the Secretary of State in relation to that material.
(6) Where any claim by the Secretary of State for public interest immunity is upheld the court must appoint a special advocate pursuant to section 8.”

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 32 and 44. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for putting his name to these amendments.

We come now to Part 2 of the Bill, which is concerned with closed material procedures. They are a new development in UK civil courts and the proposal has not proved to be uncontroversial. We discussed the challenges of CMPs extensively in Committee in July. I am aware that noble Lords have tabled a number of amendments in this group, which will enable a wider discussion of this important issue, so I will cut to the chase. If in cutting to the chase as a non-lawyer I trespass on some legal niceties, I apologise in advance.

My concerns about closed material procedures can be grouped under two main, broad headings. The first is the issue of fairness. Can a trial in which the accused does not have an untrammelled ability to test fully the evidence against him, interacting as appropriate with the best legal advice, ever be fair? The issue of fairness is one that I shall return to and consider in more detail when we examine the role and duties of the special advocate and consider the rules of court.

My second general concern is what might be described as the danger of mission creep. It is on this that Amendments 31, 32 and 44 focus. Having heard from my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench, and having listened carefully to the powerful and informed speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, I accept that there may be cases where a closed material procedure is required. However, on all the evidence that I have read, it would be a rare event indeed. I have no doubt that my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench and the Government believe that the procedure would be used only very occasionally. However, times change, Ministers change, Governments change and, above all, circumstances change, and with those changes may come—not necessarily will come—new approaches. My concern is the risk that what begins as a rare event will over time morph into the default option.

I would like to see enshrined in the Bill a set of steps—hurdles, if you like—that the Government of the day will have to clear before they can resort to a CMP. The first is a requirement to go through the public interest immunity procedure, from which the judge can reach a balanced conclusion on whether the interests of national security require a closed court. Amendment 31 would insert a new clause at the beginning of Part 2 requiring a PII application to be made in any case where a CMP is envisaged. It would set up a series of requirements for making such an application. Amendment 32 lays down a further series of tests to be met in associated court proceedings. Amendment 44 would prohibit the use of CMPs where a claimant’s loss of liberty may result.

I will briefly outline one or two of the key provisions in the amendments. Subsection (1) in Amendment 31 would require the Secretary of State to make a PII application in any case where he considered that evidence would be disclosed that would damage national security, and where that concern outweighed the key public interest in open and natural justice being done. Subsection (2) would ensure that the Minister had to certify why disclosure of each document was withheld; it states that each certification will have to be considered individually by the court. This would enable the judge to balance the competing interests of national security and open justice—what I am told is called the Wiley balance.

Subsection (3) would give the judge a crucial judgmental role and is in contrast to what some have called the judicial straitjacket in Clause 6. As highlighted in our debate in July, the PII system does not enable a judge to rely on material that is seen by one party and not another. As a general rule, it does not take place in secret. In this way, national security can be protected while ensuring fairness, transparency and equality of arms. It is worth remembering also that, unlike CMPs, PII is not an all-or-nothing process. A wide range of tools is available to judges, including the use of redactions and in camera hearings, to ensure that justice can be done while national security-sensitive information, such as the names of agents or their operating techniques, is excluded. My noble and learned friend on the Front Bench said that a first-stage PII process would be costly and illogical. However, we have been reassured by the special advocates that this is not right and that it is CMPs that are likely to prove costly and time-consuming—in addition to their other, controversial qualities.

15:45

Finally on Amendment 31, subsection (6) proposes the appointment of a special advocate as soon as the court has determined the PII procedures. It is linked to Amendment 32, which would enable either party to apply for a CMP. For this right to have any meaningful effect, a claimant must surely be advised by an advocate acting for him whether or not it is in his interests to apply for a CMP. If this is not permitted and no one from his side has seen the excluded material, he would indeed be in a blind spot when deciding whether to exercise his right or not.

Amendment 32 makes additional provisions regarding court proceedings and covers much of the same ground in another form. In essence, it seeks to increase judicial discretion, ensure as far as possible the right of challenge and achieve a proper balance of competing interests between open justice and national security. However, it opens up the possibility of any party applying for a CMP. At present, only the Secretary of State can apply. Why should that be so? If I were to believe that my case would be strengthened by disclosure of material that could be heard only in a closed court, why should I not be able to apply for a CMP to enable it to be heard?

In summary, the amendment seeks to address the issues revealed in the following exchanges. David Anderson, the head of the special advocates, was asked by the Joint Committee on Human Rights:

“Does Part 2 of the Bill contain the sorts of conditions that you had in mind to ensure that a CMP is resorted to only in cases of strict necessity?”

He replied:

“No, it does not”.

Martin Chamberlain of the special advocates said:

“The one respect in which I think the Bill is problematic, even if, contrary to the view that we have expressed, you think it is a good idea to have Closed Material Procedures in civil litigation, is that the safeguards that it had been reported were present in this Bill are, on close analysis, in fact not present”.

I am not a lawyer and my career has been in finance and the City. In the City, when considering how to proceed in a particular transaction, many of us—sadly, evidentially, not enough of us—place a good deal of reliance on what I call the smell test. Behind the technical requirements, the fine words and the policy pronouncements, does what is proposed smell right? For me, in its present form, the Bill fails that smell test. I am far from alone in that view. On Monday, the Times leader stated:

“If this Bill were to become an Act in its current form, those feeling that they had suffered a grave injustice at the hands of the Government would feel they had suffered another at the hands of the courts. That is an even more serious proposition. They would be told that their case had been rejected but not why, that allegations had been made against them but not what, that a case had been made on their behalf but not how. This is simply not acceptable. If the Government feels that there really is no other way of winning compensation cases than this proposal then it is better that it loses the cases, even to those who do not deserve to win them. There is no point in being naive. Rejecting closed courts could sacrifice money to very bad people unjustly. But it is better that than to sacrifice the founding principles of liberty”.

I beg to move.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, Amendments 36 to 38, 40 and 47 to 49 are in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Lester of Herne Hill and Lord Beecham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. Amendment 50 has the same signatories save that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, is a substitute for the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for reasons that I should explain. The amendments, like all the amendments to Part 2 in my name, seek to implement the report published last week by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, a committee on which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, serve as members. The amendments also seek to implement similar conclusions of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, of which I am a member.

Noble Lords will know very well that strong views are held on all sides of the House about whether closed material procedures should be introduced. This is a difficult and sensitive issue. The amendments in my name do not—I repeat, do not—seek to resolve the dispute as to whether noble Lords should approve the introduction of closed material procedures. We will address that issue when we come to Amendment 45, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and other noble Lords. The amendments in my name—particularly the amendments in this group—seek to ensure that if CMPs are to become part of our law, careful controls are needed to limit their application to ensure balance and fairness. In particular, they seek to ensure that a judge in an individual case should have a discretion, not a duty, to order a CMP. The judge should ask himself or herself whether or not a CMP is needed in a particular case as a last resort if there is no other effective means of ensuring both justice and security.

There are three reasons why your Lordships’ House should adopt the approach that this should be a last resort with judicial control and discretion. First, CMPs are a radical departure from common law principles, which we all respect and approve, that a party to a case has a right to see the evidence against him and has a chance to answer it. This is a departure—it may be a necessary departure—from the principle of transparent justice. The Joint Committee addressed this issue at paragraph 16 of its report. It said:

“All of the evidence that we have received, apart from that of the Government, regards the proposals in the Bill which extend closed material procedures into civil proceedings generally as a radical departure from the United Kingdom’s constitutional tradition of open justice and fairness. We agree”.

The second reason why we should be very careful and impose controls on CMPs is that a CMP is inherently damaging to the integrity of the judicial process. Judicial decisions are respected precisely because all the evidence is heard in open court and can be reported, subject to exceptions, and judges give a reasoned judgment that explains their decision.

The third reason why a fair balance involving judicial discretion is so important is that the Government’s own rationale for introducing CMPs is not the protection of national security. It is very important to be clear about this. The law already has effective means of ensuring that any information the disclosure of which would damage national security does not have to be revealed in open court. Those are the rules of public interest immunity. The Government say that CMPs are needed not to protect national security but to ensure fairness to them as defendants and to ensure that as much evidence as possible can be heard by the judge. There may or may not be strength in that argument—these amendments do not address that issue—but if the Government’s own case for CMPs is promoting the fairness and efficiency of civil proceedings, then this House should ensure that the CMP provisions are fair and balanced.

To turn to the specific amendments, Amendment 37 provides that the judge should order a CMP only if satisfied that fairness cannot be achieved by any other means. If there is another solution, such as supplying the gist of the evidence to the claimant, using anonymity orders, or security witnesses giving evidence from behind screens, all of which happens now, and if those methods enable the evidence, or as much of it as possible, to be disclosed to the claimant, it is surely wrong in principle for the law to require the judge to move into a secret hearing. This was the view expressed to the Joint Committee by Mr David Anderson QC, who is the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. The Joint Committee quoted his views in paragraphs 66 and 67 of its report. Perhaps I may remind the House of what Mr Anderson said:

“I said that I thought that a CMP could be tolerable in these sorts of cases—but only if certain conditions were satisfied. One was that a CMP should be a last resort to avoid cases being untriable”.

At paragraph 67 the Joint Committee adds:

“The Independent Reviewer in his more recent evidence indicated that he would be supportive of building into clause 6 of the Bill a requirement that a CMP only be permitted as a last resort: as he put it, a CMP should be available only if ‘there is no other fair way of determining the case’”.

That was the recommendation of the Joint Committee.

Amendments 38 and 40 have a similar objective. They would allow the judge, when he or she considers whether to impose a CMP, to have regard to the possibility that another solution is available through public interest immunity. Public interest immunity is the doctrine of law that keeps out of open court material the disclosure of which would be damaging to national security. But public interest immunity is not an all-or-nothing matter. As I have said, it may enable some of the material to be disclosed—the gist or essence of the case—and documents can be redacted to preserve what is genuinely confidential. I suggest that the existence of PII needs to be taken into account by the judge in deciding whether to move into secret session. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, is concerned about Amendment 38, but it is important to remove Clause 6(3)(a) so that the judge can consider other means of addressing the problem. Amendments 38 and 40 were recommended by the Joint Committee at paragraph 62 of the report. I will not spend time on it, but again this was a recommendation from the independent reviewer, Mr Anderson. All these amendments are necessary if CMPs are not to be imposed unnecessarily and disproportionately.

Amendments 48, 49 and 50 would ensure that the litigant excluded from the open hearing by the CMP was always given at the very least a summary and the gist of the closed material sufficient to enable him to give instructions to his legal representatives and the special advocates. Again, that was recommended by the Joint Committee, which referred to the supporting evidence on that issue from the former reviewer of terrorism legislation, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and to the views of the current reviewer, Mr Anderson.

Amendments 36 and 47 seek to ensure that, before ordering a CMP, the judge should ask whether the degree of harm to the interests of national security if the material is disclosed outweighs the public interest in the fair and open administration of justice. The Joint Committee stated in its report, at paragraphs 69 to 72, that the Bill as currently drafted wrongly precludes any balancing at all, however limited the national security interest may be, however substantial the damage to fairness if a CMP is ordered and, indeed, however peripheral the national security evidence may be to the issues in the case. That cannot be right; we need some degree of balancing here. I emphasise that the effect of these amendments, if approved, would not be that any evidence touching on national security would have to be disclosed—PII would prevent that—but simply that the judge could not order a closed hearing unless this balance is satisfied and the Government would therefore be unable to rely on the evidence.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is not persuaded yet by Amendment 50 and that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, is also concerned about it. It might be better if, in due course, I do not move Amendment 50 today but consider with others, in the light of the amendments, if any, that are approved by the House today, whether it is appropriate on Third Reading next week to look again at what is now Amendment 50 for the purposes of tidying up the legislation. I hope that that approach—on Amendment 50—commends itself to the House.

Each of the amendments in this group in my name will help to ensure that, if we are to have CMPs, there are proper limits, proper controls, a proper balance and judicial discretion, and that CMPs are a last resort in what I suspect will be the very small category of cases where there is no other fair solution that maintains national security. At the appropriate time, and unless the Government are prepared, as I hope they will be, to make concessions even at this late stage on these matters, I intend to test the opinion of the House on the amendments in my name.

16:00

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I thought it might help the House to take the unusual step of speaking early in the debate on behalf of the Opposition in order to make our position clear in relation to the amendments in this group, in particular those that emanate from the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I note, incidentally, that yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister endorsed many of its recommendations. In answer to a question from my right honourable friend Sadiq Khan, he said:

“I am very sympathetic to a lot of what the Committee says, and the Government are considering its amendments with an open and, in many respects, sympathetic mind. I hope that we will be able to amend the Bill to allay those concerns in line with many of the recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/11/12; col. 428.]

I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord would be able, later in the debate, to indicate whether and when those expectations that the Deputy Prime Minister encouragingly aroused yesterday will be fulfilled. We already have some amendments that would not quite meet the Deputy Prime Minister’s intentions as expressed yesterday.

During Second Reading, I referred to the difficulty that we and Parliament as a whole face in calibrating the balance between the two principles embodied in the Bill’s title of “Justice” and “Security”. It has become increasingly clear that completely reconciling those competing desiderata is effectively impossible. We of course accept that the Government have genuine concerns about national security, even though, perhaps understandably, the Bill does not define the term, as was pointed out by a number of Members of your Lordships’ House, including the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Deben, and the noble Earl, Lord Errol, during Second Reading. The noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, took the view then about national security that, “You know it when you see it”. That might be thought to be uncomfortably close to implying that security is in the eye of the beholder; in this case, a government beholder. It is impossible to provide a comprehensive statutory definition of what constitutes national security, but some guidance during parliamentary debates, of which later judicial notice might be taken, would be helpful in at least indicating areas that would fall outside the definition.

The Government’s other main concern, of course, is the difficulties that they face in presenting their case without the protection of closed proceedings, coupled with the cost—both reputational and financial—of having to settle cases in order to avoid disclosure. However, as we have heard repeatedly during the passage of this Bill through the House, the proposals constitute a radical departure from the cornerstone of our legal system: the right of a party to know, and to challenge, his opponent’s case. This right has been emphasised in the clearest terms in a number of judgments to which reference was made earlier in these proceedings, such as those of Lord Kerr and Lord Neuberger. Moreover, although the Government do not accept the point, they also appear to clash with the provisions of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as powerfully argued by John Howell QC in his opinion for the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I understand that the Government are not prepared to disclose the legal advice that they have obtained on this point, effectively invoking their own closed material procedure on the issue.

The Government’s proposals in themselves constitute a significant reputational risk to our system of justice. In passing, it is interesting that, just as we are debating this Bill, the Government are announcing serious changes to the system of judicial review that are designed to make it much more difficult for their decisions in a whole variety of areas to be challenged. Your Lordships might think that a disturbing pattern seems to be emerging.

We are told, in relation to CMPs, that a number of claims are now pending. However, interestingly, the special advocates were denied access by the Home Secretary to any of the files, despite the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Mr David Anderson QC, upon whom the Government seem selectively to rely, supporting that request. We have recently seen in the Daily Mail an attempt to imply that the Government were facing the prospect of paying out millions to settle cases involving suspected terrorists, although even the Daily Mail, editorially, seems to be opposed to the Government’s proposals. But of course the procedures need not involve claimants of that description. They could apply to all civil claims where a national security justification might be advanced. So claims by a member of the Armed Forces or security services, or an innocent victim of what is euphemistically called “collateral damage” arising from military action, would also be caught by this procedure.

There is also the paradox that the procedures would not apply to inquests, so that justice will be seen to be done only where there has, sadly, been a fatality. Yet as my right honourable friend Sadiq Khan pointed out in his letter to Mr Clarke, the 7/7 inquests were conducted along lines very similar to those advocated by the Joint Committee and reflected in the amendments that we are now debating, without any damage ensuing.

The interests of national security can be protected by means other than simply relying upon closed material procedures. The Opposition support most of the suite of amendments effectively emanating from the Joint Committee report, seven of which we have subscribed to. The thrust of these amendments is to vest greater discretion in the judges, who are not quick to reject the Government’s case, and to facilitate a balancing of the public interest in justice and the interests of national security in a way that, despite the Government’s rather airy protestations, the Bill as drafted does not.

Amendment 33 extends the possibility of an application for CMP to either party and on the court’s own motion. Amendment 40 refers to the possibility of utilising the public interest immunity procedure under which, as we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Pannick, a variety of workable steps can be taken—gisting, redaction, confidentiality rings, closed hearings—to protect material that should not be made public, before recourse is had to closed material procedures as a last resort. Incidentally, Mr Clarke’s statement on Monday’s “Today” programme that the judge should not have the discretion to have, in public, evidence that puts at risk the lives of agents or intelligence services, was grossly misleading in implying that this would be a consequence of accepting amendments of this kind. The measures I have just mentioned would prevent that happening.

Amendments 35 to 38, 40 and 47 enshrine both the judicial discretion which many have criticised in the course of debates and the balancing principle which is at the heart of the Joint Committee’s proposals. Taken together, these amendments place the judge firmly in control of the process, with the means to balance the interests of justice and security, protecting from disclosure what is essential not to be made public. Despite the protestations of Ministers, the Bill in its current form does not meet these critical objectives.

We have some difficulties, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has referred to, with Amendments 48 to 50, particularly the insertion of the phrase, in Amendment 50,

“so far as it is possible to do so”,

in the proposed requirement to ensure that a summary of material, disclosure of which the court does not authorise, does not itself contain material damaging to national security. I for one am not sure what the words import or how far they would extend. We would wish to explore this issue further, perhaps at Third Reading, as the noble Lord indicated, or even later when the Bill is considered in the House of Commons.

In his letter of 13 November, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, who has a deservedly high reputation for legal expertise and fair-mindedness, made some minor concessions and one major one. The latter restricts the order-making powers to extend closed material procedures, and another requires notice to be given to the other party of an intention to apply for a CMP. Those concessions are welcome and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, and indeed the Government, for them. Interestingly, the noble and learned Lord’s letter also touches on the court’s inherent right to strike out a claim if highly relevant sensitive information could not be considered—itself a powerful tool with which to protect national security without the need for this Bill.

Outside the Government, there appears precious little support for the sweeping changes the Government propose. Civil liberties organisations—as one might expect, perhaps—the Law Society, the Bar Council, even Monday’s editorial in the Times, which has been quoted, and some leading Conservative Members of Parliament such as David Davis and Andrew Tyrie, unite in expressing profound concern at the changes that this Bill would bring about in our system of justice.

Like many other Members of this House, I travel to and from it by the Underground, where passengers are regularly enjoined to “mind the closing doors”. I hope we bear that injunction in mind today. We must ensure that the doors of justice are not closed in the way this Bill seeks to do, however genuine may be the reasons that prompt it.

We learnt a few days ago the identity of the next Archbishop of Canterbury, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, whom all Members of your Lordships’ House, of all faiths and none, will join in congratulating and wishing well. The announcement put me in mind of another archbishop, Thomas à Becket, whose life and death were the subject of TS Eliot’s Murder in the Cathedral, in which the following lines occur:

“The last temptation is the greatest treason:

To do the right deed for the wrong reason”.

I urge the House to support the amendments backed by the Opposition, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and in so doing not to succumb to the alternative temptation of doing the wrong deed for the right reason.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords, I speak as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I intend to make only one speech, if I can get away with that, and to make it as brief as I can.

The issues raised in this debate are of profound importance to the rule of law in a parliamentary democracy. Part 2 of the Bill has aroused huge and justifiable controversy. It was condemned root and branch by my party at its annual conference. Many Liberal Democrats would ditch Part 2 in its entirety as illiberal, with or without procedural safeguards. In her letter to the Times last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, explained that she remains of the view that inviting the court to look at all the relevant secret material and letting it decide what, if any, weight to put on it is an advance over where we are today. I agree with her.

The purpose of these amendments, recommended unanimously by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, is to achieve that result and to make Part 2 comply with the fundamental principles of justice and fairness protected by the common law. We hope that the Minister and the House will agree that our report was thorough, fair and balanced, and that our recommendations are put forward to improve, not to wreck, Part 2.

I shall not delay and weary the House by reading the relevant parts of the JCHR report into the record. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has already referred to the relevant parts. The report speaks for itself, and I would suppose that anyone who takes part in this debate will have read the report in its entirety.

16:14

Our constitutional system depends upon the wise exercise of the powers of both Houses of Parliament to ensure that the laws that it enacts do not undermine the basic civil rights and liberties of the individual and the cherished principles of justice protected by the common law. The chairman of the Bar Council, Michael Todd QC, and the president of the Law Society of England and Wales have written to the Government describing secret trials and withholding evidence as reminiscent of,

“repressive regimes and undemocratic societies”.

Their letter states:

“While HM government rightly takes a strong stance in respect of the importance of the rule of law globally … this bill will adversely affect the UK’s international reputation for fair justice”.

The letter continues:

“We believe that the plans for secret courts erode core principles of our civil justice system and will fatally undermine the courtroom as an independent and objective forum in which allegations of wrongdoing can be fairly tested and where the government and others can be transparently held to account”.

I agree with those strong views, unless we are able to write really effective safeguards into Part 2 as recommended by the JCHR.

Many human rights bodies have urged us to vote to ditch Part 2 of the Bill, and that view is supported by the JCHR’s reference to the absence of sufficient evidence to justify the measure. Some of them advocated the introduction of CMPs in the 1990s. The JCHR has recommended that the wiser course is to hedge rather than to ditch; that is, to amend the Bill to make it compatible with the principles of natural justice and fairness and the rule of law.

That is our common purpose in moving these amendments today, with support from all sides of the House. If we failed to achieve those changes, the case for ditching Part 2 would become very much stronger, but we hope that it will not be necessary to wield that blunt instrument of removal of Clauses 6 and 7. If the JCHR amendments are accepted by the House, I will be unable to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, because it would nullify the amendments that we would have made to Clauses 6 and 7.

Closed material procedure is of course less than perfect justice. It came into our law as a result of the Strasbourg court judgments and the arguments presented to the court. In Chahal, the court explained in its judgment that it attached significance to the fact that, as the interveners pointed out, in Canada,

“a more effective form of judicial control has been developed in cases of this type. This example illustrates that there are techniques which can be deployed which both accommodate legitimate security concerns about the nature and sources of intelligence information and yet accord the individual a substantial measure of procedural justice”.

The interveners in Chahal included Liberty and Justice, the AIRE Centre and Amnesty International. They were in that case advocating a Canadian-style closed material procedure, because judicial review did not constitute an effective remedy in cases involving national security.

In Tinnelly and McElduff, in which I represented the applicants, the Strasbourg court noted that in other contexts it had been found possible to modify judicial procedures in such a way as to safeguard national security concerns about the nature and sources of intelligence information and yet accord the individual a substantial measure of procedural justice.

This is what led to the SIAC Act of 1997, which I supported in this House and which my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford opposed, as he does today. CMP involves less-than-perfect justice, but it is vastly better than the previous situation where judicial review was unable to provide effective judicial control in national security cases, and it is a procedure supported at the time by civil society organisations.

As the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay and Lord Woolf, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, and the noble Lords, Lord West of Spithead and Lord Faulks, observe in their letter to the Times today, CMPs are not ideal, but they are a better option where the alternative is no justice at all. I agree. However, it is unacceptable to extend that procedure to civil claims against the state without adequate safeguards of fairness and civil justice administered by the courts.

It is well known that the driving force behind that part of the Bill emanates from the United States Government and the Central Intelligence Agency, who misunderstand the fine record of our courts in protecting national security within the rule of law. As someone who learnt the value of the American Constitution and Bill of Rights half a century ago at Harvard Law School, I hope and believe that our debate today on Part 2 will not harm our special relationship or the vital co-operation between our intelligence and security services. I should like the Minister to confirm that in his reply.

Reference has already been made to the right honourable Kenneth Clarke’s interview on the “Today” programme on Monday, when he described our amendments as legalistic. That is an odd criticism for the former Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor to have made. The amendments are designed to keep faith with the fundamental principles of justice and fairness in our common law system, within the rule of law, and national security protected by the independent judiciary. Ken Clarke also emphasised the importance of saving taxpayers’ money from being spent on settling claims against the state that could be saved if the claims were determined by the CMP procedure. Quite apart from the unfair advantage that the scheme as it stands would give to the Executive and their agents, the central question is not whether CMP is objectionable, but how it can be made to operate fairly, entrusting full discretion to the judge in charge of the case.

We are faced with a choice of evils. The JCHR approach is an attempt to achieve a fair balance. I hope that there will be support for our amendments across the House.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, briefly, I support the amendments. I make one specific comment. Having listened to the speeches of my noble friend Lord Beecham and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I say simply that there is a very thin line between their arguments in support of the amendments and Amendment 45 and the other group, which seek the removal of CMPs. The line is so thin that I believe that I could use the case of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in particular, which he put so eloquently, to come to a different conclusion: to support our amendments. That is an argument for later. In the mean time, I hope that the House will support the key amendments when we come to votes.

[Baroness Berridge]

My Lords, I speak as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and as the fourth name on this group of amendments. Normally, I take very seriously the advice given by our Government —so much so that I took the advice of the Government’s Chief Medical Officer early last week not to seek antibiotics for a cough and cold, so I apologise. I am living to regret following that advice and I apologise for any resultant disturbance to your Lordships’ proceedings this afternoon.

It is the judge’s court, not the Government’s, so it should be the judge’s decision or discretion as to the fairest way to proceed with the case before him or her—whether that is by using public interest immunity with all its flexibility, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, or by using a closed material procedure.

It is so important that this House stands firm on that principle, not only to protect the credibility of the judicial process but to safeguard the interests of the other party to that litigation. The Government, who are one party to the litigation that we are considering, usually have control over the other place, so it is only this Chamber that can protect the other party to the litigation and keep the important procedural powers in the hands of the judge by your Lordships accepting this group of amendments.

These amendments, particularly Amendment 37, reflect the view of David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation when he stated to the joint committee that this ensures that cases are not tried in closed material procedure that could otherwise be done under public interest immunity, nor will cases be struck out that can be tried in a closed material procedure. The judge must retain a wide procedural discretion, which, if these amendments are accepted, I accept may mean that our judiciary will begin a new balancing act: balancing the unfairness of the exclusionary nature of PII against the unfairness of the closed material procedure, which leads to the claimant and his or her lawyer being absent. I believe it is very important to retain this judicial discretion and to leave these matters in the hands of our judiciary, who have shown that they can be entrusted with such fine balancing acts. My name is therefore on these amendments.

[Lord Morgan]

My Lords—

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords—

[Lord Morgan]

Thank you. I am very anxious to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, too. I will not speak for very long. I am not a lawyer and I sit on the Back Benches, as I always have, where one is required to vote but not necessarily to think. Yet occasional flickers of thought agitate our minds. This clause is deeply unfair and the amendments are profoundly right. It seems characteristic of what has happened to liberty in this country over many years with, I am sorry to say, the endorsement of all three major parties: the tilting of the balance away from the free individual—the citizen—towards the state, reinforcing raison d’état contrary to the common law. The element of secrecy adds something new that we have not had since the time of the Tudors. It was specifically condemned in the Petition of Right in 1628, which is quite a long time ago.

This clause has caused outrage among lawyers, as we have heard, and civil liberties groups. It has been strongly criticised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Why? Because it is totally one-sided. It is a closed court, with the litigants, lawyers and the press excluded. Only the lawyers representing the Crown can communicate in private with the judge. The litigants are not aware of the content, tone or substance of those conversations. They are protected inadequately by special advocates, because their powers are limited, and the interests of litigants in civil cases are not properly defended as, if I may say, people accused of criminal activity under the criminal legal system are protected. Public interest is cited: a term defined so broadly almost as to lose all meaning. It shows that the normal judicial process is a fair, balanced and adversarial system when both sides can present their case. These aspects are being marginalised and sidelined. As previous speakers have said, this is a process that has now been launched and is very likely to increase and multiply.

These amendments should go further—I would like to see the whole clause disappear—but will undoubtedly improve these otherwise dismal procedures. This reflects a welcome tilt towards libertarianism, including from my own party, which has not been notable in that sphere in recent years. I am very glad to welcome that under its present leadership. The Secretary of State would be compelled to present a case for a public immunity initiative; the court would be able to consider it dispassionately and calmly without being steam-rollered by the Government, as would otherwise happen; the litigants could have proper legal discussions with their advocates.

At the moment, there would be no real authority accorded to judges, whose hands would be tied by the terms of the Bill. They would have little choice other than to accept the submissions of the Government, so these amendments are deeply valuable—not simply to those involved with the law but to any citizen of this country. This would enable the courts to consider and to estimate the comparative balance between the rights of a free individual as against the damage to national security, which might have to be more carefully defined. To that extent, these amendments make an odious Bill somewhat less repulsive. The Minister is a very fair-minded man who has the respect of all Members of the House. He has listened to strong arguments against this clause from all sections of the House, and I am sure he will consider them fairly and courteously.

16:30

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

I fear that I may disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Morgan—but I hope not. I have no difficulty at all with Amendments 37 and 40, which were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, but I have some difficulties with Amendments 34 and 35, which we are going to come to in a later group. Those are the amendments that would substitute the word “may” for “must”. They are the basic amendments that would give the judge a discretion rather than imposing on him a duty in certain circumstances.

Amendment 36, which has been spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, spells out how that discretion is to be exercised. It states that the judge must balance,

“the degree of harm to the interests of national security”,

on the one hand, against,

“the public interest in the fair and open administration of justice”.

It is now many years since I heard a PII application. It was never an easy balancing operation, but at least with a PII application one was balancing a particular piece of evidence and how much harm it would do to the national interest, on the one side, and how much good it would do to the case of one party or the other, on the other side. It was difficult but it was a fairly specific balancing operation. I find much greater difficulty with the judge being required to take account of,

“the public interest in the fair and open administration of justice”.

I cannot see how he can possibly evaluate that in the abstract. In one sense, it might be said to overwhelm everything else, of course; but on the other hand, how much weight can be given to that? Amendment 36 is very different from the operation that one used to, and still does, carry out in an ordinary PII application. I am not happy with Amendment 36 and that sort of discretion being given to a judge.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the focus of the Bill is to enable this country to find a means of dispensing justice while protecting national security. National security has not had much of a hearing so far this afternoon. I shall explain why I do not think that public interest immunity is any longer an adequate safeguard in respect of national security. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that, at the moment, the PII regime prevents justice being dispensed consistent with security. Pace the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, I do not think that this is an impossible goal.

When national security-sensitive evidence which may be important to the claimant’s case—we all agree about that—is excluded from the courtroom by a PII certificate and the judge may not take it into account in coming to a judgment, there are two consequences: the claimant is unable to prove his case and the Government cannot defend themselves properly. To protect national security evidence from disclosure in open court the Government are being forced to agree substantial settlements, with unjustified reputational damage ensuing. The inability of our legal system to provide adequate recourse to parties in civil dispute brings no credit to it and we need to do something to mend it.

Amendment 40 would insert PII as a first stage in the legal process. This would undoubtedly greatly increase the length of proceedings and costs without necessarily guaranteeing that evidence would be heard. I cannot help feeling that this is pointless. Moreover—and this is a real problem—PII impinges adversely on the claimant’s rights and, contrary to the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, since the case concerning Binyam Mohamed, PII has also proved to be a less than total protection for national security sensitive information. We do not now have a safeguard in PII to protect national security. It has really changed the ground. In that case, the court ordering disclosure of American material despite the Government’s PII certificate has damaged our intelligence relationship with the allies, especially, although not only, with the United States. We have this judgment from the independent reviewer of terrorism, David Anderson QC, who I know has been quoted by other noble Lords. However, I know that, on this point, he is right. It is a very serious matter if our allies can no longer trust our ability to keep secret intelligence passed to us secret.

The fact that we have not had a major terrorist incident in this country since 7/7 is not the result of the conversion of the enemy but of the successful diligence of our intelligence and security services in protecting us. They depend on vital—and I mean vital—sharing of intelligence with allies. The effect of recent cases in civil courts, and the numbers of these are growing, has now spread into the core security interests of the UK. Some noble Lords talked about the core security interests of this country in justice, and I entirely agree. However, we also have another interest to protect which is important to us. We are now damaging the core security interests of the UK. If we do not find a way, as part of a responsible national security policy, of restoring credibility to our promise to protect information given to us, we will find our intelligence relationships further eroded over time and our national security eroded with them.

It is not just the control principle that is at issue, it is UK national security. This cannot be subjected to balancing tests of the kind set out in Amendment 47 —and Amendment 46, for that matter—as if it were somehow exchangeable with other goods. Lives are not at stake in civil proceedings but they are—they can be—in national security.

Closed material proceedings are of course second-best to completely open court proceedings. There is nothing that divides anybody in this House on that point; we all agree. The problem, however, is that we are not in an ideal world. Only the court can decide to allow closed material proceedings under the Bill, and presumably the judge would not permit that if they did not think that there was a substantial national security interest to be protected and they had not been convinced by the submission of the Secretary of State. In that case, this issue would not arise. However, if it does arise and the court agrees that there should be CMP, it will permit a full testing of the claimant’s case. The Government will be able to defend themselves in a manner that protects sensitive national security information.

The Bill also provides for gisting to the claimant. This is much better than the absence of justice and the potential prejudice to national security at the same time. Amendments 48, 49 and 50 would destroy the balance that the Bill would bring about.

Much has been made already of the Government’s proposals being “a radical departure” from our traditional norms. However, the closed material procedure is drawn from the procedure created by the previous Labour Government for the special immigration appeals courts which, I might say, Liberty was very influential in setting up, and which have been tested and accepted as compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The reality of justice there is demonstrated by the fact that the Government lose cases. Amendment 44 would bring some SIAC procedures into question, as well as rendering this Bill null and void.

I hope that this House will accept that this Bill is a balanced response to a difficult issue. I take seriously, along with other Lords, the need for safeguards, but I believe that many of the proposals on the Marshalled List go too far. I hope that this House will reject amendments which, far from improving the Bill, either remove or render ineffectual the purpose of closed material proceedings. To use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, I believe that this Bill passes the smell test.

[Lord Wigley]

I want to speak very briefly to Amendment 48, which has been grouped with these amendments. I do not accept that this tips the balance, as the noble Baroness suggested just a moment ago.

One of the most unsettling provisions of this Bill is contained in Clause 7, which provides that if a Closed Material Procedure is triggered, a court is not required to give the excluded party a summary of the closed material. Rather, the legislation, as drafted, requires only that the court should consider requiring such a summary to be given. In any case, Clause 7(1)(e) provides that the court must ensure that, where a summary is given, it does not contain material, the disclosure of which would be against the interests of national security.

If this clause goes through unamended, there will be no requirement to give excluded parties sufficient information about the case against them so that they can give instructions to their special advocate. Surely this is wrong, otherwise people could lose cases without being told any of the reasons why, which is an unacceptable situation in circumstances where the national security is not at stake.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, I start by paying tribute to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for the very important work it put into producing the thorough and excellent report that gave rise to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others.

The first question to be addressed in considering the introduction of CMPs to ordinary civil proceedings is whether the Government have in any way made out a case for their necessity. That is a matter upon which, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out, the Joint Committee found itself unpersuaded. However, if there are 20 such cases now, as figures recently released by my noble and learned friend the Advocate General for Scotland state, as well as the obvious prospect of an increasing number in the future, as the fact that the Government are a soft target for such cases becomes well known, that is a significant number, if a small one. In such cases, because the evidence has to be withheld altogether for the protection of national security—and it is worth reminding ourselves that that is what PII does—there can at present be no determination at all, and therefore no justice. That lack of justice has to be weighed against the damage that would be done to our civil justice system by the extension of CMPs to certain civil claims. CMPs are, as has been said, inherently unfair. They represent a serious departure from open justice, because the evidence cannot be tested by cross-examination in the ordinary way: by advocates acting on the instructions of their clients, who themselves have a full opportunity to know and meet the case against them. CMPs, therefore, represent a justice that is flawed. For my part, I think that to choose to have no determination at all in these cases, and to prefer no justice to flawed justice, would be the better choice, unless the safeguards for CMPs proposed by the Joint Committee are in place.

16:45

The first essential safeguard is that there must be full judicial control and discretion. It must be for a judge to conduct the vital exercise of balancing the interests of national security against the public interest in open justice. While I have heard what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said about the difficulty facing judges in conducting that delicate exercise, I suggest that they are the best placed in this country to conduct that exercise. It should not be an exercise for government.

It cannot be right for the Secretary of State to form a view as to where the public interest lies, then to make an application, and for the statute to preclude the judge from saying that the Secretary of State is wrong in any case where it is established that there is some security-sensitive material, no matter how little or how central or peripheral to the case that material may be. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, neither I nor my noble friend Lord Lester know of any case where a United Kingdom judge has prejudiced the interests of national security by ordering disclosure of material that should not have been disclosed.

It has been claimed by some members of the Government that the Bill allows the judge a reasonable discretion in Clause 7. I suggest that that is not the case. Without taking your Lordships through a detailed analysis, such an analysis shows that all that the judge can do is tinker with the detail once a Clause 6 declaration is made. That discretion is far too little and it comes far too late in the process. It does not give the judge any control over the decision of principle as to whether a CMP is warranted in a particular case.

The second safeguard, as Amendment 33 proposes, is that there must be equality of arms so that claimants may also benefit from CMPs, where taking into account security-sensitive material would help their cases. It is easy to envisage cases where the state might, genuinely in the national interest, wish to withhold from a claimant security material which might help prove his case; for example, because it would disclose details of activity by agents of the security services which are consistent with the claimant’s account of what had happened to him. In such cases, the special advocate should be able to advise the claimant, without jeopardising national security, that on the basis of material that the special advocate has seen, the claimant should apply for the material to be heard in a CMP. That is equality of arms.

Thirdly, it must be absolutely clear that the use of CMPs is available only as a last resort—as my noble friend Lady Berridge said, when all alternative procedures have been considered and rejected—where no determination of the case would otherwise be possible. Fourthly, summaries of the closed material should be sufficient to enable the excluded party to know as much as possible and to be able to give instructions to the special advocate to enable that special advocate to represent his interest as effectively as possible.

Fifthly, in every case the court, not the Secretary of State, should be bound to consider whether a claim to PII could have been made successfully to exclude the security-sensitive material. The noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Dubs, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has explained, favour a rule that PII always has to be granted before any CMP application can be made. It may be that in the generality of the cases, that is the proper order. In that, I differ from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones. But the JCHR preferred to avoid this straitjacket approach, which might in some cases be impractical: the Al Rawi Guantanamo Bay case was said by the Government in the Supreme Court to be one such case because of the sheer weight and complexity of the documents involved. I accept the JCHR’s position on that point.

Finally, to ensure that the public has as much information as practical, the media must be told what they can be told about the working of the system and the issues and material in relevant cases as soon as the secrecy surrounding them has gone. All these safeguards are provided by the JCHR amendments, and I shall be voting for them today—and I hope that other noble Lords on these Benches will do the same. I take comfort from what my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister said in the House of Commons yesterday, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, pointed out, to the effect that the Government will approach these amendments sympathetically.

I have just two caveats, to which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred. The first concerns Amendment 38, which on its face appears to remove an important qualification in deciding whether material is disclosable for the purpose of Section 6(2). If, as the amendment suggests, you omit Clause 6(3)(a), the judge does not ignore the fact that the material that he is considering under Clause 6(2)(a) would not be disclosable if it were subject to PII. I am sorry that this is a technical point, but the effect is that he cannot then decide whether that material is within Clause 6(2)(a) if it would be subject to PII. If that analysis is right, that is the opposite of what I take the JCHR to have intended. In his reply to me, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, indicated that there may be some ambiguity—and, if there is such ambiguity, perhaps my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate could take it back and consider it.

The second concern, which I share with the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, concerns Amendment 50, which requires full summaries as would be required by Amendment 49, even where it is impossible to give such summaries without disclosing material damaging to national security. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that the best course might be not to move that amendment today but to take it away and bring it back at Third Reading. I hope that the Government might come back with an amendment that balances the need for summaries with the need to withhold such material as is damaging to national security. The amendment as it stands might jeopardise national security when other considerations favoured a CMP with summaries that are as full as possible.

In conclusion, it seems to me that with the amendments proposed by the Joint Committee, on balance the flawed justice represented by CMPs but safeguarded is better than no justice at all. Accordingly, if the JCHR amendments succeed, I will vote against Amendment 45.

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers]

My Lords, I find myself in familiar territory, as I sat in a judicial capacity on a number of appeals dealing with closed material, including Al-Rawi. Closed material is anathema to any court, and the Supreme Court always managed to deal with issues relating to closed material without looking at the material itself. I am, however, reluctantly persuaded of the need, in the interests of justice, for a closed material procedure in exceptional cases where the Government would otherwise have no alternative but to submit to a civil claim for damages because to defend it would necessarily involve putting into the public domain material that would cause disproportionate harm to national security. It is for that reason that I support the batch of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and other noble Lords in relation to Clauses 6 and 7.

I would expect the Government and those supporting Clauses 6 and 7 to welcome these amendments. Let me explain why. I draw attention to Clause 11(5)(c), which provides that,

“Nothing in sections 6 to 10 … is to be read as requiring a court or tribunal to act in a manner inconsistent with Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention”.

That is a very significant provision. It means that a judge will be precluded from acceding to a closed material application unless satisfied that to do so will be compatible with the Article 6 right to a fair trial.

The use of closed material in civil litigation will undoubtedly be challenged as a matter of principle. That challenge will surely reach the Supreme Court and, if it fails, will be renewed before the Strasbourg Court. If it reaches that court, its decision is likely to be critical. If it holds that the use of closed material in civil proceedings is incompatible with Article 6, the English judges are likely to follow that ruling; and Clauses 6 and 7 will become a dead letter.

The Bill as it stands makes no provision for the application of a test of proportionality. The test is simply: would disclosure be damaging to the interests of national security? If the answer is yes, the court is mandated to accede to the application that the material in question be not disclosed. Clause 7 then leaves it in the discretion of the court as to the extent to which, if at all, the closed material can be deployed in support of the Government’s case. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and other noble Lords introduce a test of proportionality. They also make it plain that a closed material order can be made only as a last resort when there is no other way of having a trial that is fair to both parties. The amendments also require a gist of the closed material to be given to the other party.

These amendments will, it seems to me, significantly increase the chances that the provisions in relation to closed material are held to be compatible with Article 6 by the Strasbourg Court. That court has made it plain that it considered that gisting was an essential feature of a closed material procedure in the context of control orders, and the court is likely to take the same view in relation to civil litigation. If and when this issue reaches Strasbourg, it is important to appreciate that the court is not likely to have access to the closed material that has weighed with the courts of this country, nor to the closed judgments relating to that material. It seems to me likely that the Strasbourg Court will require to be persuaded that the English courts have applied a test of proportionality before allowing closed material to influence their decisions, that a gist of the closed material which is sufficiently specific to enable the other party to meet the case made against him has been provided to him, and that closed material has been admitted because there was no other way of procuring a fair trial. That is what these amendments set out to achieve.

If these amendments are made, it does not mean that the Government are going to be forced on occasion to disclose material that they consider to be adverse to the interests of national security. It means that where the court does not consider that the use of closed material will be proportionate, the Government may have to litigate without the benefit of that material if they remain unprepared to disclose it, or even to settle the claim made against them. The same will be true if the Government are not prepared to gist the closed material. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has observed, the debate on Clauses 6 and 7 is not concerned with the protection of national security; it is concerned with the requirements of a fair trial.

It is for these reasons that I support the amendments in question.

16:59

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I should like to add a word of tribute to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for the thoroughness and courage of its work, and I pay tribute to those who put these amendments forward.

I am not a lawyer, but what concerns me in all this is what lies behind the issues we are discussing—we are trying to protect a society that is worth having. Central to the society that is worth protecting in the United Kingdom, as I understand it, has been the evolution of the cause of justice and fairness in our legal system. That has been the central pillar of what has made Britain a country in which it is good to live. Alongside this, of course, has been the independence of the judiciary; and the judge has a key role—not a role that is perceived by just those in the know, but one that can be widely seen as the key role—in ensuring that this happens.

The first thing I will say is that I find myself troubled by the fact that if we compare ourselves now with how we were 20 years ago, the quality of justice in our society is not as good; there has been an erosion. Of course I understand the acute and sinister pressures behind this trend. We are up against sinister, ruthless techniques and people. I worry that we are giving them the victory and legislating to underpin that victory by taking steps that may diminish the quality of our justice.

Let us look for a moment at the kind of issues that are being considered in the cases about which we are worried. They include torture and human rights, which are sensitive and emotive matters. If it becomes a growing concern in society that things are not as they should be in the administration of justice in these areas, and if it should be thought that the Government and Executive want to conceal things that happened which should not have happened, that will play into the hands of the extremists who are trying to build anxiety, doubt and instability into our society.

This is the very time that we must stand steadfast. Of course I am not suggesting—it would be madness to do so—that there are no matters that simply cannot be revealed in a court case. However, we must not regard this as something that on balance is right. If we are going to diminish the normal standards that we expect and see as central to our justice system, it must be an absolute last resort because we have to do it, and it should be confined to the narrowest possible areas of control. The amendments in this group are a step towards resisting a further erosion of our system of justice.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I accept that my noble friend the Minister has an acutely difficult task in dealing with this part of the Bill and with these amendments. I do not think that anybody in this House pretends otherwise. Balancing national security against individual liberty and due process is judgment-of-Solomon stuff. However, I concur with the virtually unanimous voice of those who have said that there is a want of balance and proportionality in the arrangements in this part of the Bill.

In particular, I support Amendment 36. I will not repeat what others said very well, but I will draw the attention of the House—and perhaps of some beyond the House—to a very plangent example of the failure of the Bill to balance as it should the two competing issues. As was explained, Clause 6 requires a judge—it is not discretionary—to grant an application for a closed material procedure if,

“disclosure would be damaging to the interests of national security”.

There is no qualification of “damaging”. There is no talk of “substantial” or “significant” damage. As it stands, a judge would have to grant such an application if the damage were marginal or even trivial. That is why it is essential to agree Amendment 36—and Amendment 37 with it—and some other amendments in the group that would ensure that no judge was put in the difficult, highly undesirable circumstance of having to grant a closed material proceedings application in circumstances that, on any common-sense basis, would not be warrantable.

[Lord Glentoran]

My Lords, I will step out of the courtroom and into the street. Most of my life I have lived close to terrorism or among it. I have lived close to those in the secret services and many in the police. One thing that we must not vote for tonight is a reduction in the abilities of the public prosecution services, lawyers and, more importantly, police, who to my personal knowledge are extremely frustrated, certainly in Northern Ireland and in other areas that I know of, that they cannot get convictions when they know that people are guilty. They cannot get the evidence into court because they are protecting our secret services—our police and undercover agents. Throughout the problems in Northern Ireland which I have known, and throughout some of the other ones which I have known in my lifetime, those people have done a wonderful, brave job. They must not be put at risk on account of the human rights requirements.

[Lord Owen]

My Lords, although I did not intend to intervene, I urge the Minister, when he comes to reply, to develop any serious reservations he may have about Amendment 48. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, would consider doing for Amendment 48 what he is doing for Amendment 50. I do not hold the alarmist view of these amendments that is held by some members of the intelligence services; they are necessary and correct and I have no difficulty with any of them. However, I can imagine circumstances in which, under Amendment 48, it would be difficult to change “consider requiring” to “require”. That is particularly true if one considers that Amendment 49 states,

“sufficient to enable the party to whom the summary is provided to give effective instructions on the undisclosed material to their legal representatives and special advocates”.

That seems a pretty fair summary of what should be required, but it rings a certain alarm bell that there might be circumstances under which it would be necessary to try to persuade the courts, even in this difficult situation, that the pressures, particularly coming from people who have made available this intelligence, are so great that it would jeopardise the relationship of sharing information if we accepted Amendment 48. It would remove all discretion from the court.

In this debate those who have been justifying the amendments have often said that it is to avoid restricting the court and to give more power to the court’s judgments. This amendment would go in the opposite direction. I would like a little more explanation as to whether it is really necessary to change “consider requiring” to “require”.

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven]

My Lords, I can be very brief. Following the publication of the Green Paper, the Government indicated a concession that the Green Paper’s proposals were drawn far too widely and that the legislation that they would bring forward for consideration would be far tighter. In particular, they indicated that a judge rather than a Minister would have the final say and that closed material procedures would be available only in the most exceptional circumstances.

In fact, the Bill did not provide for either of those undertakings. It is only these amendments that are capable of securing them. The amendments finally give the judge the appropriate discretion to balance national security with the interests of justice, which is an essential tool for the judge if he is to control the fairness of the procedures in his own court, which is a critical aspect of the rule of law.

Secondly, the amendments secure a situation in which a closed material procedure would genuinely be a measure of last resort because they will require every other option to be considered first. My conclusion is that the amendments provide what the Government promised but did not secure in the Bill. For that reason, I shall support them.

[Lord Woolf]

My Lords, may I just add a few words to the very able speeches that have already been made? I preface them by saying that I am a hedger, not a ditcher. I hope that I will be forgiven for putting my words in the context of my own experience in this case because it is particularly relevant. For five years I was what was known as a Treasury devil or a Treasury junior, whose task, without having any political allegiance, was to be its representative in the courts in cases which would otherwise cause difficulty when being heard. One went to the court with the advantage that you were instructed by the Treasury solicitor. You were the general counsel of the Government in civil cases but when you were dealing with cases of the kind we are here considering you appeared in a completely neutral capacity.

As a result of that experience, I found that within the procedure then available—in which evidence which damaged national security would have to be excluded—there were all kinds of things that the courts and advocates could do to avoid the decision being made that the evidence could not be looked at in the court because of public interest immunity. As has been pointed out, that does not help the interests of justice because the court is blindfolded for some evidence which would otherwise be relevant. However, by using the tools available—which included members of the Bar on different sides accepting that they could rely absolutely on the integrity of the Treasury devil counsel—you could, in the great majority of cases, get evidence before the court in a way which achieved justice.

However, there was a very small minority of cases where that could not be done. One then had the unfortunate situation where there was relevant evidence that could influence the outcome which not even the judge could take into account, either for a claimant or a defendant. I suspect that no one in this House would like that situation to arise—certainly the judge did not like it—and that is why the kinds of efforts that I have indicated were taken regularly to avoid it happening. I emphasise also that, even where that happened, only a small portion of the case would not be investigated; other parts of the case could be investigated.

In generality, the proposals contained in the Bill have a great advantage over the existing process of public interest immunity: they allow the judge to have the material in a way which ensures that the interests of national security are protected. The European Convention on Human Rights does not intend or require a court system of any country to act in a way which is inconsistent with the interests of national security. It requires that the court, if it is going to take action which is not normally appropriate, should take all the steps which are open to it to minimise the effects of so doing. That is why, so far as proceedings in this country are concerned, the European Court of Justice in Strasbourg proposed the use of the special advocate. That was one step that could be taken to further the interests of justice which hitherto we had not taken. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, in his powerful speech, explained the history of how that form of action had its source in Canada, was praised by the European court, and when appropriate was adopted in this country. The procedure did not cure the disadvantages of evidence not being given in the ordinary way, but it did provide a way of getting closer to doing justice than was possible without it.

17:15

We want, first of all, to protect national security, but secondly we want to do it in a minimal way—here I think I am reflecting what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, was saying when I say that that is what we should be trying to do—because we do not want to do any more than is really necessary. We should take advantage of the general proposals of my noble friend Lord Pannick without examining them in detail, which would take far too long for me at the present time, so as to find a means of squaring the circle as far as that is possible. At the centre of what my noble friend Lord Pannick said in his speech—I hope that I have not misunderstood him—is that the weakness in what has been proposed by the Government can be summarised by saying that it diminishes the role of the judge in relation to the closed procedure. It is true that the closed procedure will not apply to a whole case but only to what the judge considers, under the provisions of the Act, to those areas where it is appropriate. The closed procedure will enable him to take advantage of the evidence, which may or may not be favourable to the Government; indeed, it may be to the advantage of the claimant.

The whole of our court process is under the control of a judge. The present public interest immunity procedure is under the control of a judge. The Government have the important role, one that I sometimes played, of intervening in proceedings by saying that part of the evidence should be excluded from consideration because it is damaging to national security. In those circumstances, the judge has to be satisfied that the contention being advanced is meritorious. To do that he might read things that are only going to be read by him—which he will do in chambers, so the procedure is closed to that extent—in order to come to a conclusion about the merits of the claim for public interest immunity. I would suggest that, just as he performs that role, he is the natural and indeed the only person, consistent with doing justice generally, who can deal with the matters which my noble friend Lord Pannick, under the guidance of the conclusions of the Joint Committee, feels it is appropriate to put before the House for consideration. If we approach the matter in that way, we will retain our standards of general justice.

Of course justice should always be open whenever that is possible, but Article 6 of the European convention deals with the doing of justice in a wholly different way from that which it deals with the question of forbidding torture. The provision there is absolute. The provision relating to a fair trial does not lay down that certain things can never be done, but gives the standards that should be generally applied. Strasbourg, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, has pointed out, would expect that this legislation will take a course that will enable justice to be done in the conventional way in a case, so far as is possible. However, it will recognise that, if there is a matter of national security that cannot be dealt with otherwise, it is appropriate and proper for there to be a new and additional ability for the court, where national security issues arise, that allows the judge to deal with the matter in a special way, with a closed procedure, so far as that is necessary to do justice in that case and where it could not be done otherwise.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I will be very brief as all the arguments have been well rehearsed. I share the concern of all other noble Lords about these provisions and the agonising balance that has to be struck. I particularly agree of course that either party should have the right to go to these proceedings, very much as a last resort. However, I have one particular anxiety and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will be able to satisfy me and other Members of the House when he comes to sum up at the end. The various amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, proposes include a number of hurdles—a Grand National of hurdles in fact—while the JCHR amendments provide a slightly fewer number of hurdles. If those amendments become part of the Bill, there will be circumstances in which we are left in precisely the same situation that we are in now; namely, that a judge does not accept the Government’s view about national security in operating the balancing act and the Government will then be left with the choice of doing exactly as they are now, and either settling the case or giving up.

Although I entirely applaud all the sentiments behind these amendments, I worry about how they are going to work in practice and whether they have a danger of defeating the Bill as a whole.

[Lord Carswell]

My Lords, the issues in this Bill can be fairly described as a clash of rights. They could also be described as a clash of wrongs. It is wrong—terribly wrong—that people’s safety and lives should be put at risk by the disclosure in the public domain of evidence that could, in some way, be withheld without irretrievably compromising the interests of justice. It is wrong, as the Government have said, that they should have to expend enormous sums of taxpayers’ money to settle claims because that evidence might put at risk the lives of people or the intelligence interests and co-operation of our allies. It is also terribly wrong that litigants be left in a Kafkaesque limbo, where they cannot know the case that is being made against them or the evidence that is being produced, or cannot be allowed full consultation with their advocates to ensure that they are able to put forward their own case, if they have one, as effectively as possible.

The balancing of interests and considerations has been traditionally not just a principle but a very strong instinct running through our law. It is far, far better if we can incorporate compliance with that instinct into the present issue rather than impose certain rigid requirements that are incapable of being observed without the risk of considerable and great injustice. I pay tribute to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for the quality of the argument and expression of its report.

There is a range of means in practically every case for reaching a proper solution that acknowledges and gives effect to the different considerations. I give an analogy that is not from the present issues, not from civil law but from criminal law: the protection of witnesses who would fear for their own safety if they were to give evidence in public. This is something of which I have had fairly considerable experience over the years, sitting as a trial judge when many witnesses, quite understandably, were extremely fearful for their lives and safety if they gave evidence.

There was a graduated list of possible ways of dealing with this and one had to consider that in any given case. It started at the lowest end, allowing the witness to give his or her name and address on paper to the judge only, but otherwise giving evidence in the normal way in open court and subject to ordinary cross-examination. At the other end of the scale, the witness was hidden behind a curtain or a screen and his or her voice was distorted so that the persons in the court could have no idea, unless they were clairvoyant, who was giving this evidence. It could have its humorous side. I remember a group of Army witnesses sitting in court—they all had dark glasses on and the most curious wigs, and they looked an amazing sight. But we applied that list as best we could and I suggest that this approach exemplifies the way in which Parliament should deal with this problem. For that reason I support the amendments.

This will not be an easy task for the judges who have to shoulder it. One has to acknowledge that it may not always be discharged perfectly, and certainly it will not always be discharged in a way that pleases the Government of the day. But undertaking that sort of burden is part of the function of a judge and we must trust them to take it on and to discharge it to the best of their ability. We must bear it in mind that in any given case the judge will have expert argument—and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said how effective and persuasive that can be—setting out the issues, giving the judge the opportunity and the time to weigh them up and attempt to come to the best possible solution. I submit that it is far better to run the risk of justice being imperfectly administered than to put the judges into a straitjacket at the Government’s behest. I support the amendments.

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, many noble Lords have said that striking a balance between justice and public security is a very difficult task, and that is exactly what this House is now being asked to do. Your Lordships who are learned, or learned in the law, will no doubt have made up your minds by now, but as a Member of the House who is a layman in these matters I rise simply to make a plea to my noble friend. He has brought a Bill to the House asking for more powers to be given to the Government to protect their agents working in the public interest. History is full of such appeals, and the duty of Parliament is to look at them with grave suspicion, particularly, as my noble friend Lady Berridge says, at a time when a Government have achieved so much preponderance in the other place. I am therefore very anxious to have clear statements, in one voice, from the Government who are putting this case, as to the individual merits of the different amendments.

It seems to me that there are not two simple, discrete packages, but that there are individual bits that are appealing and others that are not. Each will have a price. That price will be paid either in cash, by not going forward with the case, or in security, by risking exposure. We need to know that price as we make up our minds on each individual case. I speak as a layman, and I believe that there are many who need this guidance.

17:29

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in such a distinguished judicial gathering. In my time, I have had some involvement with intelligence matters. I recognise, as has been very well recognised by a number of noble Lords, how extraordinarily difficult these issues are and the challenges that they will pose for a judge when exercising his responsibilities.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, made the point very well that what we should be concerned about is national security. We should also be concerned with public respect for the system of justice. If there were to be, as we are told, an increasing number of cases that cannot be defended by the Government, in which perhaps substantial payments have to be made to what may appear to be thoroughly undeserving claimants, the public outrage and the damage that will do to respect for justice in this country will be extremely grave. I have been very impressed by what I think is a general consensus emerging that this is not a measure that should be abandoned by voting against Clause 6 but that this is a measure of last resort, provided that there are proper protections in place.

It cannot be emphasised too strongly that we depend for our defence in this country not just on the very able capabilities of our own intelligence and security services but on the vital liaison that we have with a number of key allies. Those allies are now spread much more widely than people may realise. A number of them are extremely sensitive about whether the security of the intelligence that they provide under the tightest restrictions, which is held most closely in their own countries, is going to be maintained in whatever arrangements we introduce into the justice system in this country.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, was querying whether there had been any such case. Of course, we are familiar with the issues that arose in the Binyam Mohamed case, when the Divisional Court ultimately rejected the Foreign Secretary’s third PII certificate. David Anderson QC, who has been referred to on a number of occasions, said that on the basis of what he was shown,

“there are signs that we are currently on probation and that there has already, in some respects, been a diminution in intelligence sharing”.

That is a very serious concern and certainly not a judgment that I would challenge. In my own experience, I was very conscious of the sensitivity in these matters and the importance of maintaining the most open channels.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but does he accept that in the Binyam Mohamed case, neither the Divisional Court nor the Court of Appeal presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, revealed any information that in any way prejudiced national security, even though it is true that some of the affidavit evidence of the Foreign Secretary and of Hillary Clinton was questioned at the Divisional Court level?

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

I do not think I have ever quoted Donald Rumsfeld, but when my noble friend very firmly asserts that there was no risk to national security, my worry always is the,

“things we don’t know we don’t know”

in these issues as to what sensitivities there may be. That is the worry that emerges out of this.

Let us be quite frank, there is not always a huge enthusiasm to share intelligence. There are plenty of people in the intelligence agencies of other countries who are very secretive indeed about the intelligence that they have and deeply distrustful of any other country that they do not believe will properly protect it, so any excuse that they can have—which they will argue internally in their own organisations—not to share intelligence in this way is something that we have to be extremely careful about.

It is against that background that I look with great interest to the reply of my noble friend the Minister. I have listened with great respect to the points that have been made. Some very good points have been made about the importance of ensuring judicial discretion in these matters. I got the impression that the Government have already moved quite significantly in that direction, which I wait to hear. However, in respect of my noble friend’s Amendment 31, I think that CMPs definitely have an advantage over PIIs. I do not support Amendment 31. I support the noble Lord, Lord Owen, in what he said about Amendment 48. I believe that Amendment 50 is also one that people have reservations about and I hope that that will not be pressed either.

[Baroness Manningham-Buller]

My Lords, I well understand the concern coming from all angles of this House on this legislation, and it is entirely right that these issues are fully scrutinised and judged by us. I think that everybody accepts that what is proposed is not ideal, but the question is: what is the best answer? There is the central dilemma of how to deploy into court a wealth of secret information that can be judged and weighed by the court without compromising it.

I am sorry to repeat this, but I think that I have to: the dangers of compromising secret information are several. The first is the obvious risk to the officers who are concerned with it and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, made clear, to the sources of it. The second is the technologies that are available but are fragile and can no longer be used. We are trying to deal with those two things.

If the House will indulge me, I want to say something pretty personal. It is deeply distressing to me and to my former colleagues to be accused of really wicked iniquities in the case of torture and maltreatment. We have not been able to defend ourselves. The closed material procedure gives the opportunity for this material, which may or may not reflect badly on the security and intelligence services—I naturally think that it would not, but others may judge differently—to be looked at. We have been judged by many to have been engaged in criminal activity. But there has been no prosecution; there has been, concerning my service, one police investigation and the CPS found no case to answer. There are other police inquiries going on at the moment and, because I believe in and respect the rule of law, I cannot comment on them; we will see what the outcome is. However, I believe that closed material procedures are a way in which the judiciary can make a judgment on the validity of those claims. We need CMPs for a range of reasons, and I am glad that it seems that, with some exceptions, the need for them is accepted by this House.

When we get on to the next part of the Bill, we will talk about intelligence sharing and Norwich Pharmacal. I may wish to comment at that stage; I do not now.

PII, apart from keeping out of court material that we wish the judge to look at, will be impractical in some cases. I believe—this is information from my former colleagues because I had retired by then—that around a quarter of a million documents were involved in some of the claims that have already been settled. Going through those line by line would be a mammoth and very long task.

Finally, perhaps I may pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. We should hope to avoid reaching a stage where, because of the need for the open practice of justice and because the balancing act rules out the use of secret intelligence, the Government will have to withdraw and settle and we might get back to where we started, with these cases not being heard. That is a risk that we will probably have to cope with, but I hope that the House will support the central value of having some proceedings to hear these cases in the absence of any at the moment.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. By any account, it has been a very well informed debate, with people speaking from some rich experience. The contributions from those who claim to have no legal background are equally important in bringing the perspective of those who do not deal day-in and day-out with legal issues. As my noble friend Lord Elton said, we are dealing with the difficult issues of trying to achieve a proper balance between liberty, justice and security.

I was encouraged by my noble friend Lord Elton to look at the amendments in turn, but perhaps I may make some introductory remarks. It has been some time since we last considered Part 2, although much has been said about it in the mean time. It is important to remind the House why the Government have brought forward the clauses introducing closed material procedures into civil proceedings where sensitive national security material is relevant. As my noble friend Lord Marks indicated, in a letter which is available in the Printed Paper Office, which I sent to the chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we believe, having done a cross-departmental trawl, that there are about 20 current civil damages cases where material relating to national security would be central. There have been seven new cases during the 12 months leading up to 31 October this year. As my noble friend said, if for some reason we were thought to be a soft touch and did not have any means of properly determining those cases with evidence being allowed to come before a judge, a trend could be established.

Intelligence operations depend, inevitably, on surveillance, investigation and, most critically, information -sharing between agencies, their sources and their liaison partners, as was said by my noble friends Lord King and Lady Neville-Jones. Underlying those arrangements are two principles. The United Kingdom does not confirm its involvement or the involvement of its liaison partners and sources, as to do so would result in a loss of trust and information-sharing would dry up. We rely on others to keep our information safe; and our partners rely on us to do the same. Although much reference has been made to the United States, I recall from our deliberations in Committee that it was made clear that there is a number of other countries whose information we also depend and rely on.

In cases where people are bringing proceedings alleging that the Government were involved in detention, rendition or torture, the Government’s defence would be likely to include: the nature of any involvement, which would require the Government to breach their long-standing policy not to comment publicly on whether or not they had been involved in any particular operation; what the Government knew at the time, potentially risking the lives and safety of sources; what the Government had shared with their partners, potentially revealing the fact of, and nature of, relationships with partners; and any assurances sought and/or received about an operation, again, potentially revealing the fact of, and nature of, those relationships. All those things could be central to any defence and none of them could be put in the public domain without the risk of jeopardising the safety of sources or the willingness of partners to work with the United Kingdom.

It is interesting that the shadow Justice Secretary is on the record as saying:

“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”.

At present, as has been said in our debate, the only way to prevent the disclosure of such highly sensitive national security material when civil litigation arises is through public interest immunity. Although the system of PII works well in most cases, it is not working in a small number of cases that hinge on sensitive national security material. That point was clearly and eloquently made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. He said during our deliberations in Committee:

“PII has the very unfortunate effect that you cannot rely on the material that is in issue, whereas both the claimant and the Government may want to rely on that material”.—(Official Report, 11/7/12; col. 1189.)

PII requires the court to balance, on the one hand, the damage that would be caused to the public interest with, on the other hand, the public interest in the administration of justice. That includes the impact excluding the material will have on the claimant’s and defendant’s cases, as well as the general public interest in open and transparent proceedings—the so-called Wiley balance.

17:45

I will pause to make it clear what that means. In most cases, the judge will decide that the national security of the United Kingdom outweighs the damage to the administration of justice from excluding the material. In that case, the judge will exclude the material from the court’s consideration, no matter how relevant it is. The judge also has the power to look at material and agree that it would damage national security if revealed in open court but, nevertheless, decide it must be disclosed anyway. I think many of us, if we were agents, would feel that that might be a somewhat frightening theoretical prospect. Where the Government’s case rests wholly or substantially on sensitive national security material, there is clearly a real problem. That has been identified by a number of contributors to the debate.

The noble Lords’ amendments raise important issues in this Bill on the relative benefits of and interaction between closed material proceedings and public interest immunity. Perhaps your Lordships can identify three distinct packages within this group. Amendment 31, moved by my noble friend Lord Hodgson, would, with Amendments 32 and 44, put PII on the statute book where national security is concerned, require the Secretary of State to go through this process for every document before a CMP declaration can be made and prevent CMPs being used in claims,

“which arise in connection with the claimant’s loss of liberty”.

Amendments 36, 37, 38 and 40, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, but emanating from the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, deal with stage one of the CMP, in which the Secretary of State makes an application to the court for there to be a CMP in principle.

Amendments 47, 48, 49 and 50, also tabled by members of the Joint Committee, are a separate group, introducing balancing and additional gisting requirements at stage two, within the CMP itself. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Owen, indicated, and as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, indicated in regard to Amendment 50, Amendments 48 to 50 may be a subset of these amendments. I will refer to those later in my remarks.

Perhaps I may start by dealing with the amendments spoken to by my noble friend Lord Hodgson. I have made general remarks about the problems with PII in this context. Amendment 31 would introduce a system of statutory PII for national security material only. My reading of the amendment is that it would go beyond the purposes of this Bill. Indeed, where there is national security material it would put PII on a statutory basis generally in civil proceedings. There is no such procedure currently set out in legislation. PII is a common law principle that the courts have developed to deal with the handling of sensitive material over the years. A wide and flexible range of public interests fall within its umbrella.

Over recent weeks, it may not surprise your Lordships to know that I have had to engage with a number of groups and individuals who were very concerned on these issues and who have been advancing the importance of PII. I am sometimes somewhat surprised that there has been a love affair with PII that was not always apparent some 10, 15 or 20 years ago, but the point made regularly to me was its importance because it has grown out of and been developed by the common law, thus allowing the flexibility that the common law brings to changing circumstances.

In our Justice and Security Green Paper, we ruled out statutory PII because we believe that it does little to advance on the current system in providing clarity on applicable principles and stability and certainty for the UK Government. In Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said:

“I would urge that flexibility is very important here. PII has been developed as a common law principle, and if it is accepted on all sides, as I believe it is, that PII in the present proceedings should remain, I question whether we need to reduce into statute that which the common law has developed. Of course, if the common law has developed it, it can continue to develop according to new circumstances that we may not anticipate in the course of the argument taking place in this debate”.—[Official Report, 11/7/12; col. 1188.]

The Government would strongly endorse this view.

Amendment 32 would require PII to be exhausted first. The test the court must apply when considering an application for a CMP would therefore be much tighter. The Government do not agree that PII must be exhausted before applying for a closed material proceeding; nor do some notable commentators. Mr David Anderson QC, who probably gets the prize for the most quoted person in these debates, said that,

“if the exercise is plainly going to be futile, I do not think legislation should require it to be performed.”

I note that the report on the Bill by the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House did not go so far as to recommend that the Bill should require PII to be exhausted before a CMP declaration should be sought from the court. That report stated:

“We can see force in the argument that it will sometimes be otiose to push the PII process to its completion before turning to CMP”.

My noble friend Lord Hodgson claimed that PII would not be time-consuming. I think it was my noble friend Lord Marks who mentioned the Guantanamo civil litigation. It was settled because the Prime Minister wanted to draw a line under detainee issues and to illustrate the potential scale of the problem. There were around 250,000 relevant, sensitive documents in that case. It would have taken several years to complete PII, requiring a full-time Minister who barely did anything else. If PII had been successfully asserted, the Government would have had excluded a large part of their defence.

My noble friend Lord Hodgson referred to the toolkit on PII, but there is a toolkit in Clause 7 on the different ways in which the judge in closed material proceedings can deal with individual items and pieces of information. I know my noble friend Lord Marks does not think that goes far enough, but we should not lose sight of the fact that there is within the Bill the opportunity for the judge to consider each individual piece of evidence once the gateway has been passed with regard to the principle of closed material proceedings in any one case.

Amendment 44 was spoken to by my noble friend and prevents CMPs being used in claims which,

“arise in connection with the claimant’s loss of liberty”.

Claims relating to issues of liberty might be thought more routinely to arise in the United Kingdom in the context of criminal proceedings. Although I think all noble Lords have acknowledged it, I emphasise that the provisions in the Bill do not relate to criminal proceedings. Noble Lords may be thinking of a recent case in the civil courts, the case of Rahmatullah. In that case, proceedings were brought in the UK in relation to a person in US custody. There was no relevant national sensitive security material in that case and no claim for PII was made. The UK Supreme Court and the courts below were able to determine the issues without a CMP.

I have emphasised a number of times that the use of a CMP is designed to include more material in determining the case rather than excluding it. This ensures that the claim can proceed on the basis of all the relevant material. We would wish to see as much material as possible, and we cannot understand why noble Lords who tabled these amendments would wish to produce a situation in which material relevant to a case could not be taken into account by a judge. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw Amendment 31 and not to move Amendments 32 and 44.

Moving now to the second set of amendments within this group—Amendments 36, 37, 38 and 40—I preface my remarks by expressing gratitude to the members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights for their thorough and detailed report on this Bill, which was published last week. My noble friend Lord Hodgson mentioned concern about the thin end of the wedge, which is what the members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights perhaps sought to do in their views about how to address the procedural aspects of the Bill. I welcome the committee’s acknowledgement of the changes that have already been made from the proposals originally put forward in the Green Paper. I welcome the contributions by two distinguished members of the committee, my noble friends Lord Lester and Lady Berridge. My noble friend Lord Lester gave a very clear indication of how we got into closed material proceedings at all, which goes back some 15 years to cases in which he was involved and which evolved from a decision in a case before the European Court of Human Rights. As we have heard, the report contains a number of clear and detailed recommendations, which are reflected in the amendments we are considering this evening. For example, the recommendation to remove from the Bill the order-making power to extend CMPs is one that we have already been able to agree and we will debate it later. The issues raised by some of the other recommendations are complex, and one would expect the Government to give them the careful consideration that they merit. We will respond fully to the Joint Committee’s report in due course.

One recommendation was picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. He said that it is difficult to define national security. That is accepted. Twenty years ago, no one would have thought of cybersecurity. He acknowledged that you could be stuck with a definition, but he asked whether we could say what is not included. The Joint Committee recommended that the Government confirm to Parliament that Clauses 6 to 11 are not intended to cover material the disclosure of which would be damaging to international relations, such as diplomatic exchanges. I confirm to the House that “national security” is deliberately a very narrow definition, and a term well understood by the judiciary. It excludes other aspects of the public interest, such as international relations or the prevention or detection of crime, which will still be dealt with under the PII regime.

By way of comparison, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission must uphold the Secretary of State’s view that material should be closed material where disclosure of that material would be contrary to the public interest. As I have said, in this case it is limited, as a response to the previous report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to national security.

Amendment 36 would introduce full judicial balancing into the court’s decision to grant an application for closed material proceedings. The Government agree that judicial discretion is vitally important. Quite properly and thankfully, no one in your Lordships’ House suggested that CMPs might be used to deal with issues and inquiries arising from the Hillsborough tragedy, although I have had to deal in other forums with that allegation being made. Quite clearly, a judge seeing that coming up would readily identify that it was not a matter of national security, and deal with it appropriately.

The Government believe that such elements of judicial discretion must be provided for in the right way and at the right stage of the process. If it is to be meaningful, it must have regard to the Government’s responsibility for matters of national security. We believe that the duty on the Secretary of State to consider PII first and the flexibility that the judge has at the second stage of the process to which I have already referred, which critically includes the duty to ensure Article 6 rights are guaranteed, is both meaningful and appropriate. As my noble friend Lord Faulks said in Committee:

“It should be emphasised that CMPs are not of themselves a novelty and exist in a number of different contexts”.—[Official Report, 19/6/2012; col. 1740.]

In none of these contexts do they begin with a balancing test or a PII exercise.

Other amendments in this group would give the court discretion to grant an application if the potential damage to national security outweighed the public interest in the fair and open administration of justice and if it considers that a closed material procedure is the only way fairly to determine the issues. These amendments would require the test the court must apply when considering an application for a CMP to be much narrower, not only making a CMP an absolute last resort but making it available to dispose of the issues only in the situation where a fair determination of the proceedings is not available by any other means.

I will indicate why I am not persuaded that this is the right approach. It leads to two questions. First, by what other way might the issues be determined? Secondly, how far should the judge have to go to attempt these routes? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, from his experience, expressed some concern about the test here. He said that the difficulty with Amendment 66 was balancing harm with public interest in the fair and open administration of justice. I can understand that it would be somewhat uncertain. As I have said, it is vital that we produce clear legislation that signals what Parliament intends. One of the aims of this Bill is to provide clarity on these issues and when these procedures should operate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, indicated that he presided over the court in the Al Rawi decision where the court passed the baton to Parliament to determine the procedure and the circumstances in which closed material proceedings should apply in civil proceedings. The court indicated that Parliament should legislate and make it clear in what circumstances CMPs should be available. I somewhat fear that the test here does not give the clarity which ought to apply. This particular phraseology is used at the second stage—the Clause 7 stage—through Amendment 47.

One route sometimes pointed to is in-camera hearings and confidentiality rings but, where national security—and potentially individuals’ lives—are at stake, these mechanisms cannot give the required degree of assurance. There may be no way to manage or contain the harmful impact of making sensitive information public. David Anderson has said,

“I would suggest that a confidentiality ring … is not the answer to everything. It drives a barrier between counsel and client, which can be very difficult to maintain”.

17:59

My noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew asked the JCHR,

“not to be too enthusiastic about confidentiality rings in this range of cases. They are not right in principle here.”

The only other option, therefore, which would appear to be available is PII, but going through the whole PII exercise may well be an irresponsible waste of the court’s time in cases where, quite clearly, at the outset, material would be excluded.

Fundamentally, none of the options—settling, using PII, offering no defence to serious allegations or having the court strike a case out as untriable—enables the courts to get to the truth of what happened. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, pointed out that I had said that in some cases the court could strike it out, and he felt that that would safeguard national security. It would certainly do that if no information was ever made available before a judge, even under closed proceedings. PII also achieves that to some extent at the moment, when some material is excluded, but that does mean that relevant information may not come before a judge. Perhaps some people look at it from the perspective of the Government and agencies that were not allowed to put a defence forward, but equally, if a claimant puts forward a valid claim, they may not be able to get judgment, to have that claim properly vindicated, if a case has to settle because material was necessarily excluded from the court. That is why I take on the point made by my noble friend Lord Faulks.

It still could be the situation, even under the proposals that the Government have made. Under the test that would apply under Clauses 7, 72 and 73, if the Government do not feel able to bring forward information if the court requires it, and feel able to disclose it, they would not be allowed to use that information. In these circumstances, even under proposals here, it might still be necessary to settle. We are seeking to try to reduce as much as we can the cases where settlement is the option. We would much prefer cases where relevant information could be brought before a court for a determination.

Settling is sometimes portrayed as an easy option, but it is far from certain. For a start, it relies on the other party being willing to settle. If they are not, the Government are left with the same problem of seeking to exclude their own defence by means of PII, facing potentially damaging disclosure of sensitive material, or offering no defence and losing by default. They would not even be able to put any evidence before the court that might determine the quantum of damages, which opens up the Government potentially to even greater cost.

Settling is not without serious consequences. Although cases are settled without admission of liability, people assume that the UK is only settling because somewhere there has been some wrongdoing. As the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, has said, that has huge reputational damage, and can be used to legitimise extremism or terrorism against the UK. In Committee the noble Baroness said that,

“public confidence in the security and intelligence community is not helped by the fact that, in many cases, we have been unable to defend ourselves”.—[Official Report, 11/7/12; col. 1228.]

She believes, as I do, that inviting the court to look at all the relevant secret material—and it will decide what, if any, weight is to be put on it—is an advance over where we are today.

As I have indicated, the claim that balancing in PII leads to more disclosure of national security material ignores what happens in practice. I will briefly pick up the point made by my noble Friend, Lord Marks about Amendment 38. There is a technical issue here. Amendment 38 goes to the leg of the admission to closed material proceedings, that there must be a requirement to disclose. If PII has been successfully invoked there would be no requirement to disclose, and that would almost be self-defeating. However, I accept how the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, put it, that it was all part of a wider package. As it stands on its own—and we had this debate in Committee—it is there not in any sinister way to exclude PII, but rather to not find a position where the judge can say “I can’t allow this, because you could have excluded it with PII”.

Under the new arrangements, where the court declares that the case is one where a closed material procedure may be used, this does not mean that all material in those proceedings is automatically heard in closed proceedings. Only material that is damaging to the interests of national security will be considered in closed session, and as with PII, there will be a painstaking exercise to ensure that as much of the evidence as possible is heard in open court. I certainly recognise the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, made, about the Strasbourg court’s views on these provisions. If the Strasbourg court were to say that CMPs could never be compatible with the ECHR, then we might be in some trouble.

However, the court has not made such a finding, and in fact, it has found that CMPs can occur compatibly; for example, the case of Kennedy. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, indicated, the provisions of the convention do not put a stoppage on Governments taking measures through their judicial proceedings to consider national security. However, as it is indeed the case, there is an express requirement on the court in Clause 11(5)(c) to have proper regard and to bear in mind the provisions and requirements of Article 6, and if Article 6 requires disclosure, then the court must order it.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

I am sorry to interrupt my noble and learned friend. Does he accept the Joint Committee’s point that, instead of relying on Article 6, to weaken the common law, one should approach the convention through our legal system, including common law guarantees of fairness? Does he also accept that we should not use Article 6, which is a compromise, for mainly civil countries’ standards, but that we should be looking at our own common law, as explained by the Supreme Court in the Al Rawi case?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, Article 6 has been a very good safeguard for many claimants, or people appearing before the courts, of securing a fair trial. The fact that the courts are expressly enjoined to have regard to it does mean that in particular cases, if the requirements of a fair trial lead to requirements of disclosure, when one comes to that second stage of the CMP process the court would be obliged to order disclosure. However, as I have already indicated, it may well be that in these circumstances the Government take the view that even then, disclosure could be damaging to national security, but they must bear the consequences, as set out in Clause 7(3), if they feel unable to disclose.

I finally come to Amendments 47 to 50. They relate to the second stage of the process—and I indicated before that Amendment 47 has the same considerations that I expressed with regard to Amendment 36. The aim of the provisions is to put more material before the court—not the same amount—so that cases that currently cannot be tried because they hinge on highly sensitive national security material can be heard, leading to real findings on important allegations about government action.

Where the consequences are the inclusion of the material in the case, there is no precedent for including Wiley balancing. Other CMPs that already exist and do not use it have been upheld by the courts as being fair and compliant with Article 6. The position of the Government is therefore that there is no case to include balancing of the sort that is implicit in these particular amendments.

The noble Lord, Lord Owen, expressed concern about the requirement, as opposed to an obligation to consider to require, in terms of disclosure. As a Government we share that concern about this set of amendments. Amendment 49 also goes even further and provides for disclosure under the AF no. 3 principle, meaning that material can be disclosed, even if it is damaging to national security, if that is necessary for the individual to be able to instruct their special advocate. This amendment does not take full account of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tariq—and I will stand corrected by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, if I get this wrong—which held that Article 6 does not provide a uniform gisting requirement in all circumstances.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, said at paragraph 27 that,

“the balancing exercise called for in paragraph 217 of the European Court’s judgment in A v United Kingdom depends on the nature and weight of the circumstances on each side, and cases where the state is seeking to impose on the individual actual or virtual imprisonment are in a different category to the present”—

the present being an employment tribunal—

“where an individual is seeking to pursue a civil claim for discrimination against the state which is seeking to defend itself”.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, went on to say at paragraph 72:

“The context will always be crucial to a resolution of questions as to where and how this balance is to be struck”.

I could not help but think of the point that the noble Lord, Lord Owen, made, that when so much has been said about judicial discretion, this is perhaps an area where there ought to be proper judicial discretion, and where an absolute requirement on the judges should not be made. Wherever it is possible to provide gists and summaries of national security-sensitive material without causing damage, they will be supplied. In those cases where Article 6 requires gisting of this type, as I have already indicated, Clause 11(5)(c) means that the court will order it.

Finally, Amendment 50, which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, indicated that he may not move, would instruct the court to ensure that any summaries only do no damage to the interests of national security,

“so far as it is possible to do so”.

I am afraid that that is a risk that the Government cannot take. We cannot say to our international partners that we will protect their information,

“so far as it is possible to do so”.

Perhaps above all, we cannot say to sources who are risking their lives for us, “We will protect your identity and, accordingly, your life and safety as far as it is possible to do so”. We do not believe that that is a risk that the Government should take and we believe that we should be categorical about it.

This set of amendments puts at risk our national security in order to hear compensation claims that can be fairly dealt with by the model set out in this regard in the Bill. The Government’s duty is to protect national security and it is not an optional duty. It is fundamental and some may say that it is our very first duty. Against that background, I very much hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Pannick]

Before the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, replies, it may be of assistance to the House if I seek to respond to a specific question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Owen. I am very grateful for the general support around the House for the concept of judicial discretion in this area and that CMPs should be a last resort, if they are to exist at all.

The noble Lord, Lord Owen, asked me to address Amendments 48 and 49, to which the Minister referred. I am grateful to the Minister for the very careful way in which he went through the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Owen, was concerned that Amendments 48 and 49 would introduce a duty to provide a summary or a gist of the material if the closed material proceeding is to be ordered. The answer is that disclosure of the summary or the gist would be required only if the Government wish to proceed with a CMP. If they do not wish to disclose the gist or the summary, which is a matter entirely for them, they do not have to do so under the amendment. There simply would be no closed material proceeding. I suggest that that is entirely appropriate if we are to have a fair balance of the interests in open justice and other competing interests. I am grateful to the House.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend for the courteous and extensive way in which he has replied to Amendment 31, on which this debate has hung. Perhaps I may make clear to my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones that this was not to end CMPs: it was merely to narrow the gateway to CMPs by requiring a PII process first. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has discussed a number of amendments that give effect to the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee. If I was going to be irreverent, I might say that I regard those as offering 80% of the loaf, as opposed to 100% of the loaf that I was seeking.

However, I have to recognise that the Joint Select Committee has spent a great deal of time on this, a great deal more time than I have. Speaking as it does for both Houses of Parliament, it speaks with great authority. I also practically recognise that 80% of a loaf is better than no loaf at all. I shall seek, with the leave of the House, to withdraw my amendment and then give my support to the noble Lord if he chooses to move his amendments to give effect to the Joint Select Committee’s proposals. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 31 withdrawn.

Clause 6 : Proceedings in which court permits closed material applications

Amendment 32 not moved.

Amendment 33

Moved by

[Lord Pannick]

33:Clause 6, page 4, line 18, leave out from first “The” to first “a” in line 19 and insert “court seised of relevant civil proceedings may, on application of either party or of its own motion, make”

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I can be very brief because I can see that your Lordships are keen to move to vote on this matter. Amendment 33 addresses a specific aspect of fair balance. Under the Bill, a CMP may be ordered only on the application of the state. Amendment 33 would provide that the judge is able to order a CMP also on the application of another party to the proceedings or on the court’s own motion. That may be a practical matter for the reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. The claimant, on the advice of the special advocate, may prefer the case to be heard by means of a CMP or at least part of it, rather than to have the evidence excluded altogether, given that the evidence may assist the claimant. I beg to move.

18:15

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, to be clear, the Opposition support this amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, consistent with the spirit of the way in which the noble Lord moved his amendment, I shall try to be brief, but I think that it is only fair that I explain why the Government are not accepting this amendment.

It is part of the principle behind our system of government that the Executive are the guardian of the United Kingdom’s national security interest. Courts have frequently stated that the Government’s function to protect national security by claiming PII is a duty rather than an option. Correspondingly, we believe that it should be the responsibility of the Secretary of State to apply for a declaration that a closed material procedure may be used. The courts play an essential role in scrutinising the Government’s exercise of these functions, but the question of whether to claim PII, and accordingly whether to make an application for a declaration that a closed material procedure may be used, should be a question for the Government.

In practice, it is the Secretary of State who holds national security-sensitive material and is in the best position to judge the scope and nature of that material, with advice from the security and intelligence agencies. Other parties may not even be aware that the national security information exists. It will remain open to a third party to approach the Secretary of State and request an application for a CMP if they do have reason to want one. If the Secretary of State refuses, that decision could be judicially reviewed.

I accept there is an underlying concern that the Government could inappropriately use this power because there is a feeling the courts are powerless to prevent the Government claiming PII to hide something, and conversely claiming a CMP when it is to the Government’s advantage to have material before the court. I do not think this is a concern that is ever likely to be raised in practice. In the first instance, it is for the Secretary of State to instigate the CMP application or PII claim, and the power to order a CMP or to accept a PII application rests solely with the judge. The judge would be alert to any unfairness to the non-government party, and within the CMP would have the case management powers to be able to ensure that the claim is fairly heard.

That is, in summary, why we would resist the amendment, and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw.

[Lord Pannick]

I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord. If we are to have CMPs there must be equality of arms and there must be fairness, and it must be open to the applicant to apply to the judge for a CMP to be ordered. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

18:17

Division 1

Ayes: 273

---

Labour: 142
Liberal Democrat: 57
Crossbench: 52
Bishops: 5
Independent: 4
Conservative: 2
Ulster Unionist Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 173

---

Conservative: 133
Crossbench: 24
Liberal Democrat: 11
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

18:33

Amendment 34 not moved.

Amendment 35

Moved by

[Lord Pannick]

35: Clause 6, page 4, line 21, leave out “must, on an application under subsection (1),” and insert “may”

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, the amendment would provide for judicial discretion in this context. We have had a full debate on whether or not there should be judicial discretion. I beg to move.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

The amendment is supported by these Benches.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am not quite sure that I can say that we do not support the amendment and just leave it at that, as that would not be courteous to the House.

Very briefly, the Bill states that the judge must order a CMP if he considers that a party to the proceedings would be required to disclose material and that such a disclosure would be damaging to the interests of national security. The amendment would change the “must” to “may”, introducing greater judicial discretion. However, the Government do not consider that this is a necessary amendment given the narrow criteria that are set out for triggering a CMP and the other safeguards in the process.

When the Secretary of State makes an application whereby a CMP might be used, the judge needs to be satisfied of two things: first, that there is material that a party would normally be required to disclose; and, secondly and significantly, that disclosure of that material would damage national security. That is not a fig leaf, as some have described it. The judge will have the final say about whether or not those conditions are satisfied. The Secretary of State has to demonstrate that genuine damage to national security, not embarrassment, would be caused by the material being disclosed publicly; and if the judge disagrees with that assessment, he could refuse to order a CMP. Equally, if he considered that the material was not relevant to the facts of the case and the Secretary of State was therefore seeking a CMP where one was not necessary to protect material that was relevant to the case, he could refuse to order one on that basis, too. This is a significant role for the judge.

It is also important to remember that the process does not end with the court’s declaration that a CMP may be used. It is, as has been described in our previous debates, a gateway. Stage 2, set out in Clause 7, is a process whereby the special advocate can then challenge individual documents as to whether they should go into open or closed proceedings, and this is done successfully.

In those circumstances, I encourage the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, although I suspect that he is not going to do so.

[Lord Pannick]

The noble and learned Lord is very wise. If we are going to have CMPs, it should be at the discretion of the judge rather than as a matter of duty. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

18:36

Division 2

Ayes: 264

---

Labour: 136
Liberal Democrat: 55
Crossbench: 53
Bishops: 4
Independent: 4
Conservative: 2
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
UK Independence Party: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 159

---

Conservative: 129
Crossbench: 15
Liberal Democrat: 11
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

18:50

Amendment 36

Moved by

[Lord Pannick]

36: Clause 6, page 4, line 27, at end insert—
“( ) the degree of harm to the interests of national security if the material is disclosed would be likely to outweigh the public interest in the fair and open administration of justice”

[Lord Pannick]

I beg to move.

18:50

Division 3

Ayes: 247

---

Labour: 128
Liberal Democrat: 54
Crossbench: 44
Bishops: 4
Independent: 4
Conservative: 3
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 160

---

Conservative: 128
Crossbench: 18
Liberal Democrat: 10
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

19:03

Amendment 37

Moved by

[Lord Pannick]

37: Clause 6, page 4, line 27, at end insert—
“( ) a fair determination of the proceedings is not possible by any other means”

[Lord Pannick]

I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate that, while the Government do not accept Amendments 37, 38 and 40, we do not propose to resist them at this time. There will obviously be an opportunity to reflect on them.

Amendment 37 agreed.

Amendment 38

Moved by

[Lord Pannick]

38: Clause 6, page 4, line 30, leave out paragraph (a)

Amendment 38 agreed.

Amendment 39

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

39: Clause 6, page 4, line 35, at end insert “and any other enactment which would prevent the party from disclosing the material but would not do so if the proceedings were proceedings in relation to which there was a declaration under this section.”

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, in Committee, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford tabled an amendment seeking to amend the effect of the disclosure gateway provisions in the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994. The amendment was based on a suggestion that emanated from the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law. At that time the Government resisted the amendment on the grounds that it was not necessary to secure the agencies’ compliance with their disclosure obligations and that it was wider than appropriate because it would mean the courts could order disclosure into civil proceedings regardless of the connection between those proceedings and the agencies’ functions.

However, following the Committee stage, Professor Sir Jeffrey Jowell from the Bingham Centre wrote to me urging the Government to reconsider the issues raised by the amendment. After careful consideration and consultation with experts on this complex area of law, the Government have concluded that a similar amendment would be necessary. This is a technical area of law and it may help if I briefly explain why the change is needed.

Under Clause 6, the court must, on an application from the Secretary of State, make a declaration that the proceedings are ones in which a closed material application may be made if the court considers that a party would be required to disclose material in the course of proceedings and disclosure would be damaging to the interests of national security. The problem with the Bill as drafted is that it does not make it clear that statutory bars to disclosure into open court should not prevent there being disclosure into closed material procedures.

I assure the House that the Liberty analysis of this amendment is wrong. In an e-mail to parliamentarians its policy director described the amendment as being able to expand the categories of secret information on which the application for a CMP declaration can be based. That is not the case. The amendment makes it clear that the court should ignore any statutory provision that would prevent the disclosure of relevant material into open court but not into closed material procedures when the court is deciding the question of whether a party to proceedings would be required to disclose material. In other words, we do not want to be in the unfortunate position where we are unable to use a CMP as a result of these Acts covering the Security and Intelligence Agencies. These Acts are in part designed to ensure that highly sensitive information is not made public in the interests of our national security. The closed material procedures, however, have been assessed to be secure enough to allow highly sensitive information into a courtroom to be considered by a judge. The Government and agencies want the chance for a judge to come to an independent judgment. We do not want silence on these important matters.

Once again, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Thomas for having raised this issue in Committee. While we may not have agreed on every point today, I am always grateful for his tireless work in holding the Government to account and for his detailed contribution. I am particularly grateful to the Bingham centre for taking time to scrutinise the Bill and for writing to me and asking the Government to rethink. The centre is an important legal research institute and the Government welcome its contribution to make sure that the Bill is suitably drafted. I beg to move.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, have I not always said that this is a listening Government? I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for taking on board what I said on the last occasion, which I confess I have now totally forgotten. However, clearly it was very persuasive and I thank the noble and learned Lord for the amendment.

Amendment 39 agreed.

Amendment 40

Moved by

[Lord Pannick]

40: Clause 6, page 4, line 42, at end insert—
“( ) Before making a declaration under subsection (2), the court must consider whether a claim for public interest immunity could have been made in relation to the material.”

Amendment 40 agreed.

Amendment 41

Moved by

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

41: Clause 6, page 5, line 10, at end insert—
“( ) Rules of court must make provision—
(a) requiring the Secretary of State, before making an application under subsection (1), to give notice of the Secretary of State’s intention to make an application to all of the parties to the relevant civil proceedings,(b) requiring the Secretary of State to inform all of the parties to the relevant civil proceedings of the outcome of the application.”

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 41 now but I hope it will assist the House if I do not speak to the other amendments in this group until after they have been debated. I shall therefore respond at the end of the debate to both this amendment and the other amendments in the group which have been tabled by other noble Lords.

When I was responding to a debate on a topic which falls within this group, I boldly announced that I am not a lawyer. In the course of my remarks I said something which provoked a strong response from some of the lawyers who were involved in the debate that day and it is therefore a pleasure to move a government amendment that addresses the concerns raised in debate at that time. The point at issue then was the provision of notice by the Secretary of State to the other parties in a case in which a CMP is to be applied for. The Government committed to considering the issue. We gave it more detailed consideration over the Summer Recess and wrote to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, together with a number of other noble Lords who raised questions at the time of the debate.

In that letter, the Government explained that on further consideration it was clear to us that there were difficulties of both principle and practice with having CMPs without notice. We made it clear that closed judgments would exist without anyone other than the judge and the Secretary of State being aware of their existence if we were not to give notice, and that special advocates would also be unable to take instructions from the individuals whose interests they represent or to communicate with them at all. It was our view that this problem could be sorted out in the detailed rules of court for CMPs. However, the Government have considered this further and believe that it should be safeguarded in the Bill. The amendment provides for two procedures: the Secretary of State must give notice of his or her intention to apply for a CMP to the other parties in the case, and he or she must also inform the other parties of the outcome of the application.

I hope noble Lords will agree that this enhances the safeguards available under the Bill to ensure that the maximum amount of information that can be provided to the open representatives in the case is provided. I hope noble Lords will also agree that this amendment materially advances the continued efforts of the Government to ensure as much openness and transparency as possible, and to ensure that nothing is kept secret that does not need to be for genuine national security reasons. I beg to move.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 56 in this group, which has been proposed by the Joint Committee. It would ensure that rules of court make provision for the media to be notified of any application for a closed material procedure so that they can make representations on the issue to the judge. The amendment would also ensure that a party to a closed judgment may apply for it to be made open at a later stage. It is not sufficient for the Secretary of State to give notice of an application for a CMP to the parties to the case. The reason for that is that a CMP will severely impede the ability of the press to report legal proceedings. It may be that it is only the media who are concerned about a proposal to introduce a CMP in a particular case; the other parties may not be focusing on the matter or may not object.

It is also essential for rules of court to provide a mechanism by which judgments that are closed can be reopened and published after the passage of time if there is no longer any reason for secrecy. These provisions were recommended by the Joint Committee, and perhaps I may quote what was said yesterday in a lecture by the president of the Supreme Court, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger:

“Without judgement there would be no justice. And without Judgments there would be no justice, because judicial decisions, at least in civil and family law, without reasons are certainly not justice: indeed, they are scarcely decisions at all. It is therefore an absolute necessity that Judgments are readily accessible”.

I accept entirely that if there is a CMP, of course that part of the judgment will be closed, but it is essential that rules of court allow for the possibility of a later application to open up that which no longer needs to be secret.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

My Lords, I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I serve on the Joint Committee on Human Rights and we were concerned that confidence in the judiciary is absolutely vital in our society. The press coverage of matters and their entitlement to come to a court and to make applications is an important element of democracy and open justice. We would encourage the Government to accept this amendment.

19:15

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, Amendment 56A in this group is tabled in my name. I am afraid that it is a manuscript amendment and I hope that noble Lords have got it, but for those who were not given a copy when they came in, it is an addition to Clause 10 which is about the general provisions under Section 6 proceedings. It requires that the:

“Rules of court under subsection (2) shall only diverge from rules of court pertaining to proceedings outside the scope of this Act to the extent necessary to prevent disclosures of information damaging to the interests of national security”.

The whole point of the amendment is to put some constraint on the otherwise unacceptable breadth of the provisions in Clause 10(2) which allow rules of court to be made. Perhaps I may briefly give noble Lords a gist of the breadth of this provision-making power. The first set out in paragraph (a) is,

“about the mode of proof and about evidence in the proceedings”.

There are no qualifications, there is no limitation, guidance or definition, so they can just make rules about the mode of proof and evidence in the proceedings; paragraph (b) concerns whether the proceedings shall have a hearing attached to them at all; paragraph (c) concerns whether there shall be legal representations in the proceedings; and paragraph (d) concerns whether the person against whom the proceedings are launched shall have full particulars of the reasons for the decision reached in those proceedings, and so on.

I do not understand why the Government have produced a rule-making power relating to a highly sensitive and important clause with no constraint, limitation or definition. All my amendment seeks to do is to put a lasso around what I believe are unduly wide powers. It would provide that, in effect, the only use of these powers shall be,

“to prevent disclosures of information damaging to the interests of national security”,

which is what this part of the Bill is principally all about. I have put the amendment forward in the hope that the Government will accept it or, if the wording is not to their liking, that they will undertake to bring new wording back at Third Reading.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, I should say that the Opposition support Amendment 56. My noble friend Lady Kennedy beat me to the Public Bill Office in putting her name to it. As she and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, have said, it is important that the press and the media generally should have notification of applications of this kind. It complements a later amendment that will require the regular reporting of the number of applications that have been made, so to some degree the two things flow together.

The manuscript amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has arrived very late in the day and, given the other excitements we have been enjoying, I confess that I personally have not given it sufficient attention. I will be interested to hear the views of the Minister if she is replying to that particular amendment in due course. I would also be interested to learn the views of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on it, if he is able to give them. On the face of it, the amendment seems fairly persuasive, but it has been brought forward so late that I am finding it difficult to come to a decision, although other noble Lords may find it easier to do so. But certainly so far as Amendment 56 is concerned, and indeed the original amendment in this group, the Opposition are fully supportive.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their remarks. I will speak generally and respond to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has not said anything about his amendments in this group but what I will say applies to those as well.

The Bill does not seek to change the rules in relation to civil proceedings, save where this is necessary to have a closed material procedure; we are not otherwise changing the ordinary rules in civil procedures relating to disclosure of evidence. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in speaking to his manuscript amendment, talked about adding a lasso. We believe that the Bill already provides a lasso. We agree with the thrust of the points he makes but do not think it is necessary to accept his amendment, because the Bill provides for the essence of this point in Clause 9, where it says that, subject to securing closed material procedures, the ordinary rules of disclosure must otherwise apply. The way that his amendment is worded may also be a potential source of confusion in that it is unclear what is meant by the word “necessary” in the amendment in a particular case. More specifically, we are already providing for the concerns that he has raised.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I apologise again to my noble friend and to the House for the lateness of this amendment. I think her argument was that Clause 9 makes my amendment redundant, but am I right in thinking that Clause 9 relates to rules of disclosure whereas Clause 10(2) relates to rules across a much wider plain, governing standards of proof, evidence, whether or not there is a hearing, legal representation and so on?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I will address that point by saying that we are not seeking to change any of the ordinary rules for civil proceedings in this Bill. The normal rules for civil proceedings apply in the same way here except for where it is necessary to change them in order for us to meet the requirements of a closed material proceeding.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

The noble Baroness says that the normal rules of civil procedure apply but Clause 10(2) gives extraordinarily wide powers to make new and different rules. That is my point and that is my concern.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

It is probably easier if I turn to the other points that have been made in this debate. In the course of doing so, maybe I will receive some assistance that will allow me to answer the noble Lord’s question in greater detail. As if by magic, I have been handed a note. Clause 10(2) gives powers to make rules but these are in consequence of CMPs.

I move on to the question of media reporting and the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. The amendment that I have moved, which hopefully the House will accept, means that the parties to CMPs will be notified when an application has been made. In essence, the point was that this is not sufficient in terms of notifying the media. It is obviously a matter for the parties to the claim to decide whether to inform the media. This amendment will ensure that the judge notifies the parties, such that this will be disclosed in the normal proceedings of disclosure that courts make. The noble Lord is looking at me quizzically. He will know more about this than I do, but when the judge notifies the parties that there has been an application, unless it is necessary for him not to do so in the interests of national security, that will be in the public record that exists in the court, which presumably the media are monitoring at all times. This is not about withholding information from the media.

Furthermore, if the media had the right to intervene in this process, it would be necessary for them to have access to all the material so that they could judge or come to a view as to whether it should be a matter for a closed hearing or not. That would be contrary to the whole point of a closed material procedure.

[Lord Pannick]

I am not of course suggesting that the media should have access to the closed material, any more than the claimant does. The claimant is notified but does not see the secret material. The point is that the media should also simply be notified, so that they can object to a closed procedure.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

They will be notified, if not directly, by the process of the court notifying both parties to the claim. If the parties wish to notify the media, they can. The media will also be aware through the court disclosing its business in the normal way. The media will also be aware if the claimant wishes to tell them—as I am sure many will—about accusations that they wish to bring against the Government and the reason for them bringing the case in the first place. It is quite unlikely that the media will not be made aware of the application that has been made for a closed material procedure.

I would also add the point I made in Committee, that the media are not an institution with formal responsibilities to represent the public interest. Once they are notified formally in this way, it seems sensible or logical to me that they would then feel that they need to know more about the case—one limb of the amendment covers this—in order for them to have some kind of useful contribution to make about whether this should be a closed hearing or not.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

In what way is this really significantly different from the many circumstances in which the press are excluded, or are advised not to print matters that are taking place in a court, such as the names of individuals, and a notice is posted to ensure that that is not done? We are really asking for a process of posting. The Minister is, of course, absolutely right that the rumour mill is likely to lead to people knowing and to the press finding out, but this is about making sure that there are formal processes rather than relying on the press being informed by lawyers, the parties or persons who would want the press to become interested. I would have thought that this is much better done through a formal process. I wonder why it is so different from other cases.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The amendment means that the judge will notify the claimant that the Secretary of State has made an application. Following normal practice, the judge’s decision will be part of the public record and so the media will be informed of that in the normal way.

Obviously, the press will have access to all the open elements of the case in the same way as they have access now. The sort of scenario that the noble Baroness describes would be a normal open court hearing within which there are aspects that the judge has decided to put some rules around. This is a specific issue about an application for a CMP and is therefore slightly different but, in terms of the direct analogy with the open part of the hearing, it would be exactly the same.

19:36

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords, I apologise for the fact that I missed the very beginning of this and it may be that in doing so I am about to say something stupid. However, am I right in taking from what the Minister is saying that the Government oppose Amendment 56 even though the Joint Committee attached enormous importance to this as a way of securing open justice without in any way damaging national security? In other words, in accepting Amendment 41, are the Government saying that Amendment 41 is instead of Amendment 56?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The point that I am trying to make, and I have made it several times, is that in the amendment that the Government are moving we are ensuring that it is now going to be part of the formal process of the courts to alert those who may be interested of the judge’s decision. As far as the media are concerned, we do not feel that it is necessary for there to be a specific notification to the media of the fact that the CMP has been applied for and consequently has been agreed or not agreed. There is nothing in that that is about withholding information.

The media report on other cases that use CMPs, in particular they are able to report on a finding on the issues. Indeed on other CMPs there does not seem to be a problem at all with the way that this works. In terms of the media being able to intervene in individual cases, which is another aspect to this amendment, civil damages cases that would be heard under this legislation are private law claims and it could be inappropriate for third party interventions to be made in such claims. The claimant may not want the media to intervene in the proceedings. I think that the most important point is that the outcome of all CMP cases will be reportable, increasing the opportunities for the media to report on these kinds of cases, as at present the Government are obviously having to settle rather than a claim being seen through to its conclusion.

I will turn to the other point that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, raised about closed judgments, which is also covered in the JCHR amendments. It may be helpful for noble Lords if I briefly give some background on how closed judgments already work. There is a judicial safeguard on the use of closed judgments. In a case involving sensitive material, the judge must be satisfied that any material in the closed, rather than open, judgment would be damaging to national security and so could not be released. Special advocates can also make submissions to the judge about moving material from the closed judgment to the open judgment. If the court is persuaded that there would be no harm to national security, the material can then be moved to the open judgment.

The Government believe that it is important that those that are entitled to access closed judgments are able to do so. For this reason, the Government have created a searchable database containing summaries of closed judgments that will allow special advocates and HMG counsel to identify potentially relevant closed judgments. It is worth making the point that this new initiative has been put in place following the various stages of the passage of this Bill, both in terms of hearings and of discussion at JCHR. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have led to that new database being available.

The amendments also propose a review mechanism. Although I welcome this suggestion, the Government do not think that this particular proposal would work in practice. As drafted, it could mean that a person could attempt to subvert the disclosure process built into closed material proceedings by applying for the information immediately after the court had decided what information should be contained within the open and closed judgment, and then at regular intervals thereafter. A person could also abuse the process and put in an application each day. This would place a serious resource burden on the courts and agencies.

Having listened to the debate today and the findings from the JCHR report, the Government recognise that the review of closed judgments is an important issue and needs further thinking. The Government therefore request that Ministers have more time to look into the issues and report our findings to Parliament during the passage of this Bill. Obviously this may be something that would be looked at in the other place. To conclude, I ask noble Lords to accept the government amendment not to have CMPs without notice. I hope from the course of this debate that the noble Lords who have amendments in this group feel able to withdraw them at this time.

[Lord Beecham]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, in relation to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, would it be a way forward for her to take that back so that it might be raised, if necessary, at Third Reading? It is very late and the Minister is in difficulty—I think that we are all in difficulty—in terms of understanding the implications of the amendment, so this may be a way through the dilemma.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am grateful for that suggestion. I do not want to keep apologising, but I do think, if the Minister agrees, that that is the way to deal with this.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I cannot commit to anything at this stage, but what I can do is to consider the amendment outside the Chamber and certainly to have a further discussion with the noble Lord.

Amendment 41 agreed.

Amendment 42

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

42: Clause 6, page 5, line 17, leave out “or”

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 43, the effect of which would be to add the Supreme Court to the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Court of Session as the courts that would be covered by closed material proceedings in the context of this Bill.

I think that it is important that there is consistency within the hierarchy of courts covered by these provisions. As I have indicated, this amendment would add civil proceedings before the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom to the list of courts in the Bill in which closed material procedures under Clauses 6 to 11 may be used. At present, the only courts for which this is available are the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Court of Session.

I understand that there might be some concerns about adding to the list. The reason for adding the reference to the Supreme Court is to seek to put beyond doubt that the Supreme Court is empowered to apply closed material procedures. It was felt that the Supreme Court was likely to be considering points of law only and the Supreme Court already has some of its own bespoke procedures where it can exceptionally exclude parties from proceedings if in the public interest. However, after the Bill was introduced, the Government became concerned that omitting the Supreme Court might be a gap in the legislation. The lower courts would be able to rely on the procedures set out in the Bill but the Supreme Court—the supervisory court for those courts—would have either no exceptional procedure or a different one.

I do not think that the Government are naive. I think that we are realistic enough to realise that once we enact this Bill, the early uses of the procedure in the High Court almost certainly will be appealed in some form or another, and it seems quite likely that at least some of these appeals will make their way to the Supreme Court. This amendment will put beyond doubt the Government’s intention that the Supreme Court should continue to have the ability to consider sensitive material and ensure that we are not left in the very unusual situation of the highest court in the land not being able to adopt the same procedures used in the lower courts.

For completeness, I should add that noble Lords may have noted that the first set of rules of court under the Bill for the High Court and the Court of Appeal in England and Wales and Northern Ireland are to be made by the Lord Chancellor. This is simply a matter of ensuring that the implementation of the CMP provisions of the Bill can occur swiftly. We do not think that the same rationale applies for the Supreme Court. The first set of rules are to be made by the president of the Supreme Court, as now.

I very much hope that the reasons for adding the Supreme Court will satisfy your Lordships’ House. We are not talking about the horizontal scope of the Bill but the vertical reach, namely the courts in the hierarchy that may hear such claims.

Concern was also expressed in Committee that in the future the reference to “relevant civil proceedings” to which there could be an extension by order could include inquests and fatal accident inquiries. That was not the Government’s policy, as we made clear in our response to the Green Paper consultation. We had brought forward a Bill we believed would not allow any Government to add inquests to the definition of relevant civil proceedings now or in the future, but we were grateful to the Delegated Powers Committee’s consideration and we took on board its comments.

Likewise, the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights also made comments regarding this order. I understand that the remaining concerns are to ensure that closed material proceedings should be used only when absolutely necessary and in a narrow and targeted context. It is for this reason that the Government have tabled an amendment to remove the order-making power completely; in other words, removing Clause 11(2) to 11(4).

I can assure your Lordships that this decision has not been taken lightly. Parliament has legislated for CMPs no fewer than 14 times over the past 10 years. It is conceivable that national security material may become relevant in contexts other than the narrow ones listed in the Bill. The impact of cases not being heard is felt by not only the Government but claimants, whose cases can be severely delayed. Nevertheless, the Government understand the importance of the issue. This amendment will set to rest any fears raised by the Joint Committee that the order-making power could have been misused or that this clause would open the door to commonplace use of CMPs. It will also put beyond any doubt that inquests are beyond the scope of the Bill.

My noble friend the Duke of Montrose has tabled an amendment to require the consent of the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive for the Secretary of State to make an order to amend the definition of civil proceedings. The Government are committed to properly respecting the devolution settlements, but if the amendments to delete the order-making power altogether are carried, my noble friend’s amendment would not be necessary. I hope that this also satisfies the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others that takes forward the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I beg to move.

[Lord Pannick]

I am very grateful to the Minister for confirming that the Government are proposing the deletion of Clause 11(2) and the order-making power.

I have a concern about Amendment 43, which includes the Supreme Court in the list of courts that will have power to make a CMP. Given the role of the Supreme Court as the final court of appeal in this jurisdiction, it is highly undesirable that it should decide points of law of public importance in judgments that the public and lawyers generally cannot see.

I do not intend to divide the House on Amendment 43. Given the amendments supported by the House earlier this evening, I would understand that the Supreme Court would have ample discretion to decide whether or not it is appropriate for it as the final court of appeal to order a CMP, and no doubt it would wish to take into account the undesirability, if so perceived, of the Supreme Court issuing judgments that, at least in part, the public and lawyers generally would not be able to see. However, I raise that concern.

[The Duke of Montrose]

My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for the way in which he presented his amendments. As he notified the House earlier, if his Amendment 59 is approved, my Amendment 60 will become superfluous. I raise the point that without Amendment 59, there would be a very real danger that anything that the Secretary of State had decided to amend by order in the Scottish courts would be seen as meddling in the affairs of the Scottish legal system. At present, there is nothing more likely to inflame the amour propre of the Scots than actions such as this.

The possibility of this problem was drawn to my attention by the Law Society of Scotland. If Amendment 59 is adopted, we will have a much clearer and more workable piece of legislation than one that is likely to cause controversy. If by any chance it is not carried, I will still wish to bring my amendment forward.

The Bill appears to be walking a fine line on what might be termed issues that might require a legislative consent Motion in the Scottish Parliament and those that would not. Even now, Clause 6(7)(c) of the Bill gives powers to the Court of Session. I understand that early in Committee it was briefly drawn to the attention of the Justice Committee in Edinburgh. Can my noble and learned friend tell the House whether this question of a legislative consent Motion has finally and satisfactorily been resolved?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, as I indicated, the intention is that the Supreme Court should not have available to it powers that are available in the lower courts, but the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, makes an important point with regard to judgments.

With regard to my noble friend’s concerns, it probably would have been the case that had we had a power that involved Scottish Ministers, a legislative consent Motion would have been required. Although the Bill refers to the Court of Session, it has become abundantly clear in our deliberations that the substance of these matters relates to national security, and national security is very clearly reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament and therefore a legislative consent Motion would not arise.

Amendment 42 agreed.

Amendment 43

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

43: Clause 6, page 5, line 18, at end insert “, or
( ) the Supreme Court”

Amendment 43 agreed.

Amendment 44 not moved.

19:45

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In doing so, it is worth noting that the dinner break business this evening is not time-limited. Without prejudging the debate, it is possible that we may be able to return to the Bill in less than an hour. Following discussions in the usual channels, I suggest that Report will not resume for 45 minutes, so not before 8.31 pm.

Consideration on Report adjourned.

Care Quality Commission (Healthwatch England Committee) Regulations 2012

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Lords Chamber

Motion of Regret

19:46

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House regrets that the Care Quality Commission (Healthwatch England Committee) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/1640) fail to provide sufficient safeguards to ensure the independence of Healthwatch England from the Care Quality Commission, despite Government assurances given to the House at report stage of the Health and Social Care Bill on 8 March 2012, and that the regulations fail to provide for effective national patient representation in the health service.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

My Lords, my purpose in tabling this Motion is to highlight how these regulations, in their present form, may undermine the one thing Healthwatch England needs to succeed: public trust and confidence.

As my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey argued so brilliantly on Report, an effective organisation for patients must be measured against three basic criteria: first, independence from the providers, commissioners and regulators of health services, because a patient complaint may involve the need to challenge any or all of these interests; secondly, genuine grass-roots representation from groups and individuals—no top-down organisation; thirdly, that its work and comments be derived from sound local information.

Over the past 40 years, we have seen community health councils, then patient participation forums and, most recently, LINks. They may not have always fully met these criteria, but each built on the progress of its predecessor in delivering greater patient involvement. No matter how often the Government assert to the contrary, the arrangements proposed in these regulations do not pass the test of independence. They say that Healthwatch England will have genuine operational independence by ensuring that the majority of its members are not also members of the Care Quality Commission. However, under the regulations the Healthwatch England chair must consult the CQC chair before the first appointments are made. That does not exactly reinforce the notion in my mind of independence. However, even with this measure and some of the others in place, it remains difficult to see how Healthwatch England can build public trust when its governance is controlled by the CQC, a body whose own organisation and resource problems have been so publicly aired.

The fear for many is that that the Healthwatch England committee will be rapidly absorbed into, and moulded and overwhelmed by, the dominant culture and infrastructure of the CQC. The Government have told us how important the duty of collaboration is within their reformed NHS. If that is the case, why not use this duty rather than leave Healthwatch England within the governance structure of the CQC?

The skill and ability of the new Healthwatch England chair will no doubt be a significant factor in whether it succeeds. I congratulate Anna Bradley on her appointment. Having worked at Which? for many years and been a former chief executive of the National Consumer Council, she is extremely well qualified to meet the challenge. From her public statements, it is clear that she fully appreciates that for Healthwatch England to succeed it must meet the challenge of independence and effective patient representation.

A key to this will be the strength of the local Healthwatch network. As local Healthwatch develops during the next six months, it must show that it listens to patients and service users and captures their feedback, a role that LINks have performed with distinction in many areas.

However, with no clear rules in law, we are potentially left with a range of different local social enterprises determining national representation. By not providing statutory status to local Healthwatch, the Government missed the opportunity for them to be organisations that were fully trusted and supported by patients and public alike. At the launch of Healthwatch England, Anna Bradley also acknowledged that, with stretched health and social care budgets, an ageing population and significant systems reform, it was essential that HWE be focused on real people, their experiences and their needs. She said that Healthwatch England would actively seek out evidence from all sections of the community and collate it to find out what needed to change. I fully understand her desire to ensure that such evidence is not dependent on those who shout the loudest. She said that Healthwatch England would go out of its way to hear from those who sometimes struggle to be heard. However, I fear that, with these regulations, we will have a body that is perceived to be appointed from high—a top-down organisation which is not representative. The 10 members recently appointed to Healthwatch England have highly relevant knowledge and experience, and I have no doubt that their specific skills and expertise will be a tremendous asset to its work—three have been appointed because of their specific local involvement. However, to be genuinely representative, there is a case for more, if not a majority, to be drawn from local Healthwatch.

Healthwatch England will be looked to by 152 local Healthwatches as an organisation that understands and has experience of both national and local problems and issues, including the special needs of deprived communities, people suffering as a result of health inequalities and people living in rural areas. The connection between local Healthwatch and Healthwatch England must be more than a brand, a name and a conversation.

The decision to restrict local Healthwatch membership of Healthwatch England to only four members, one from each of the four NHS regions, Greater London, North, Midlands and South, appears totally inadequate. In addition, the decision to restrict from 2013 local Healthwatch membership of Healthwatch England to people described as “directors” of local Healthwatch organisations is limiting and confusing.

Not only is there a risk of reduced funding with local authorities commissioning local Healthwatch, some of which we have already seen in the tendering process that has commenced, but there is also huge potential for conflicts of interest. Can we really ask a patient or carer to have confidence in a complaint being properly pursued when it involves a regulatory failure in a local authority social service? I am sure that patients will see the potential conflict of interest even if the Government cannot.

We are facing the prospect of fragmented services being delivered by multiple providers even within a single local authority. One issue of particular concern for me, which I have raised previously in the House, is the patient advocacy service, used by adults, young people and children wishing to make a complaint about NHS healthcare. There are currently three providers of the Independent Complaints Advocacy Service in England, commissioned by the Department of Health centrally. In future, this will be commissioned instead by 152 local authorities. It has been estimated that this will add £2.2 million to the cost of the service—which currently costs £11.7 million—massively reducing what is available for other patient services provided by the Local Involvement Networks.

Further, while there will be only one local Healthwatch contracted in a single local authority, this body will be permitted to subcontract most, if not all, of its activities. This will result in some areas in multiple contracts, solicitors’ fees and all the other on-cost of commissioning. The waste of public money on contracting is absolutely appalling.

In the end, it will come back to how the structure proposed in these regulations will play out in practice and how conflicts of interest between Healthwatch England and the CQC, or indeed Healthwatch organisations in local authorities, will be dealt with. The issues that the Minister must therefore address and questions that he must answer tonight are: how will public trust be maintained when a complainant about a CQC investigation into a care home discovers that the body investigating the complaint or championing improved quality of care on behalf of patients is a committee of the CQC itself? How will the culture clash between Healthwatch and the CQC be addressed and managed? How will the Minister, to quote the word used by many in this House, stop CQC “suffocating” Healthwatch England? How will he ensure that potentially serious conflicts of interest are dealt with?

I conclude with the issue I started with: public perception and understanding of, and confidence in, the independence of Healthwatch. It is important that Healthwatch is seen to be credible and truly independent, able to challenge and to scrutinise the work and decisions of the regulators, both CQC and Monitor. We need an independent Healthwatch England and we need local Healthwatch bodies that everyone can rely on to be genuine patient representatives. I am afraid that these regulations give us neither.

20:00

[Baroness Jolly]

My Lords, I will not speak at length this evening and will speak mainly of the issue of the independence of Healthwatch England. I was at the launch of Healthwatch England and met some of the members of the committee. As the noble Lord said, many come from wide and relevant backgrounds, and they were really enthusiastic about the task in hand. They represent all regions of the UK, disabilities and gender. I understand that the full committee is now appointed.

There is an undoubted need for a patient watchdog, as we have heard. Many hours were spent in debate in this Chamber, in Committee and on Report, on the Health and Social Care Bill to try to mould it as best as possible to achieve that. During that debate, some of us carried out a campaign with Ministers outside the Chamber as well as inside, but there was no acknowledgement that the siting of Healthwatch England as a committee within the Care Quality Commission would cause concern. Indeed, it was said that the connection would be beneficial to the process and result in improved channels of communication.

Those arguments are now past, and Healthwatch England is now constituted, but the secondary legislation we are discussing today is silent on the issue of independence. We are left to wonder whether that is a missed opportunity or a deliberate omission. I always look on the bright side, so let us assume that it is a missed opportunity.

We know that the chief executive officer of the CQC holds the budget for Healthwatch England. What safeguards are in place to ensure that the money is not used to support core Care Quality Commission business or, indeed, to prevent the board of the Care Quality Commission, of which the chair of Healthwatch England herself is a member, saying that the way that the Healthwatch England committee wanted to spend the allocation was not as it thought fit?

If so, where does that put both the Care Quality Commission and Healthwatch England—and, indeed, the confidence of the public in their watchdog—if a future chair of Healthwatch England goes native or a chair of the Care Quality Commission becomes overbearing? That is a reflection not on personalities or individuals but on roles and responsibilities. Both current incumbents of those positions have assured me that that could never happen, but we all know of instances where what seemed perfectly good appointments change the way that they work over time. Working arrangements honoured under one regime may not carry over to a successor.

I commend the work that Anna Bradley has done thus far in setting up the organisation and her commitment and understanding of the role. She has said:

“We will be accountable to Parliament not the CQC ... We will work with the CQC as strategic partners. Guarding that independence will be a very important aspect of my job and the committee’s job”.

As I said, Anna Bradley sits on the Care Quality Commission board as part of her role and is appointed directly by the Health Secretary. She is adamant that the patients’ champion will be fully independent from the regulator.

A set of arrangements has been developed to safeguard the independence of Healthwatch England, whose budget—£3 million in 2012-13—is determined by the Department of Health. Healthwatch England will have full editorial independence over its publications; its committee will set its own priorities; and the chair will appoint the committee, ensuring that a majority are not Care Quality Commission commissioners, and oversee the work of Healthwatch England’s director, its senior officer. Any disputes between the Care Quality Commission and Healthwatch should be resolved through “open and frank discussion”, with the Department of Health responsible for resolving any intractable issues.

The Government’s intention was clear about the independence of Healthwatch England when the Bill was being debated, and it is to be regretted that that did not find its way into legislation or this secondary regulation. This organisation will be closely watched. Its relationships with partners are clearly defined in legislation. Its first chair has been absolutely explicit about its independence very early in her appointment, with the clear support of both the CEO and the chair of the hosting organisation, the Care Quality Commission.

I want Healthwatch England and local Healthwatch to succeed. We owe that to all patients across the country. With all the changes working their way through the NHS and the care system—it is essential that, despite its name, we should not forget that Healthwatch watches after health and care—it is imperative that it is working as efficiently as possible to its agenda, not that of the many stakeholders. For the sake of the public, those in receipt of care, it must succeed.

I would welcome reassurance from my noble friend that the lack of regulation or independence will not impede Healthwatch England’s independent operation and an indication of how that can be guaranteed.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on this Prayer. She has highlighted the weakness in the Government’s position. I am confident that the people who have set up Healthwatch England are of good will and that they intend and wish it to work; that Anna Bradley will be an excellent person as chair of Healthwatch England; that the outgoing chair of the Care Quality Commission is committed to making it work; and that the chief executive of the Care Quality Commission is committed to making it work. I even believe that Ministers in the Department of Health are committed to making it work.

The problem is that we are provided with a framework of regulation which does not guarantee that in future. One or two appointments down the road, with a new leadership of the Care Quality Commission and, perhaps, with different Ministers at the Department of Health, how will those things be ensured, especially if budgets remain tight and Healthwatch England starts to be effective and makes criticisms which are difficult for Ministers—or, worse still, in this context, for the Care Quality Commission? That is when those problems may arise.

That is why, when the Bill was passing through this House, there was so much concern about the importance of independence for the Healthwatch structure. My concern is that, given that the legislation has passed, this is a wasted opportunity to make it stronger.

One of the lessons that is expected to come from the Mid-Staffs inquiry relates to independence. The report is expected to identify the systemic failure of organisations to focus primarily on the needs of the patients of that hospital. Because each was looking at its own area, nobody was taking the step back to say, “How does this work from the point of view of patients?”. That is where Healthwatch should come in and be influential: to cut through the complicated organisational structures which the Health and Social Care Act has bequeathed to the NHS. That is why the simple issue of how it preserves its independence is so vital.

When the Bill was going through Parliament, the noble Earl held a meeting to discuss how Healthwatch England should work. He made the point that there would be valuable synergies from Healthwatch England being located within the Care Quality Commission. He did not stress, but it was clearly part of the equation, that there would also be some useful cost savings associated with that. The cost savings could be achieved in a whole variety of ways. It would be possible to have an agency agreement whereby some of the back office functions were provided by the Care Quality Commission or any of the plethora of structures that the Health and Social Care Act has bequeathed to the NHS. Similarly, because the duty of co-operation exists, you would hope that those synergies could be activated without the need for the Healthwatch organisation to be subservient to the Care Quality Commission. It would have been possible in these regulations to create a structure which, while preserving the general framework of the Act, would ensure that there was independence.

If we look at the regulations that we have before us, we see a number of flaws. First and foremost, for example, is the size of the Healthwatch England committee. Potentially, this will be a committee of as few as six members. I appreciate that in the initial instance it is larger than that, because people of goodwill are trying to make this structure work. However, in three, four or five years’ time there may not quite be the same atmosphere or there may be a feeling that the wings of Healthwatch England need to be clipped back. In any event, with six to 12 members it is going to be extremely difficult to ensure that there really is the geographical diversity that is necessary; the coverage of all the many major areas of special need that exist as far as health and social care is concerned; and proper recognition of ethnicity and gender within that. Again, the initial membership has provided a reasonable attempt to achieve that diversity, but where is the guarantee of that in the future?

I know there is a feeling that small boards work well. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, who is not in her place on this occasion, has talked to us glowingly about the value of having small, dynamic boards to run organisations but this is a different sort of organisation. It is supposed to be one that represents the generality of the interests of patients across the whole country and which derives its authority from what is happening in local Healthwatch organisations around the country—the 150-odd local organisations that will exist. It is therefore not appropriate to have a small board in such a case, as it is not the same sort of structure.

Then we have the rather strange arrangements for the appointment process. In the first instance, the chair of Healthwatch England has to get the approval of the chair of the Care Quality Commission before appointments can be made. The future arrangements are that the chair will make the appointments directly but let us be clear: the chair of Healthwatch England is a Secretary of State appointment and has the potential to be the poodle of the Department of Health. I have been in the position of being in charge of the organisation representing patients and I remember successive Secretaries of State, from two parties, making attacks on the organisation because we were being effective and raising issues that were uncomfortable.

Under those circumstances, can we be satisfied with a future arrangement whereby the Secretary of State solely makes the appointment of that individual, who then appoints all the other members of the Healthwatch England committee? In the initial stage, you have a double lock where the chair of the Care Quality Commission gets involved but in future you will have someone who might be appointed as a poodle or to muzzle the watchdog nature of Healthwatch England appointing individuals who are, no doubt, like-minded. That is why the arrangements are strange.

We then have the provision for suspending members, which is set out here. Presumably, the suspension is different from disqualification but the Secretary of State may dispense with the chair of Healthwatch England for a variety of reasons, which includes,

“failing to carry out those duties”.

Who is going to determine what those duties should be? Essentially, we are being told that the Secretary of State will decide what he or she thinks is appropriate for Healthwatch England to be carrying out. Again, the chair then has similar powers in respect of individual members. I make a specific request of the Minister: that in his reply he spells out absolutely that it will not be appropriate for either the chair or the members of Healthwatch England to be suspended from their membership if they are pursuing their interpretation of what is in the interests of patients and their organisations, and the people that they represent.

20:15

Because of the requirement saying that the chair of Healthwatch England must be a member of the board of the Care Quality Commission, we are inevitably creating that subservient relationship. Will the chair of Healthwatch England be subjected to, in essence, the collective responsibility of the members of the board of the Care Quality Commission? There have been recent issues with the membership of that commission’s board, where the chair has taken a different view about what the role of individual members should be. That has led to conflict and serious problems.

Let us pan forward a few years: if the chair of the Care Quality Commission does not like the approach being taken by the chair of Healthwatch England, are they then able to say, “You are not fulfilling your duties as a member of the board of the Care Quality Commission because you are not abiding by the collective responsibility of that board’s members. I am therefore asking the Secretary of State to remove you from office and suspend you because you are not fulfilling your roles”? Even if that does not happen we will have, as my noble friend Lord Collins said earlier, the appearance of potential conflict of interest. Ultimately, how are the public going to have confidence in a structure where it looks to them as though the leadership of Healthwatch England is subservient to the Care Quality Commission, one of those important agencies about whose effectiveness it may have to make criticisms?

We should remind ourselves that the aim of all this is to enhance the collective voice of patients in the NHS. You will succeed in doing that only if the public at large have confidence in the structures that you have created. If you build into them the appearance of subservience and potential conflicts of interest, you are weakening that voice. That cannot in any way be in line with what either your Lordships would expect to see from this, or indeed with what I believe Ministers’ intentions to be as far as Healthwatch England is concerned.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton]

My Lords, the Explanatory Memorandum to these regulations states:

“The instrument also places a requirement on the chair to ensure that arrangements for the selection and appointment of persons take into account the principles of openness and transparency”.

The votes this evening illustrate that people want openness and transparency, and I commend this. I would like an assurance from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the members of Healthwatch England and the local Healthwatches will be treated well. As volunteers, LINks members have not been given enough support. It is disappointing that Healthwatch England will not be independent. It must not become a puppet of the CQC, which has had problems, and the local authorities that host it.

There is an immense amount to do to keep patients safe in the health service—those in care homes and those with mental problems. One hopes that Healthwatch England will support local Healthwatches. When there is so much fragmentation and so much to do, will the CQC and Healthwatch manage to cope? I hope there will be spot checks, otherwise inspections do not mean very much, as has been shown in the awful problem of the care home near Bristol. I hope that the Minister, who I think believes in independence in his heart, can give us some assurances tonight.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I do not want to repeat the arguments that have been made. I was going to repeat the arguments that I made about the history of consumer representation in other sectors, but time is against us. The conclusion from that would be that independence and the perception of independence are vital for all the reasons that my colleagues have spelt out today. The Act is there, and the regulations will be there after tonight, but the Minister at least ought to be prepared to say that he will review the situation after, say, two years. If he were prepared to say that tonight, I would give Anna Bradley, who I have great respect for, and the other members the chance to prove that this situation works, but it might also show up some strains in it. If the Minister could say that, I would walk away tonight a happier man.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, has posed a number of questions about Healthwatch England and how it will work within the Care Quality Commission, and I welcome this debate. In view of the time constraint, I am not sure that I am going to be able to cover all the points, particularly those relating to local Healthwatch, but I will do my best.

First, I would like to take a step back to the White Paper Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS where our first plans for Healthwatch were set out. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 was passed by Parliament in March this year and enacted the proposals for Healthwatch to be the new consumer champion for people in health and social care. As a result, locally and nationally, Healthwatch will bring about better national leadership on public engagement and better communication for patients, service users, members of the public and communities to enable their concerns to be heard and acted on.

In the debate on the Bill in the Lords, the Government made it clear that Healthwatch England has an important role to play for patients and the public to present their views on health and social care at the national level to inform service improvements. Accordingly, the 2012 Act set up Healthwatch England to be the national body that would present the collective voice of the people who use health and social care services so as to influence national policy, advice and guidance. The Act sets up Healthwatch England to have relationships with other national bodies, such as the NHS Commissioning Board, Monitor and the Care Quality Commission itself, and with local authorities and the Secretary of State. Healthwatch England has the power to advise these bodies and the Secretary of State for Health, which could include making recommendations, and the recipients of such advice are under a statutory duty to respond. This is an important power for Healthwatch England to drive the consideration of issues, get a response and make the correspondence public, which I believe is a very tangible way of delivering openness and transparency in how these bodies respond to the issues that Healthwatch England raises. That could be a matter relating to the actions of the CQC itself.

I believe that these arrangements will engender trust. They will also embed the patient and public voice and the experiences of patients and the public at the heart of services. Healthwatch England is able to build other national relationships, such as with Public Health England. In addition, Healthwatch England will provide the leadership and support to a network of local healthwatch organisations which, in turn, will feed back the information from local people and communities to inform the national picture of what needs to be heard, and acted upon.

Since the Act was passed, the Healthwatch England committee was launched on 1 October at a stakeholder event hosted by the first chair of Healthwatch England, Anna Bradley. The chair has appointed to the committee 10 members so far who, collectively, bring the range of expertise and experience required for Healthwatch England to operate strategically at the national level. Those members were shortlisted and interviewed by a selection panel through an open and transparent process. Independent members of the panel included Joe Irvin, chief executive of the National Association for Voluntary and Community Action, and the criteria were drawn up in consultation with external stakeholders.

I shall name the 10 members for the benefit of noble Lords. They are: John Carvel, who was social affairs editor of the Guardian for nine years and a Guardian staff writer for nearly 40 years; Alun Davies, who has worked as a policy and planning manager in an adult social services department in a unitary council in the south-west and has been actively involved in disabled people’s politics; Michael Hughes, an independent policy and research adviser who was the director of studies for six years at the Audit Commission overseeing national reports on a range of topics including adult and children’s social care; Christine Lenehan, who is director of the Council for Disabled Children and has worked with disabled children and their families for over 30 years; Jane Mordue, who is deputy chair of Citizens Advice; Dave Shields, who was a health and well-being strategy manager for Southampton City Council, developing the city’s health and well-being partnership; Patrick Vernon, who was the chief executive of the Afiya Trust, one of the leading race equality health charities in the country and previously worked as regional director for MIND; Christine Vigars, who is chair of Kensington and Chelsea LINk and a trustee and former chair of Age UK Kensington and Chelsea—she has taught social work and worked in community care development in the voluntary sector; David Rogers OBE, who is a councillor for East Sussex County Council and chairs the Local Government Association’s community well-being board; and Dag Saunders, who is chair of Telford and Wrekin LINk and is one of two representatives for LINks on the Healthwatch programme board at the Department of Health. I hope the House will agree that this membership will give Healthwatch England not only strong and independent leadership but also the right skills and knowledge in relation to the commissioning and delivery of health and social care services, as well as on public engagement, consumer advocacy, equality and diversity, and specialisms such as children and young people.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, has questioned the extent to which Healthwatch England will be able to act independently. I suggest to him that it will be able to do this in a very real sense. Healthwatch England will set its own strategic priorities, separate from the CQC; it will have its own operational and editorial voice, again separate from the CQC; and it will develop its own business plan and take responsibility for managing its own budget.

Under the leadership of its new chair, Healthwatch England has already made great progress in putting arrangements in place to ensure that it will function independently of the Care Quality Commission, while benefiting from its position as a statutory committee of the commission, without compromising good governance and lines of accountability. In fact, the benefit of this structure runs both ways. It will immensely strengthen the link between the views of patients and the public and regulation. The advice that Healthwatch England provides to the Care Quality Commission will enable the commission to address failings in the provision of health and social care services. It will also enable the commission to address any local risk management systems and, at the same time, Healthwatch England will have the commission’s offer of valuable expertise in data management, the gathering and use of intelligence, analysis, and an evidence base of information to pool and share knowledge. The CQC has publicly committed in its consultation document on its strategy for 2013-2016 to make the most of the opportunity Healthwatch offers and to support its development to make sure people’s views, experiences and concerns about their local health and social care services are heard. The CQC has made it clear that people’s views, experiences and concerns will more systematically inform its work.

Working as a committee within the Care Quality Commission makes Healthwatch England very well placed to connect people’s concerns about safety and quality with the work of the commission. This symbiotic and symbolic relationship is unique and will go a long way to embedding what I know noble Lords want to see, which are the voices of the patient and the public at the heart of care.

I was asked what will happen if Healthwatch England goes off the rails in some way or goes native. The Secretary of State has a duty to keep the performance of the health service functions under review. That requirement involves keeping the effectiveness of the national bodies under review; these bodies are listed in the Act. The list includes the Care Quality Commission, and Healthwatch England as its committee. That reassurance should go a long way to make sure that the functions that these bodies are meant to perform are ones on which they will be held to account.

20:30

My noble friend Lady Jolly asked about the Healthwatch England budget. Healthwatch England has been allocated £3 million for this financial year. In future years, the budget will be negotiated with the Department of Health in the same way as that of the Care Quality Commission. Healthwatch England’s budget will be held by the CQC, but will be kept separate from that of the CQC so that it is safeguarded and only spent on Healthwatch England functions. It will be accounted for separately in public accounts.

Healthwatch England is now here, real and ready to take forward the task we have given it to be the national consumer champion, leading the way for its Healthwatch network to have coherence. The first chair, Anna Bradley, has publicly stated that Healthwatch England,

“will actively seek views from all sections of the community to build a national picture of what matters most to local people and make sure their views and experiences are really listened to, analysed and acted upon. Better health and social care services has to be the result”.

Let us not doubt what it can achieve before it even starts; how it can work at meeting the challenge we have given it to be truly the patient and public voice; and how it can embed that very voice in the new health and care system.

I ask the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and noble Lords opposite in particular, to support Healthwatch England, with Anna Bradley at the helm, to achieve our common goal, which is to build confidence among the public that they will be heard—that confidence is important—and to do that in the interests of health and social care services, and the outcomes that those services deliver.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, and all noble Lords for their contribution. The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, said that this was a missed opportunity and I am glad that she recognises that on this occasion. I wish that, on Report, we could have pushed through some of those concerns in a much more positive way. I am afraid that it is still a missed opportunity in view of the contribution from the noble Earl. As my noble friend Lord Whitty says, there was an opportunity today to state publicly not only a genuine commitment, but how we can translate that commitment into the assurances that the public will want. I hope that the Government will keep this matter under review. It is a sad fact that we have an organisation whose formal governance is under the Care Quality Commission. The chief accounting officer of Healthwatch England will not be Anna Bradley; it will be the Care Quality Commission. That poses some fundamental issues for the public.

Nevertheless, we have had a good debate. Everyone on this side of the House wishes Healthwatch England every success. We certainly wish its new chair every success. In the light of the debate, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion withdrawn.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Lords Chamber

Report (2nd Day) (Continued)

20:34

Amendment 45

Moved by

[Lord Dubs]

45: Clause 6, leave out Clause 6

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, in the earlier debates this evening, we discussed the CMPs at great length. As I said in passing, many of the arguments against or seeking to modify the CMPs could easily have ended with a move to abolish them altogether. So in one sense, the case has already been made, except that I have to go back over it briefly. We are talking about probably the most fundamental aspect of the Bill: whether or not we should have anything like CMPs on our statute book at all.

CMPs represent, as was said earlier, an absolutely fundamental change in our judicial system—more fundamental than, perhaps, was fully appreciated. For the things that will fall under CMPs, it is the end of our adversarial system, when judges will no longer have to hear both sides of an argument in order to come to conclusions. It has been said by people who are more expert than I that if you take away one side, then injustice is virtually guaranteed. Our adversarial system depends upon two sides: two parties. Without that, our system can hardly be assured of providing justice. Indeed, it may well not do that at all.

We are, after all, talking about 350 years of applying a principle and doing this in practice. If we depart from such a fundamental principle, we are damaging our basic freedoms. It means that citizens can no longer challenge the powers that be in court and be heard openly in doing so. It takes away one of the most fundamental rights of the British citizen: that they can go to court, that they can challenge authority and the powers that be. That will no longer be possible.

Indeed, this will tarnish the reputation of British justice. I understand that at least one newspaper in Russia has already commented—approvingly or not, I do not know—that these proposals will provide secret courts. Maybe the Russian paper thought that that would be a good idea, or was seeking to justify something in that country. Certainly, however, if other countries are already commenting before we have even passed the legislation, we ought to be pretty careful about it.

Of course, as has been said before, the system will work on whispers. The Minister or the Government will whisper to judges and the decisions will be made accordingly. Indeed, David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism, who has often been quoted this evening, has said that these measures cannot be justified on security grounds. He had other reasons for justifying them in terms of cost or not paying people money, but, on security grounds, he did not think that they could be justified.

One of the concerns, which has been expressed quite frequently, is that if you give a Government powers, even on a limited basis, they will inevitably start using them more widely. This is no disrespect to any Minister—it is simply the way the system works. We can all visualise a civil servant saying to a Minister, “Well, Minister, you know you do have the powers to do this, and they’re on the statute book”, and the Minister will say “Hmm, I forgot that”, and then “Can I get away with it?”, or “Will Parliament notice?”, or words to that effect. This is how Governments of all colours work. We therefore have to be careful that when we give powers that are intended to be limited, they will inevitably be used more widely. The special advocates themselves—all those consulted in a survey, which was almost all of them—said, I believe, that this whole idea was “incurably unfair”.

I want to give one example. I have lots of them, but I do not want to trespass on the time of the House too much. I have a document here which was in fact produced by the Ministry of Defence in court, so I am not giving away any secrets, though it was headed “Confidential” before it went into court. It is produced by an organisation called the United Kingdom Detention Oversight Team, or UKDOT. Its job is to visit detainees in Afghanistan who are held by the Afghan authorities. I will quote from this document, because it came out in court because we did not have CMPs. If we had had CMPs, it is almost certain that none of this would have been known. The document is headed “Electric Flex-Redux”.

“The team arrived. On arrival we interrupted an interview (we conduct our interviews in one of the two interview rooms) which caused the interrogator and prisoner to vacate the room in haste to accommodate the UKDOT. In the interview room we found on the floor behind the interviewer’s desk the same UK socket electric flex the UKDOT had seen on a previous visit”—

It refers to the visit in September and then continues:

“We took a photograph of the flex (see photograph) and after a few minutes a guard appeared and, in an uncomfortable silence, removed the flex: no explanation was offered and, for fear of causing a scene, none was asked for”.

I have here a photograph of the flex lying on a carpet. There may be an innocent reason for this, and this is not an investigation of how this operated. The point is, this would never have come out if we had had the legislation that the Government wanted. Therefore, I argue that the CMPs would help cover up things that we ought to know about. It would not have come to light if the CMP had been in use at the time.

I will conclude with the following. I was a member of the JCHR some time ago, when we produced the first report on these proposals, although I was not a member when it produced a second report. However, both reports have a number of things in common, one of which is that they said that the Government had produced no evidence to substantiate the use of CMPs. In the end, that is the most crucial argument. We are stumbling along, setting a very dangerous precedent, as far as our judicial system is concerned, and we are doing it without the evidence that would justify such a dramatic and drastic change. All we have is the say-so that there are a number of cases in the pipeline—and I do not doubt the Minister’s good will—which might or might not come under this system, and which might or might not contain something important that would be revealed if we did not have CMPs. No evidence produced by Government could justify this major piece of legislation. I beg to move.

[Lord Strasburger]

My Lords, when I spoke to your Lordships’ House on Second Reading, I highlighted how the injection of closed material procedures into our civil justice system would infect it with unfairness and corrupt it with secrecy. Currently, the British people hold their courts in high regard, and respect their decisions. This is partly because our judges are seen as incorruptible, independent and wise, but the main reason is that court decisions are the result of a fair and transparent process. In an adversarial system such as the English one, the right to know and challenge the opposing case is not merely a feature of the system—it is the system.

Judges do not have the resources or power to investigate the merits of the case themselves. They depend upon the process in which both sides assemble and present their evidence, and then challenge each other’s cases. They then judge which case is the stronger in the light of those mutual challenges.

The Government have stated that,

“protecting the public should not come at the expense of our freedoms”.—[Official Report, 19/6/12; col. 1660.]

This seems to be precisely the cost that the Government wish to exact in the name of greater security. In fact, the Bill does very little to provide the public with greater security, while giving an unacceptably high level of protection to the security services from exposure of their alleged wrongdoings by the civil courts.

The Government would need to advance the most persuasive reasons to justify such serious damage to our civil justice system. They have completely failed to do so. That is the conclusion that the Joint Committee on Human Rights came to. It stated:

“We remain unpersuaded that the Government has demonstrated by reference to evidence that there exists a significant and growing number of civil cases in which a closed material procedure is ‘essential’”.

Listen to the clear opinion of the special advocates, the government-appointed lawyers who spend much of their time working at the coalface in this dark and murky part of our legal system. A memorandum about the Bill, which was signed by 59 out of 67 of them, states that,

“the Government would have to show the most compelling reasons to justify their introduction”,

referring to the CMPs. It went on to say,

“that no such reasons have been advanced; and that, in our view, none exists”.

The Government have completely ignored this highly authoritative condemnation of the need for the Bill. The only comments that I can recall are an admission by the former Lord Chancellor that,

“the evidence of the special advocates most unsettled me”.

But he has done nothing to correct his unsettled condition and I presume that he is still unsettled, as I am.

20:45

The Minister has not responded to the special advocates’ strong evidence but instead has showered them with praise for the work that they do. I say to my noble and learned friend that if he respects the special advocates so much, listen to them, stop ignoring them and drop CMPs from this Bill. In case that idea falls on deaf ears, I will carry on.

What are the Government’s justifications for all the damage that they want to do to our civil justice system? Many justifications have been and gone. However, one keeps coming back but without any evidence to support it. It is this: the Government argue that the Bill is necessary because otherwise they will be forced to settle claims and to pay damages, even when they have a good defence, because they cannot use secret evidence without risking harm to national security. That sounds very beguiling and plausible, does it not? However, it is flawed as a matter of principle and is factually incorrect.

The Government usually point to the Guantanamo litigation as their example of a case which had to be settled because they could not defend themselves without a closed material procedure. I am not aware of any other identified case that they have put forward. As a matter of principle, it is no answer to the claim that the system is unfair to the Government to introduce a procedure which means that they can use the secret material, but that the other side cannot see it and is therefore unable to rebut it. All that has been achieved is to substitute one form of unfairness for another, and the new unfairness is much worse.

Under the existing PII system, which works very well, the inability to use a document affects both sides equally. But a closed material procedure will always give the Government an unfair advantage. It destroys the fundamental principle of equality of arms, as well as one of the pillars of natural justice.

In any case, defendants and claimants settle claims every day of the week because they do not wish to disclose confidential, damaging or embarrassing documents, or do not want particular evidence to be given in court and reported publicly. There is no good reason why the Government should be uniquely entitled to bypass this normal and salutary part of the pressure of civil litigation by having at their disposal a procedure that enables them to fight their case in secret and in the absence of the other side

The Government’s reliance on the Guantanamo litigation as an example of a weak claim against them—that they were forced to settle because they could not use a closed material procedure—is disingenuous for two reasons. The Government settled the Guantanamo claims, by mediation, before the Supreme Court had ruled that closed material procedures were not permissible. The Government can hardly assert that they had to settle because they could not invoke CMPs. The decision on whether a CMP was permissible or not had not been taken when the Government chose to settle.

Furthermore, a significant quantity of evidence had already been disclosed in the case and it was apparent that the Government did not have a good defence to the claims. In fact, they were very far from having a good defence to the claims. That is likely to have been the real reason for the settlement, together with the desire to avoid the public embarrassment that would have followed exposure of the fact that, while publicly condemning rendition and Guantanamo in Parliament, the Government were actively involved in interrogating prisoners and assisting the USA in its torture and rendition programme. Therefore, the Government’s star case—in fact, their only case—to support the assertion that they are having to settle cases that they could have won with CMPs just does not stand up and is discredited.

So where are all these cases on which the Government rely? The JCHR was told that the Government had a number of other cases that were “posing difficulties”. This number was at different times put at 27, 15, six and three—and, since the JCHR reported last week, it has become 20. I do not know what noble Lords think, but to me this sounds more like parliamentary bingo than rational law-making. In any event, the Home Secretary declined two requests from the JCHR to let the special advocates evaluate these cases. We should remember that the special advocates are government-appointed security-cleared lawyers. The Home Secretary refused to see whether any of them supported the Government’s contention.

The special advocates’ response to the JCHR was as follows:

“There is as yet no example of a civil claim involving national security that has proved untriable using PII and flexible and imaginative use of ancillary procedure”.

That is coming from the special advocates, who are the people who really know what they are talking about, and really understand these cases. And still the Government keep repeating their claim that there are cases where PII cannot cope and which need CMP, as if saying it often enough will make it come true. It is not true; there is no evidence to support it, and there is no evidence to support this claimed justification.

As to the JCHR amendments, they address the regime around CMPs, tighten it up and will reduce the frequency with which the Government can use CMPs—and I voted for all those amendments. But with all those JCHR amendments, we still end up with CMPs inserted into our civil justice system, where they have no place. They are still unfair, still secret and still incompatible with our adversarial common-law system. Only one set of amendments tonight deals with the unfairness and secrecy of CMPs—only one that ejects them from this Bill. That is the one led by Amendment 45, and I commend it to the House.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

My Lords, I should say immediately that I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and I supported the amendments that have just gone through this House. But in fact my position is quite a clear one; I do not approve of the closed material procedure at all. I was prepared to make concessions and vote for the amendments that have just gone through, but really I do not think that it is needed at all.

This country is just emerging from a very dark period in our history in which there is compelling evidence that in the aftermath of 9/11 our intelligence services departed from the standards that we would expect of them and became too closely connected with those who torture. There has been evidence of involvement in rendition, and allegations of being too closely proximate to places where torture has been taking place, providing questions and information to interrogators who have used horrifying procedures to extract answers from people who are detained. Unfortunately, our desire to be a supportive ally to the United States of America often led us into activities that are unacceptable but should not have been covered up by secrecy—and nor should they be in future. It is important for the good standing of our country in the world, but also for the standards that we normally set ourselves, that that history is placed before the public, and that we know that it happened so that it cannot happen again.

I accept that there are matters of national security that should not be in the public domain, but national security cannot be used to cover up conduct that is criminal and which debases our standing in the world. Over many years of practice in the courts I have done many cases involving national security, and I am sensitive to the issues involved. The prohibition of torture is one of the few absolutes in the law of human rights. The United States of America forgot that in the Bush era, despite being a signatory to the conventions, as indeed we are. It insisted on calling its methods, “enhanced interrogation procedures”—anything more than waterboarding being outsourced to other countries that were not quite as squeamish.

I support the amendment because the flag of national security is too often a flag of convenience to prevent shameful or embarrassing conduct being exposed. We have well established procedures in our courts and our system to deal with issues that need the cover of secrecy. I have been involved in many cases where PII has been used, where witnesses appear behind screens, or where there is non-disclosure of names or anything that could be identifying material. There are methods and ways in which material that is sensitive to national security can be received without putting our security in jeopardy or, indeed, not received at all.

Let us be clear. This piece of legislation arises at the behest of the United States of America, and we should not behave like a lapdog. One of the reasons is because the USA is also unhappy about being revealed as having participated in many of these shameful activities. However, this legislation has arisen in particular because of the exposure of the terrible facts in the case of Binyam Mohamed. I keep hearing people saying, “But of course these were people suspected of terrorism”. I heard the young American colonel who came to this country who did not choose to represent Binyam Mohamed, but eventually, when it was said that there had to be representation of people in Guantanamo Bay, she acted for him. I heard her presenting to a gathering of lawyers evidence of the extent to which he had been tortured and rendered from Pakistan to north Africa, and eventually to Guantanamo, where his genitals were subjected to insult and attack, and where he was tortured. There is no doubt that he experienced terrible events. It does not matter whether you are talking about someone who is a suspect of terrorism or not; such conduct is unacceptable.

Torture is one of the most egregious of crimes and we are trying to stamp it out in the world. That will be done only if we set ourselves the highest standards, take the lead in doing that and do not succumb to the entreaties of even our closest ally to enter into court processes that might make it more difficult for people who want redress for any role that we might have played in their torture. When they seek redress and come to our courts, they should be able to expect not to be spurned by the courts, which is, in the end, what this piece of legislation will allow to happen.

I remind this House that not long ago in Libya, papers were found after the events in that country and its liberation from Gaddafi, which disclosed that we, Britain, had played a part in the rendition of a man who now sits in government in Libya—a man who was an opponent of Gaddafi. However, at the request of Gaddafi, we had participated in his rendition back to that country.

I want also to raise another issue that is of profound moral and ethical importance to us if we are to care about such issues—the use of drones. There is evidence that our intelligence services are providing locational intelligence to the Americans in order that a CIA operative, sitting in Oregon, can direct a drone even into Pakistan, and sometimes find that large numbers of civilians, including children, are at the receiving end of the bombing. It may have the success of taking out people considered to be enemies, but it has the horrifying additional outcome of killing innocent people.

The closed material procedure will make it impossible for us to reach into these dark parts of conduct that may be taking place in our name. It would be shameful to allow this to go through our House without calling it to account. It is not a piece of legislation to which we should put our names. I regret that the Labour Benches are empty. Perhaps it is because a lot of this might have happened on a Labour Government’s watch.

21:00

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

The noble Baroness gave the example of drones. Could she explain how anything in the Bill would impact on a claimant in the context of drones?

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

There is a case going through the courts. A British resident called Noor Khan is seeking a judicial review. He wants a declaration of unlawfulness made because his father—a civilian, not a terrorist—was killed in northern Waziristan in an American drone attack. This was not in the conflict area of Afghanistan but in Pakistan, and the victim was a civilian casualty. I am told that a number of cases that concern people are linked to the use of drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere. People in Britain will call into question certain legalities because our domestic law covers the behaviour of people who are not in a war zone, and who therefore are subject to domestic law. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, will know that that does not mean that international humanitarian law gives them any protection.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

I am sorry to press the noble Baroness, but I still do not understand what she is saying. It must be my fault. I would like to know how, in a judicial review of that kind about drone policy, what is in the Bill will change the matter in a way that will not allow the applicant for judicial review to secure justice. How will the process be different from what we have now? That is what I am trying to understand.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

I am interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lester, the great human rights lawyer, defending secret processes of this kind. There is no doubt that applications will be made for closed material proceedings in those sorts of cases because the state will not want to divulge the circumstances in which locational intelligence was given. What we as members of the public would want to know would be whether we are playing the role of providing that kind of intelligence, which may in turn lead to the deaths of many civilians, particularly in places that are not covered by war.

I call upon the moral impulses of the House. Do noble Lords think that this is a proper way of dealing with activities that may be covered by national security, when national security is being used as an excuse to cover unacceptable behaviour? It may mean that we will never be able to find out the truth about rendition and the use of torture, and about any role that British operatives played. That would be a very unhappy state of affairs, and a departure from a very proud part of our common-law history and principles. It is a source of regret that so many people are prepared to go down this road.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I am sorry to start by correcting her, but the Labour Benches are not empty, nor bereft of any representative of the previous Government. As a former Home Secretary, I am one such representative. Unfortunately, the other Home Secretaries—Mr Clarke, Mr Straw, Mr Blunkett and Ms Smith—cannot be here because they are not Members of this House, which may account for their absence.

I may be a lone voice among the speakers, who all seem to have come from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but I will say two things. First, on the moral question, I deprecate torture as much as anyone in this House. I deprecate it in the case of that have been mentioned. I also deprecate it in the case of the 62 British citizens who were tortured by being burnt to death in the Twin Towers and the 50-odd British citizens who were tortured to death by being blown up in the subway and on the buses in London. They had human rights as well, and the primary human right is the right to life. There is a moral obligation on government to take that into consideration.

I find that one of the astonishing things about these debates is that there is never any context about the nature of national security. It is paraded camouflaged in words such as murky, corrupt, and lapdog—the disparaging avalanche of comments against our security services. Politicians can take it. We are used to it from the Opposition, from people outside and from some of our errant Back-Benchers, but the intelligence services do not deserve that. Were it not for them, I can tell you, thousands of British citizens would have had their basic human right of life removed from them. In one incident in August 2006, 2,500 people would have been blown out of the skies over the Atlantic were it not for our intelligence services and, yes, their colleagues in the American intelligence services.

So let me just say a word to balance the quite proper legal points that have been made about national security. We have come through a dark time. I regret to say that we still live in a dark time, not just here but throughout the world—anyone who thinks that areas of Pakistan are not a conflict zone does not begin to understand that. There are two elements to the threat to the British people, as there always are in any threat. The first is intention and the second is capability. The real question that we should be asking is not whether this proposal arrives from the Government because they are corrupt, because they have been seduced by civil servants or because they are lapdogs of the Americans. We should be asking what particular set of circumstances regarding the threat to national security brings a measure like this on to the agenda. We should then analyse the two elements of threat: intention and capability. Let me to say a word on both. The intention of those who wish to inflict terrorism on the citizens of this country is now unconstrained. It is not limited, as it was with the IRA in terms of tactical questions. It is not limited by their concern for what the public might think. It is not limited in terms of the numbers that they wish to kill. Anyone who tried to kill 10,000 people in the Twin Towers would be happy to kill 10 million people. Indeed, not only are they not constrained in their intent by politics or ideology, they are driven in their ideological premise towards a massive massacre of people.

That on its own would be bad enough to weigh in the minds of today's Home Secretaries if it were not for the fact that the other element of threat, which is the ability to carry out the intent, is now unfortunately unconstrained as well. Those in the past who had a genocidal intent, such as the Nazis, were constrained by the technical ability to achieve their intention—in the Nazis case either by carbon monoxide or Zyklon B canisters. Biological, chemical and radiological weapons now mean that we live in a world where unconstrained intent to do damage is allied with the potential for unconstrained capability. That is the burden that sits on the shoulders of government Ministers nowadays, not whether they will fall out with the Americans or anyone else. It is in that context that we have to consider the unique circumstances that we have never had to face before because the means of mass destruction have not been available to small groups of non-state actors and, by and large, non-state actors have not had an unconstrained intent to murder in a wholesale fashion. It is those circumstances that make the protection of intelligence all the more important. Had it not been for that exchange of intelligence—in one case, across 29 countries—we would not have achieved the protection of our British citizens and their fundamental right to life.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

I am sure the noble Lord is not suggesting that those of us who oppose these clauses are in favour of terrorism. He must appreciate that we are not concerned with proposals that will make security information available to the public. All we are concerned about is, what is the response to an action that is brought by a claimant against the security services or any other government department? I appreciate the noble Lord’s sincerity but is he not a little off the point?

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

There are three points there. First, of course I was not suggesting that there was any intent on the part of the noble Lord. However, I was explaining that there is a law of unintended consequences. You do not need an intention to make it easier for terrorists in order to embark on a course of action that ends up assisting in that. The second point relates to the Government’s response. As I understand it, the Government are saying that we currently have a system that does not give us justice because the requirement to protect national security information is such that they cannot take it to court, and therefore, whether or not it is just, someone is in receipt of benefits.

[Lord Strasburger]

My Lords—

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

Let me finish with the questions that I have been asked and then I will happily come back to the noble Lord.

The third question is whether I am off the point. I do not see how this issue can be discussed without a deeper understanding of the security—I truly do not—and yet in this Chamber I hear speech after speech about law but no one sets out the circumstances in which we have to face these threats. We might as well try to exist in a vacuum. Of course we can turn our eyes and act blind to the world outside but we have at least to try and understand the circumstances that give rise to what the Government are doing, or alternatively we will be forced to say that they are either mad, bad, corrupt with power, lapdogs, murky, conspirators or acting at the behest of evil civil servants.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

The noble Lord is presenting a parody of the argument that I have made, and I refute it. I understand—as does everyone in this House because we have debated it so often—the incredible context of having to deal with terrorism. Sensibly, however, most of us accept that you do not sacrifice the high standards of legal procedure that we have developed in this country to the terrorists. When the British state does that, it descends to the level of the people who bomb, kill and do all the things that the noble Lord has described so powerfully. If there is any question that our security services have in any way fallen from grace—and no one is suggesting that they have tortured—in the standards that we expect and which they normally set store by themselves, it is important that that should be explored so that we can put right any of the wrongs that have taken place. That is the issue.

21:13

[Baroness Manningham-Buller]

My Lords—

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

Perhaps I may respond and then I will give way to the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller. I was not trying to parody or even respond to the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, with the exception of her incorrect statement that there is no one from Labour here and her reference to Pakistan. The rest of it actually applied to the generality of the arguments that I have heard since I came in. I have made my position known on torture, but I have also made my position known on the obligations of government to protect the rights of the British citizen, including the basic one of the right to life.

[Baroness Manningham-Buller]

The noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, should speak first.

[Lord Strasburger]

Can the noble Lord tell the House about a single occasion when a British court has released into the public domain any information that has been detrimental to the country’s national security? Can he name a single one?

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

That is rather a Catch-22 question, is it not? The reason they have not is that they have settled out of court. That is the point that we are trying to make. The noble Lord is asking for evidence that cannot be adduced. The very purpose of bringing forward this provision is precisely to meet a situation which has arisen because they cannot.

[Lord Strasburger]

Then the answer to my question is no.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

The explanation for a no is always more substantial than a straight no.

[Baroness Manningham-Buller]

My Lords, I feel I have to rise to speak because of the presumption of guilt suggested by some people on the part of my organisation in the past. I should say first that torture is a crime in our law and in international law. It is morally wrong, ethically wrong and it is never justified—even when, as the Americans would claim, you get the truth from it. That is irrelevant. It is not what a civilised country does and it is illegal. For my colleagues to be accused of it is to accuse us of a crime.

I can now talk about the Binyam Mohamed case. We interviewed him in Pakistan in 2002, where he was in American custody. Later that year we sent questions to the Americans to put to him. There were two things that we did not know in 2002. We did not know that our closest intelligence ally was resorting to waterboarding; that is, torturing people. We did not know that in 2002. Additionally, we did not know that Binyam Mohamed had been rendited by the Americans to Morocco. Had we known that, we would have been more careful about the questions we had put, as I said to the parliamentary committee in 2006 and as it was recorded in its report. Certainly we regretted that.

Because torture is a crime, the person who interviewed Binyam Mohamed in Pakistan was extensively investigated by the police. A report went to the Crown Prosecution Service and it was decided that there was no case to answer. If any of my colleagues had been involved in criminality, the criminal courts—we are not talking about civil proceedings here—the police and the Crown Prosecution Service would have been involved. We are absolutely subject to the criminal law, and so we should be. But I find it pretty difficult to accept a presumption of guilt without it being proved in a court.

I shall put a caveat on that, picking up the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. I cannot talk about matters to do with Libya because those are the subject of current civil proceedings, as I understand it, and criminal investigations. It would be inappropriate for me to comment at this stage.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

I must ask the noble Baroness if she was listening when I made my speech. I made it very clear that there was no suggestion of British officers being directly involved in torture. I spelt out clearly and precisely what the noble Baroness has just described—being in places where people were being detained, providing questions and information that was ultimately used in interrogations where horrifying procedures were used. We know that happened in Binyam Mohamed’s case, and I made the suggestion that there was compelling evidence that it had happened in other cases. I would ask this question of the noble Baroness: does she accept that Britain played any role at all in rendition?

[Baroness Manningham-Buller]

Because it relates to the Libyan thing, I cannot answer the question. It is the subject of criminal investigations.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

Does the noble Baroness agree that—

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, perhaps I may remind the House that the Companion sets out that, at Report stage, a speaker other than the mover of an amendment, a Minister or the noble Lord in charge of the Bill can speak twice only if granted the leave of the House, and then to explain a material point of his own speech that may have been misunderstood or misquoted.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

I will give way but I was not quite finished. I have heard of being overtaken by events but I think that I was overtaken by Baronesses in the middle of my speech. I did give way to the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller.

I have said what I wanted to say, which was mainly to try to give to the debate a balance which I think is, perhaps wrongly, missing. We are discussing a justice and security Bill generally, and the actual analysis of the security elements of that seemed to be somewhat missing from our deliberations, both in this group of amendments and previously.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

I hope the fact that, with Roy Jenkins, I helped produce the first anti-terrorism Bill, which became the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974, illustrates that I take national security at least as seriously as the noble Lord, Lord Reid—if not perhaps quite as seriously, because no one could take it as seriously as he does.

Neither the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, nor my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford were present when I explained earlier today that the origin of the closed material procedure, which they both deplore, comes from suggestions made by civil society—that is to say organisations such as Justice, Liberty, the AIRE Centre and Amnesty International—both in the Chahal case and later, through me, in the Tinnelly case. They both deplore the procedure as criminal lawyers, and I quite understand that as a criminal lawyer you regard everything in terms of the context of criminal trials and that the CMP is seen to be totally incompatible with their concept of justice. I understand and respect that. However, they have to face the fact that the procedure came in because the Strasbourg court could not find any other way of weighing the needs of national security with the interests of justice. It had regard to the Canadian procedure, because that is what Liberty, Justice and the AIRE Centre—and perhaps also Amnesty, although it denies it—suggested to the Strasbourg court.

When Lord Williams of Mostyn was responsible for the SIAC Bill in 1997 I was one of those who spoke in favour, because although it is imperfect justice, I could not think of a better way of weighing the needs of national security against the interests of justice. I believe that it has worked pretty well in the context of SIAC, and we, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights, have recommended that SIAC’s jurisdiction be extended. I do not think that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, as a party to the report, will disagree with that. I do not think that she has so far.

The short answer to the supporters of this amendment is that we have today incorporated into Clauses 6 and 7 almost all the safeguards that the Joint Committee on Human Rights advocated. We did so in order to strike a better balance between fairness and national security. If the supporters of this amendment succeed, they would remove Clauses 6 and Clause 7 altogether. That would mean that the Bill would go to the House of Commons with no safeguards. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and others would have little difficulty in ridiculing what we had done. They would find that, having spent the period before the dinner hour putting in the safeguards, we had spent the period after it removing them. I can be accused of being over-logical, but it seems to me that to walk upon your head is a very strange thing to do. It makes me realise the wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, when he once rebuked me for making a serious point after the dinner hour. I now realise that all the serious points were made before the dinner hour and what we now have is a kind of tragic comedy. I very much hope that we do not as a House approve amendments that will have the effect of undoing all that we have been doing since 3.30 pm.

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven]

I am going to be fairly brief. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Reid, will accept that I have an abiding interest in national security. I was Director of Public Prosecutions and chief prosecutor for some of the period that he was Home Secretary, and during the worst of those years that he has been referring to, between 2003 and 2008. We had the London bombings on 7 July, the attempted bombings on 21 July, the airline plot, the dirty bomb plot, the fertiliser plot, and a conspiracy to plant bombs in the Bluewater shopping centre—deliberately at half term, so that there would be women and children present.

I understand all those issues. I should like to say to the noble Baroness that my presumption is that members of the security services do not go to work to commit crimes and that they work tirelessly in the national interest and to protect public safety. That is my view about national security and about the security services. I think that the debate that we are having here is slightly different from that and I do not believe that anything that is proposed in this amendment would damage national security in any way or needs to be in effect an insult to members of the security services. It is a question about the sort of legal system that we want, and therefore questions of law are bound to intrude. But I accept the national security context.

[Baroness Manningham-Buller]

I am not insulted, I just feel that when the suggestion is that we have committed serious crime, I need to retaliate to that.

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven]

I understand that.

What I want to do is to return, I am afraid, to the legal context. I will be fairly brief. I want to address three questions in the context of closed material procedures: one is public confidence; one is fairness; and I think the most important one is the delivery of justice, as this has been a large part of the Government’s argument. To what extent can closed material procedures deliver justice where no justice is presently available?

The first issue is public confidence. How is public confidence in the justice system achieved? My own view is essentially that it is won through securing the trust of the public. This is achieved in a number of ways, particularly I think through openness and—that overused word—transparency, especially in terms of the judgments given. It is particularly important that judgments in cases are given in public and so the judgment itself is open to public scrutiny. If a judgment is not open to public scrutiny, that judgment will struggle to win the trust of the public. Why should the public believe that something is so simply because a judge says that it is so? The ability to scrutinise a judgment is absolutely critical.

Not least of the damaging effects that closed material procedures may have—I think will have—will be to damage public confidence in our judiciary. Who is to trust a judgment against him made upon the basis of material that he has never seen? What litigant would trust the judge who makes the judgment based upon material that that litigant has never seen? The question of public confidence is not simply a question of public confidence in the system, it is a question of public confidence in perhaps the most important people who populate the system, the judges.

This brings me to my second point, fairness. I think that everyone accepts, as they must, that closed material procedures are unfair. In one profound sense, and I do not need to labour this point, they are not fair because they are not balanced. As the noble Lords have been told, special advocates are very eminent lawyers instructed by the Government to secure fairness in these proceedings. It is well known that the special advocates themselves oppose the creation of closed material procedures precisely on the grounds that they believe that the process is unfair. I remind the noble Lords again of something that the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, said. These special advocates, who have been in all these cases, have said that they have not seen a single case in which the issues could not properly be litigated safely using PII and other ancillary procedures, securing justice without revealing the slightest hint of national security secrets.

The final and perhaps most important point of all—it has been made persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and others—is the delivery of justice. This has been a common theme in this debate, including contributions from very distinguished former judges. The argument is that closed material procedures will provide some justice where none is presently available, in the absence of material that would otherwise be excluded under PII; in other words, the courts will now be able to consider material that they could not consider before, and that is a better form of justice.

21:30

I take issue with this argument, perhaps because I am a criminal lawyer and I have spent many years in criminal courts watching evidence that at first sight seemed persuasive, truthful and accurate disintegrating under cross-examination conducted upon the instructions of one of the parties—my client or someone else’s client. Perhaps the key task facing a judge in evaluating evidence is to determine accuracy and reliability. This determination is the product of a process of testing, usually by cross-examination. That is how the judge comes to the determination as to whether evidence is accurate, reliable and honest. It is the questioning of the witness that gives the judge the clue as to whether the witness is mistaken, confused or, indeed, telling lies. I have seen this happen countless times: evidence that seemed strong and persuasive disintegrating and the case collapsing.

Of course, the danger of a closed material procedure is that this essential process is compromised, disastrously in my view, precisely because one party, the very party who wishes to engage in this process of challenge to defeat the Government, is expelled—that is not too strong a word—from the proceedings and must fall silent. He must rely on an advocate he is forbidden to speak to—he is represented by a lawyer who is forbidden to speak to him and to whom he is forbidden to speak. That lawyer then goes into the closed room with the judge and the government lawyer and is expected to test the evidence on behalf of the claimant. Again, the special advocates themselves have attested to the limits and the precariousness of their position in this situation.

To the argument that some evidence is better than no evidence, I am with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kerr, of the Supreme Court, who said in a recent case that the whole point of untested evidence is not just that it may be unreliable but that it can “positively mislead”. That is the risk that we are facing, that we are introducing into civil justice—in the most sensitive and controversial cases, where deeply serious allegations are made against the Government and the security services—a process that expels the claimant and gives him a form of justice that is not better than nothing. It is worse than nothing because it may be justice that is based on entirely misleading evidence.

In its outstanding report, the JCHR was careful to give its considered assessment of the case the Government have made for the insertion of this quite extraordinary procedure into our criminal justice system. It was very frank. It said that the Government have not made a convincing case. For my part, I would not introduce these processes into our system without the most compelling evidence to justify this extraordinary change, and I do not see it.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, the noble Lord has spoken very powerfully about the importance of public trust and how the amendments before us are emphasising the means by which that trust can be secured. But when we divert from the practices of justice as we have come to understand and appreciate them, we must do so only in the most extreme and exceptional circumstances, and there must be no opportunity for a drift towards this process becoming a matter of convenience. I may be overegging it slightly but that is a fear one must have in mind.

The noble Lord also spoke about the importance of public confidence in the law and the administration of the law. I want to take that argument a little further. My noble friend Lord Reid, in a very powerful intervention that I am sure we all took extremely seriously, underlined the danger of small numbers of people with modern technology and devices at their disposal.

That is why the whole case for maximum, transparent justice in the process of law is so important. Many of the issues behind the cases involved will be extremely controversial and elicit a lot of passion in particular sections of the community. If it can ever be argued or demonstrated that we are not applying a commitment to justice in the way it can be achieved, but are finding that because of the terrorist element we are deserting that position, that will play straight into the hands of the extremists who want to exploit frustration, alienation and the rest. We are giving ammunition to the enemy—if you like me to put it as bluntly as that—and I find that unforgivable. Why give ammunition to an extremist who is determined to undermine our society by failing to stand by the principles of what we know justice is about, unless it is a most exceptional, extreme case where special circumstances have to apply?

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, the Justice and Security Bill demands justice and security. We have been quite rightly reminded by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Reid, how important it is to consider security. In human rights terms, Article 2 of the convention places a responsibility on the Government to protect life and to take all steps appropriate to ensure that the human rights of citizens generally are protected, so that human rights are not just for the litigants involved in these proceedings but for all of us. However, justice is to be done by this Bill and there is undoubtedly a justice gap. I thought that, during Committee stage, we had moved towards a consensus that CMPs, although not a desirable option, were nevertheless a necessary evil in order that justice should be done.

Contrary to what my noble friend Lord Strasburger has said, the JCHR, of which I have the good fortune to be a member, acknowledged, relying in part on the evidence of David Anderson, that there were a limited number of cases in which justice could not be done in the current situation. That is why the Bill has been brought before your Lordships’ House. As to the possibility of justice being done under these provisions, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who has experience of these things, said in Committee that the special advocates were underestimating their capacity to represent those clients. Nobody suggests that it is an optimal position, but my own experience of judges tells me that they customarily do everything they can to remedy any disadvantage that a litigant might have—and of course they will have a disadvantage in CMPs. The suggestion that the Government’s case will simply be accepted by a judge without challenge or question is wholly unwarranted. Within the Bill as it is at the moment, judges have considerable powers; now that these amendments have become part of it, they will have considerably more powers.

I therefore suggest that the Bill presents an opportunity for security and justice, as the name suggests. The amendment proposed will wreck that opportunity and justice will be denied.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, I have had experience of a torture case, the Baha Mousa case, which involved the death of a hotel owner in British custody in Basra. Your Lordships will recall that there was a long trial in which what had happened in the stinking hellhole of a derelict guardhouse was investigated. Men had been held in stressed positions with their hands tied behind their backs and hoods over their heads, and Baha Mousa, after a night during which passing soldiers from other regiments were called in to have a pop at the prisoners in that position, died with some 90 injuries to his body. What happened as a result of that? There was the trial and then a long inquiry, chaired by Lord Justice Gage, which lasted more than two years. His report has brought significant publicity and changes to what goes on. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, was talking about transparency. There is something that was brought out into the open. I do not think that any commanding officer in the British Army will not have regard to the treatment of prisoners by troops under his command hereafter. That is what transparency and publicity do. I was very interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, cite an interrogation that had taken place in Afghanistan more recently when, no doubt, proper safeguards for the prisoners were in place.

Reputational damage? Of course there was reputational damage to the soldiers, the officers, the regiment and the British Army, but that is the price that has to be paid to put things right. I am not particularly moved by the argument that settling cases causes reputational damage to the security services. Of the civil cases brought in this country, 95% are settled, often without any admission of liability. I have never heard it suggested that there is reputational damage from a settlement from such circumstances. Nor have I heard it suggested anywhere that because the security services have settled cases brought against them, they have suffered reputational damage in any meaningful sense. When one reads what happened in the Binyam Mohamed case, one feels that there should be more transparency about what happens within the security services. Perhaps then, the suspicions with which the noble Baroness is so concerned would go away.

Everything that can be said on the issue of principle has been said, even if not by me, so I do not propose to go back to that. I just want to raise one or two practical points. The first is this. A lot has been said about fairness to the security services—that it is not fair that they should settle. What about fairness to the claimant? Suppose, for example, that a claimant wishes to sue the security services for exposing him to torture or to unlawful rendition. Let us assume that his claim is entirely genuine. Let us not start with the assumption that one hears in certain quarters that of course he is lying. Let us assume that it is a genuine case. There is no legal aid. He cannot find a lawyer to act for him on a no-win, no-fee basis because it will be impossible for a lawyer to assess his chances of success. How can any lawyer take on a case when it is possible for the defendant to go behind the scenes, talk to the judge and disclose evidence which the claimant never sees? How can you take on a case on that basis?

Of course, the special advocate is allowed to see the secret evidence, but can he go back to find out whether there is any possibility of challenging that evidence? How can he go back to his client to talk to him? He is not permitted to under the system. He cannot take proper instructions and, as my noble friend said, use the ordinary method of ascertaining the truth in the British courts of justice for centuries: by cross-examination, by challenging and testing the evidence and the credibility of the person who is giving that evidence. It is just not possible, so nobody is going to take the case on. That is the first problem to get through. We talk as if practical considerations such as that do not count. The claimant never gets his case going, or if he does he loses and never knows why.

21:45

Let us take another case and get away from terrorism. Take a highly decorated NCO who has his leg blown off in Afghanistan while using faulty equipment. He sues the Ministry of Defence for negligence. It claims that the design and safety record of the equipment is national security sensitive: “This is material that we could not possibly disclose because it might assist those who are preparing bombs in the areas where we operate”. The Ministry of Defence discloses that information to the judge. The special advocate also sees it but can he go outside and instruct an independent expert on the evidence that the Ministry of Defence put before the judge, so that that evidence on the capability of the particular equipment can be tested? Of course he cannot, so the claimant loses and never knows why.

Let us take another case: an ordinary citizen sues the police for wrongful assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution and the police, in their defence, ask for CMPs to show the judge secretly that they have obtained some national security sensitive intelligence from MI5, which gave them a reasonable cause for the arrest. The citizen is suing them for wrongful arrest; he does not know what the judge knows and has no chance of challenging it. What happens? He loses and is never told why. It does not appear in the judgment. Nothing is made public.

We could have a situation where a person is interned in a special camp without trial. It has happened here in this country, particularly with IRA suspects. He seeks a writ of habeas corpus, that absolutely fundamental right that exists for the citizen to challenge detention, and the Government may deploy closed material procedures to keep him interned for reasons that he neither knows nor can challenge. Is that beyond comprehension? At Second Reading the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, conceded that CMPs could be used in habeas corpus proceedings. We are not just talking about terrorists wrongly challenging the security services. We are dealing with any issue where national security may be involved.

This is another important practical point for those of us who have practised in the courts for far too long. You try to settle cases, if you can, but if a claimant can find a lawyer to act for him that lawyer cannot assess the strength of his claim. The cards are all in the hand of the government department. The authorities hold the cards and can conceal wrongdoing. They can say to the representative of the claimant, “We will give you £100 and an apology to go away”—a derisory settlement. They may hint that they will use closed material procedures if an offer is not accepted or they can play the long game. They can exhaust whatever funding that claimant may have obtained, from a charity that is prepared to support him in these proceedings: “Play it long. Make him spend all his money so that nobody will now represent him”. Or they can drive him to trial when, of course, at that point, the trump card is taken out of the hand of cards that the government department has, and it is played. The case is lost, and the claimant never knows why. This cannot be justice. We cannot approach this issue on the basis that we must be fair to the security services and to the Government. There is fairness to the claimant also to be considered. That is the reason that we, as lawyers, appreciate this very much.

The noble Lord, Lord Lester, pointed out that he supported the introduction of special advocates back in 1997—we discussed it earlier—and I opposed it, so nothing much has changed. Suppose it were a criminal trial, and the judge were to say to the defendant, “You go down to the cells”, and to the defendant’s lawyers, “Get out of the court”, and then the prosecution were to introduce before the members of the jury—who are the decision-makers, just as the judge is the decision-maker in the civil case—evidence that was decisive against the defendant who was in the cells. Could you call that justice? This is the same sort of thing applied in a civil context. That is why I oppose Clauses 6 and 7.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Dubs, who has spent a lifetime in the indefatigable support of human and civil rights. I certainly listened very carefully to what he said today.

I confess to some disappointment that during this debate we have heard little evidence of the Deputy Prime Minister’s references to sympathy for the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and still less of the amendments that he said the Government would sympathetically consider. I do not know at what stage, if at all, this House will have an opportunity of considering such amendments. We have Third Reading next week, and there is no indication from the Minister that that would be an occasion when such amendments might come forward.

However, I would welcome the recognition of reality on the part of the Government Benches on three of the amendments that were moved earlier this evening. If those amendments had not been carried, we on the Opposition Benches would have voted for the amendment moved by my noble friend and supported by a number of your Lordships tonight, but we conclude that it would be better to send to the House of Commons the considered views and the amendments passed by very large majorities in this House than to send the Bill without those amendments, and simply leaving it that the provisions that caused most of us considerable anxiety were deleted from the Bill. In my judgment, and that of many of us in this House, that would leave us in possibly the worst of all possible worlds.

In terms of the practical politics of the situation, we might conceivably end up with a worse Bill returning to us than the one that, if this amendment is rejected, would be leaving us. For that reason, I am inviting my colleagues on these Benches not to support the amendment, but equally not to vote with the Government against it. My recommendation to my colleagues is that we should not vote on this amendment but should abstain. We look forward to the amendments that the Deputy Prime Minister spoke of yesterday which, presumably, would go further than those which this House approved with such substantial majorities this afternoon and this evening.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

My Lords, this has clearly been an important debate with passions expressed on both sides of the argument. Following the votes that we have already had —on amendments which my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister was talking about; the House has had an opportunity to consider the amendments emanating from the JCHR report—the Bill looks very different from that which arrived on Report. The CMP process has now altered with the wishes already expressed by this House. I therefore urge noble Lords not to remove these clauses altogether after such time has been taken to scrutinise and amend them. My noble friend Lord Lester summed it up very well: there is no point in spending a long time before the Dinner Break putting these safeguards, as he described them, into the Bill, only to simply take them all out after the Dinner Break.

[Lord Dubs]

Is the Minister saying that the amendments we passed this afternoon will not be reversed in the Commons?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

This is the Bill as the House has now passed it. The House has accepted that CMPs are needed. The Government will and should properly reflect on the steer that this House has provided as the Bill moves to the other place. Crucially, we believe that closed material proceedings are absolutely necessary and are, indeed, a significant improvement on the current system.

I am not going to rehearse all the arguments that we have been through on a number of occasions. I will just pick up one or two points that were made in debate. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, talked about a system of “whispers”. The closed part of the proceedings will not be a cosy chat between the judge and the government lawyers. The non-Government parties will be excluded from the proceedings, as will members of the public, but the interests of the excluded parties will be represented by special advocates, about which I will say a word in a moment. In other words, the closed proceedings will look much like open proceedings in that they will have counsel for the Government and counsel who are special advocates representing the interests of the excluded party and making submissions to the judge.

I understand the concerns that are expressed about the special advocate, but it is also fair to say that the special advocates themselves sometimes underplay their own abilities. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said that he has read the transcripts in the case of M v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and had been impressed with the openness and fairness with which the issues in closed session were dealt with by those who were responsible for the evidence in that case before the SAIC. He went on to say that while the procedures that the SAIC adopts are not ideal—no one is pretending that this is a perfection of justice or making that argument—

“it is possible by using special advocates to ensure that those detained can achieve justice and it is wrong therefore to undervalue the SIAC appeal process”.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, also referred to what he said were “cover ups”. This was echoed by a number of contributors to the debate. This completely misunderstands the whole purpose of closed-material proceedings. I share the view of those who have expressed in these debates that they abhor torture. The Government abhor torture. The Government do not condone it, and nor do they seek others to conduct torture on their part.

My noble friend Lord Thomas said that we should assume a case where there has been malfeasance on the part of someone acting on behalf of the British Government. The point is that if there were such as case, it is important that these issues are properly considered and investigated. The point under the present situation, with public interest immunity certificates, is that if public interest immunity is successfully asserted, none of that evidence will actually be before a judge. It is important that that evidence should be before a judge. It is important that there is fairness for the claimant, and there is not necessarily fairness for the claimant if the claimant has to settle because important information cannot be considered in open court and we have not allowed them the opportunity of closed material proceedings. While there may be some satisfaction in getting a financial settlement, it might not be a satisfaction if you have indeed been wronged and do not have a court judgment to confirm that. It is not only the security services, on which we have perhaps focused our debates, for which the present system can act unfairly. It is unfair, too, on someone with a just claim who cannot get it properly vindicated in the courts because evidence cannot be brought before them. That makes the point that that is also, as has been said, unfair to those who believe that they have a proper defence and cannot deploy it. In our first group of amendments today the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, indicated that that has the effect of lowering morale in cases where people believe that they have done no wrong and they have a proper defence but cannot deploy it.

22:00

Settling is not always as simple as it seems but, equally, people have talked about the damage that it might do to the justice system. As my noble friend Lord King said in our first debate, increasingly I believe that if payments are given out but no case has been proven, that, too, can be damaging to the justice system. As the much-quoted David Anderson QC said in evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights about settling:

“It seems to me that it is corrosive if not of national security then at least of justice, and that there is a public interest in these very sensitive national security cases being fairly resolved. If Government has to settle a vast and high-profile series of damages claims … while feeling that it has perfectly good evidence on which to defend the case, that is corrosive of trust in the security services; it is corrosive of trust in the authorities; it is corrosive of trust in the legal system”.

There is, therefore, corrosion of trust, if indeed there is a whole series of cases that are settled without any proof having been made.

My noble friend said something about reputational damage, and perhaps felt that that was not so important. Other people have settled cases without reputational damage. The real concern comes when a case is settled without admission of liability, and there has been a very serious allegation—for example, of torture or of rendition, which indeed is wrong. There will never have been an opportunity to go before a court, even if in the less satisfactory situation of closed proceedings, and that opportunity will have been denied because such proceedings are not available.

If there has been a settlement, then people can go to recruit those who may wish to take action against this country. They will be able to say, “This person claimed that the United Kingdom Government tortured them, and the United Kingdom paid out sums of money to them”, and you can bet your life that the small print saying “without liability” will never be mentioned. However, that is more than reputational damage; it is potentially damaging to our national security as well.

No one has pretended that closed material proceedings are in fact as good as the open proceedings that have been the hallmark of our justice system. It has been said many times in these debates that imperfect justice is better than no justice at all. I therefore urge the House to reject the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, we have been over these issues a number of times this evening, so I shall confine myself to making some very brief points. Of course, everyone is against torture. It is abhorrent and criminal. We are all opposed to terrorism and will do nothing to weaken the security of our country. Had I not left my London residence late and had left at the usual time, I would have been going through Edgware Road on the day of the bombings. I therefore felt fairly close to that, although I was a quarter of a mile away at the time. I certainly would do nothing that would weaken our safety and security.

I do not think that there are widespread cover-ups in our society but there have been a number. We have had a number of inquiries which were intended to reveal to people what actually happened when there had been a suspicion of a cover-up and what happened when there had been a cover-up. Hillsborough is only one example and there are several. The argument is not so much that we are hiding cover-ups but that we should be open and transparent. People should see that there are no cover-ups. I fear that the CMP will make people feel suspicious about the integrity of our justice system.

I would like to use many arguments to rebut what the Minister said but the hour is late. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

22:04

Division 4

Ayes: 25

---

Liberal Democrat: 16
Labour: 3
Crossbench: 3
Bishops: 1
Independent: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 164

---

Conservative: 102
Liberal Democrat: 36
Crossbench: 14
Ulster Unionist Party: 3
Bishops: 2
Labour: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

22:14

Clause 7 : Determination by court of applications in section 6 proceedings

Amendment 46 not moved.

Amendment 47

Moved by

[Lord Pannick]

47: Clause 7, page 5, line 33, at end insert “and that damage outweighs the public interest in the fair and open administration of justice”

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, we debated the amendment much earlier this evening. It relates to Clause 7 and is the equivalent to Amendment 36 in Clause 6, which was an amendment that your Lordships voted on and approved. I therefore beg to move.

22:15

Division 5

Ayes: 87

---

Liberal Democrat: 39
Labour: 34
Crossbench: 8
Bishops: 1
Conservative: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Independent: 1

Noes: 123

---

Conservative: 96
Liberal Democrat: 12
Crossbench: 8
Ulster Unionist Party: 2
Labour: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Bishops: 1

22:27

Amendments 48 to 51 not moved.

Clause 8 : Appointment of special advocate

Amendments 52 to 54 not moved.

Clause 9 : Saving for normal disclosure rules

Amendment 55 not moved.

Clause 10 : General provision about section 6 proceedings

Amendments 56 and 57 not moved.

Clause 11 : Sections 6 to 10: interpretation

Amendment 58 not moved.

Amendment 59

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

59: Clause 11, page 8, line 1, leave out subsections (2) to (4)

Amendment 59 agreed.

Amendments 60 and 61 not moved.

Amendment 62

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

62: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause—
“Extent
(1) The powers under sections 6 to 11 of this Act expire at the end of the period of 5 years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) The Secretary of State must before the end of the period of 5 years propose to Parliament that a Parliamentary select committee be established to conduct a review.”

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, sunset clauses are never popular with governments and I suspect not too popular with Members of the House at this time of night either. I will accordingly not detain the House for long on this, and I do not intend to put the amendment to the vote. However, I ask the Government seriously to consider it given the magnitude of the change under whatever form this Bill now takes. Whether it rests with the amendments agreed today by your Lordships’ House or it comes back to us from the House of Commons in a somewhat different form, it is in any view still a major change in our system of justice. It is one that should be monitored as it takes effect over a period.

22:30

I hope, therefore, that the Government will, in principle, if not explicitly tonight, consider and ultimately accept that in these exceptional circumstances it would be proper to have a sunset clause to ensure careful scrutiny of the operation of these new provisions along the lines suggested in the amendment. The amendment embodies not only a period of five years, which is long enough to allow the workings of the new legislation, in whatever form it emerges, to be adequately assessed, but also requires that the process should be conducted by a parliamentary Select Committee established for that purpose.

It is not necessary for me to take up your Lordships’ time by rehearsing all the arguments that we have heard over these weeks, and particularly in the impassioned but reasoned debates that we have had today, to emphasise the concern that is widely shared within and outside this House about the operation of these new provisions. It would give some comfort to those who are genuinely concerned about the implications of the measures to know that scrutiny and monitoring would be required if ultimately a sunset clause were to be applied in the way suggested in the amendment.

I do not intend to test the opinion of the House tonight but I hope the Government will consider the amendment in the spirit of the Deputy Prime Minister’s remarks yesterday because it would complement the approach he adumbrated, the effect of which we await with interest. I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for moving the amendment, which I say at the outset we are not in a position to accept. However, let me give an indication as to why sunset clauses are not necessarily appropriate here. Apart from anything else, I am trying to get my head around the idea of a sunset clause for litigation which could go over a period of time and it is difficult to think that you might have to sunset something. A case might start under a particular form of procedure and, if the sunset clause was effective, that procedure could be reverted in midstream.

There are also other considerations because this goes beyond what is proposed for the closed material proceedings we have been discussing. In relation to the case of Norwich Pharmacal, one of the primary concerns we are seeking to address is how we provide reassurance to those who give us important intelligence information so that we can protect information shared with us in confidence. A time-limited protection would undermine any reassurance we were able to give.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, the Minister should recognise that the amendment relates only to Clauses 6 to 11.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I apologise. Other amendments are grouped with it which I suspect have not been spoken to. None the less, the point I was making earlier applies to Clauses 6 to 11. If there was a procedure in train and the provisions were to sunset, I am not sure how that would rest.

However, I may be able to give some reassurance. The Constitution Committee did not recommend a sunset clause but said that the House may wish to consider the Bill being independently reviewed five years after it comes into force. Of course, Bills are subject to review normally some three to five years after Royal Assent, and it might be appropriate to do that should the Select Committee with responsibility decide that it wished to conduct a fuller post-legislative inquiry into the Act.

I recognise what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has said and it is self-evident from the debates that we have had that this is a material change. However, it is right and proper that we should leave it to the Select Committee to decide the form that the independent post-legislative scrutiny should take. That is a proper way in which this matter might be addressed.

[Lord Beecham]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I welcome the noble and learned Lord’s indication that some kind of Select Committee procedure might be adopted for this purpose.

Amendment 62 withdrawn.

Amendment 63

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

63: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
“Use of intercept evidence in employment cases involving national security
(1) Section 18 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (exclusion of intercepted communications etc. from legal proceedings: exceptions) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), after paragraph (d) insert—
“(dza) any proceedings before an employment tribunal, or (in Northern Ireland) an industrial tribunal, where the applicant or the applicant’s representatives are excluded for all or part of the proceedings pursuant to—(i) a direction to the tribunal by virtue of section 10(5)(b) or (c) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 or (as the case may be) Article 12(5)(b) or (c) of the Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/1921 (N.I. 18)) (exclusion from Crown employment proceedings by direction of Minister in interests of national security), or(ii) a determination of the tribunal by virtue of section 10(6) of that Act or (as the case may be) Article 12(6) of that Order (determination by tribunal in interests of national security),or any proceedings arising out of such proceedings;(dzb) any proceedings on an appeal under Article 80(2) of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/3162 (N.I. 21)) where—(i) the appeal relates to a claim of discrimination in contravention of Part 3 of that Order (employment cases) and to a certificate of the Secretary of State that the act concerned was justified for the purpose of safeguarding national security, and(ii) a party to the appeal or the party’s representatives are excluded for all or part of the proceedings by virtue of section 91(4)(b) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, or any proceedings arising out of such proceedings;”.(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) in the opening words, for “(db)” substitute “(dza)”, (b) after “anything—” insert—“(zza) in the case of proceedings falling within paragraph (dza), to—(i) the person who is or was the applicant in the proceedings before the employment or industrial tribunal, or(ii) any person who for the purposes of proceedings so falling (but otherwise than by virtue of appointment as a special advocate) represents that person;(zzb) in the case of proceedings falling within paragraph (dzb), to—(i) any person who is or was excluded from all or part of the proceedings on appeal under Article 80(2) of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, or(ii) any person who for the purposes of proceedings so falling (but otherwise than by virtue of appointment as a special advocate) represents that person;”.”

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I have a speaking note for this amendment and I will not take the risk of moving it formally because it adds a new clause to the Bill. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I explain this quite lengthy and complex clause, although it is simple enough in its intention. It would allow intercept material to be adduced in closed material procedures in national security cases in employment tribunals.

Intercept material is excluded from legal proceedings under Section 17 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, but an exception already applies in limited circumstances by virtue of Section 18 of that Act. The section lists those specialised proceedings, including the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and cases relating to terrorism prevention and investigation measures proceedings, where intercept material can be used in the closed part of the proceedings. It is the Government’s objective to find a practical way to allow the use of intercept evidence in court. Section 18 does not currently include employment tribunals, and the amendment seeks to change this. The change would enhance the effectiveness and fairness of employment tribunals, it would be consistent with the objectives of this Bill and wider government policy, and it will help protect national security. Perhaps I may take these issues in turn.

The first is consistency with the Bill and its effectiveness. By allowing intercept material to be adduced in a limited number of cases where such material may be available, the amendment would enable employers to defend claims, for example, for unfair dismissal with a broader set of evidence than is currently available. The ability to adduce intercept material in CMPs is consistent with the wider provisions of this Bill, in particular paragraph 9 of Schedule 2, which includes a provision for an amendment to Section 18 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to allow for intercept material to be admitted in any Clause 6 proceedings. This further amendment would bring employment tribunals in line with the small number of specialised civil proceedings in which the disclosure of intercept product is already permissible.

Perhaps I can now address the question of operational necessity. This amendment does not represent an academic exercise. There will be cases before employment tribunals where an employer is not properly equipped to defend its actions as it is unable to adduce the full breadth of material available. For example, there will be cases where the Government are defending a claim for unfair dismissal following the removal of a former employee’s vetting clearance. Currently, if the vetting is based on intercept material, it would not be possible to adduce that material in support of the vetting decision. The national security vetting system is designed to provide an assurance that those with access to sensitive information do not pose a security risk. It is very important that an assessment of the risk is made on the basis of all the relevant material, regardless of the source.

Where a decision is made to withdraw vetting clearance it is important to the integrity of the system that the decision can be maintained and is capable of being defended from legal challenge. Where intercept product or intelligence based on intercept is integral to the decision, its unavailability in employment tribunal findings could result in employers wrongly losing their case and an adverse impact on the national vetting system. Furthermore, departments may become reluctant to rely on information provided by the security and intelligence agencies for fear of not being able to defend decisions taken. It is also important that those bringing proceedings in employment tribunals can be confident that the tribunal has access to all the information on which a decision was made so that decisions can be properly examined.

I believe that the widening of the number of settings for a very small number of important cases in which intercept material can be considered should be welcome. I hope that noble Lords will see fit to support this important amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, I do not dissent from the Minister’s reasoning, and indeed am grateful to him for explaining the issue. However, he has opened the door to a much wider issue that I want to touch on but not debate, because the hour is too late and this is not the Bill on which to do it.

The Minister will be aware that many noble Lords, including those of us on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, have for a long time been arguing that intercept evidence should be permissible in criminal cases as a way of bringing people to justice who otherwise cannot be brought to justice and have to be dealt with in other, less sensible ways, such as control orders, TPIMs and things like that. If the Government are so anxious to justify the use of intercept evidence in these instances, I wonder why we cannot take a step further and consider very seriously the use of intercept evidence in criminal cases where we would have a proper system of justice and where people who are guilty of offences, or thought to be guilty, could actually be brought to trial as opposed to being dealt with in the way that they are. This is a bit of a thin end of the wedge, but it is important and I would like to feel that the Government will think hard about it.

On the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we were on two occasions able to meet civil servants dealing with this, who always said to us that they were looking at it but that it was difficult. I can see it is difficult, because it is hard enough in this case and even harder in criminal cases. Will the Government consider looking seriously into the use of intercept evidence in criminal cases now that they have this as a very useful precedent?

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I will follow that by asking whether the Government are satisfied that the objections that they have told us there are to the use of intercept evidence in other cases do not apply in the case of employment tribunals. I have been listening to the introduction of this amendment, wondering whether I am in favour of it because I am in favour of the use of intercept evidence or against it because, presumably, the intercept evidence could be treated as closed material. I am rather torn on this, but the question that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, raises is a very important one.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I endorse my noble friend’s remarks. I touched on a similar point during Second Reading and I think other Members of your Lordships’ House have also expressed an interest in this matter. We obviously do not expect the Minister to confirm that the principle will be adopted forthwith, but it would be helpful if an indication could be given as to when the Government might respond to the interest in this that has been evident in various of our debates as this Bill has made progress through the House.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am grateful to noble Lords for extending the scope of our debate somewhat, outside the frame of the particular Bill that we are dealing with. It raises some very interesting issues and both the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee got to the nub of the issue. I take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, to perhaps not make a commitment on this issue. However, I can describe the parameters, because Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to a fair trial, differs between civil and criminal proceedings. In particular, the exacting standards imposed by the criminal limb of Article 6, which is at the heart of the legal difficulties for a workable IAE regime, do not apply in the context of civil proceedings.

Furthermore, the nature of CMPs—which may well be involved of course, because of the nature of the intelligence—means that legitimate national security interests, such as the need to protect sensitive techniques or capabilities, can be more certainly protected than in criminal proceedings. I think all noble Lords would understand that. The proposals in the Bill demonstrate our commitment to making progress wherever it is possible. We continue to engage with the cross-party advisory group of privy counsellors in this work.

Amendment 63 agreed.

22:45

Clause 13 : Disclosure proceedings

Amendment 64

Moved by

[Lord Dubs]

64: Clause 13, page 9, line 40, at end insert—
“( ) Section (Application for public interest immunity) applies in disclosure proceedings to which this section applies.”

[Lord Dubs]

I will be very brief. We now come to the Norwich Pharmacal issues: applications for public interest immunity. In this group there are two points to which I would like to draw the attention of the House. First, there is subsection (4) in Amendment 65, where we would exempt from open disclosure any matters that are the basis of,

“any agreement with foreign intelligence services that intelligence is shared confidentially and cannot be disclosed without the consent of the intelligence service which provided the intelligence”.

That is accepted in this amendment.

However, the amendment really seeks to say that there are certain domestic and international wrongs that should not be kept quiet or confidential. They are listed. They are matters of the utmost seriousness: genocide; murder; torture; slavery; cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; child abuse; or,

“serious breaches of the Geneva Conventions”.

It is my contention that these matters are so serious that they ought not to be protected with confidentiality under the Norwich Pharmacal procedures, but that they should be made open and publicly known. If they are to be made open and publicly known, of course that fact in itself will possibly deter people from being involved in such criminal activities. I think that this is a worthwhile amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

I, too, feel strongly that this is an issue of some importance and I thank my noble friend Lord Dubs for raising it. I know that it is too late an hour for us to consider voting but, when these matters are taken up in the other place, I would really like this to be considered. In any consideration, one wants a judge to recognise that there are some things that basically cannot be covered even by national security or by any control principle that operates between intelligence services.

If we were to discover that there had been crimes of such an egregious nature, such as genocide, murder, torture, slavery, and all the most horrifying of crimes that we can document, and that those crimes would be covered by some kind of secrecy, that would be a source of great shame to us. That must be something that is taken into consideration when looking at ways of introducing new procedures into our courts. In the end, any consideration of such serious human rights abuses has to trump even issues of national security.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

I also support this important amendment. We know that some countries that are considered to be relatively close allies of the United Kingdom have human rights records that are indescribably bad. It would be a tragedy to have a situation where we cannot take seriously these human rights violations because of the limits that are placed in the language of this Bill.

We are increasingly seeing human rights becoming a new, very important structure of international law, which perhaps encouraged such movements as the Arab spring, and which undoubtedly helped to release many people from the acts of coercion by their own governments. We have close relations, as does the United States and our other allies, with some countries with poor human rights records. When those poor human rights records enter into the area of international criminal action, of the kind described by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I hope that we recognise that we have an obligation as a country with a very strong record of supporting human rights to maintain that standard and record. Indeed we are basically the founder of the original European Convention on Human Rights legislation, which binds us all today. We therefore will expect the Government to look very closely at the wording of this part of the Bill before we get to Third Reading to ensure that it will not mean that such major acts of criminality will be disregarded because of our legislation.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for moving this amendment. We now move on to the Norwich Pharmacal part of this Bill. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and my noble friend Lady Williams for their important contribution on an issue that, going by the earlier debate, is of considerable importance with regard to human rights and serious breaches of human rights.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, highlighted two points: one relating to serious breaches involving, for example, torture; and the other part of his amendment that relates to the control principle. To put this in context, the approach taken by this Bill is consistent with other legislation that has been passed by Parliament. For example, in the Freedom of information Act 2000, Parliament explicitly ruled out a right to access intelligence material; and the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975 and the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 provide for exemptions from disclosure of evidence into overseas proceedings where such disclosure would prejudice the United Kingdom’s national security.

First, I will indicate why limiting the protection offered by legislation to the control principle, which I think is what the noble Lord was seeking to do, does not go far enough. We appreciate that it is important that this is recognised and, of course, as has been said numerous times in our debates, it is essential that the originator of the material remains in control of its handling and dissemination. However, it is often the fact as well as the content of the sharing arrangements that needs to be protected. Certifying information as subject to a control principle agreement could reveal the fact that such a highly sensitive relationship exists. Countries may not thank us for revealing that fact, and might come under pressure to end co-operation with us.

Moreover, there are also some considerable difficulties in identifying what qualifies as control principle material, and these difficulties could lead to further uncertainty and litigation. Perhaps I might be allowed, even at this time of night, to indicate again evidence given by Mr David Anderson QC in June to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, when he discussed these practical difficulties. There may be correspondence between the intelligence services commenting on control principle material, or assessments based on a mix of domestic and foreign material, and it would often be very difficult to distinguish between them.

It is important that we respect human rights and that we take seriously human rights violations, and that we take measures to ensure that there are effective remedies available. I spoke at some length in Committee about what the Government do, both in the United Kingdom and overseas, to promote and uphold human rights. It bears repeating that the United Kingdom Government stand firmly against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. As I indicated in a previous debate, we do not condone it, nor do we ask others to do it on our behalf.

We work on human rights around the world through bilateral contacts, membership of international organisations and development aid and assistance, and in partnership with civil society. Our efforts worldwide on combating torture are guided by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Prevention of Torture Strategy 2011-2015. The United Kingdom is working to strengthen legal frameworks to prevent and prohibit torture, develop the will and capacity of states to prevent and prohibit torture, and help organisations on the ground to get the expertise and training they need to prevent and prohibit torture.

In recent months the United Kingdom has made its position on torture clear in public statements on countries of concern, lobbied to strengthen adherence to the convention against torture and the ICCPR, and delivered in-country training to officials of other countries on handling complaints of torture in places of detention. In addition, the Government devote significant resources overseas to combating torture. This work is often done behind the scenes, but there is also much work in providing consular assistance as well as in lobbying and capacity-building projects.

In the Norwich Pharmacal context, however, the Government believe that such disclosure is not the most effective solution to the problem. Disclosure in a single case can have far-reaching long-term effects on the United Kingdom’s national security and international relations, making it harder for the United Kingdom to act as a positive influence on human rights world wide. It is not in any way the case that we do not take these matters seriously. I hope I have indicated that there is a very extensive programme of work and commitment on the part of the United Kingdom Government to tackle torture, but we do not believe that using the Norwich Pharmacal procedure is the way in which to do that. In these circumstances, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, the hour is late. We could debate this for a long time, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 64 withdrawn.

Amendment 65 not moved.

Amendment 66

Moved by

[Lord Pannick]

66: Clause 13, page 10, line 7, after “is” insert “certified”

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, one of the main concerns with Norwich Pharmacal provisions is the breadth of the definition of “sensitive information” contained in Clause 13(3). Amendment 73 would confine the scope of the relevant information to that which needs to be protected. I entirely accept that it may be appropriate to expand the drafting of Amendment 73, but I am quite sure that what we have at the moment in Clause 13(3) is far too broad. I hope that the Government will be able before the Bill is enacted to consider this matter again; I hope that the other place will give specific consideration to this issue. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I shall speak to our amendments on this clause, Amendments 69, 70, 71, 72 and 76. I do not wish to detain the House and I shall not press our amendments to a vote at this late stage, but there are some important issues of principle that I want to put on the record and to which I seek a response from the Minister. I hope that he can take some of the points away and consider the issues.

The purpose behind the amendments is to suggest an alternative definition for the “sensitive information” ouster of the court’s jurisdiction. The reality is that less information is being shared with the UK as a result of fears that the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction might mean that the UK Government were forced to disclose intelligence shared with us, thereby breaching the control principle. We have heard that from the reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson, to whom the Minister referred, as well as from members of the ISC and the Government. I know that we have assurances from the US that we will never be denied life-saving intelligence, but I refer the House to the comments made on this issue in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, who said that that was no consolation to her, given the position that she has held. She went on:

“The nature of intelligence work is putting together information from perhaps five or six different countries and 20 different organisations—little bits and pieces of a jigsaw that, together, might save lives”.—[Official Report, 23/7/12; col. 553.]

The question of whether a UK court would ever in practice authorise the disclosure of such information has been widely debated. I do not intend to go into that tonight, because I do not believe that that is the question now facing this House.

Rightly or wrongly, the flow of intelligence to the UK has been restricted—we understand and accept that. The two questions for the House are: should the UK respond in order to deal with the concerns of our intelligence partners and, if so, what is a proportionate response? The Opposition’s response to the first question is emphatically yes; it is on the second question that I think we would have a difference with the Government; namely, whether it is a proportionate response. We take the view that any restriction of intelligence to the UK is a serious problem and we would agree with David Anderson QC who said of Clause 13 that there was “an element of overkill”. The ouster proposed by the Government reaches far wider than simply the control principle. While we recognise—there is no question about this at all—that there is a need to ensure the absolute protection of information related to our national security, this clause goes wider.

We therefore propose to restrict the definition of “sensitive information” to cover material whose publication would represent a clear breach of the control principle. We would amend Clause 13(3)(b) and (c) to refer only to “foreign” intelligence and to where that intelligence is such that it would jeopardise our national security or strategic national interests.

When we proposed similar amendments in Committee, the Minister described the practicalities, as he did just a moment ago, as being “challenging” and referred to the difficulties of being able to define and separate the two. We took note of what the Minister had to say and, as a consequence, the limitations that we propose in these amendments would retain the ouster for all the examples to which he referred.

Correspondence commenting on control principle material would presumably be covered by amended paragraph (c), which would remain an ouster for information derived in whole or in part from information obtained from or held on behalf of foreign intelligence services. That would allow for either the part of the correspondence that referred to foreign intelligence to be prevented from disclosure, or the entire correspondence, if it solely referred to that intelligence and would represent a disclosure of that information. As I understand it, that is much the same way as the original PII for certain redacted paragraphs in the court’s judgment on the Mohamed case argued.

23:00

I have read widely on this, but as far as I can see, the Government have not put forward any specific justification for an example where paragraph (d), which states,

“relating to an intelligence service”,

would be specifically required to protect the control principle information. That is a very wide definition. I suggest to the Minister that there is a clear difference between descriptive information about foreign intelligence services and the intelligence supplied by them. It is the second, not the first, that the control principle relates to and which our foreign partners are concerned could be disclosed.

We recognise that there is a need to ensure the protection of information related to our national security or strategic national interest. We would therefore retain the certification procedure by the Secretary of State where information does not qualify under paragraphs (a) to (c). In addition, we believe that there should be an absolute exemption where certification does not provide for information related to our national security or strategic national interest that is held by our intelligence service, regardless of whether it is derived from foreign or domestic sources. Our amendments therefore retain amended paragraph (a), which states that information held by a security service will not be disclosed if it is national security-sensitive in nature.

However, we propose to delete the reason for certification on the basis of subsection (5)(b), for the,

“interests of the international relations of the United Kingdom”.

We do not think that including such broad criteria can be justified on the basis of the control principle. We believe that the proposed alternative definition of sensitive information is a more proportionate response to the dilemma that the Government face. It acknowledges the clear need for cast-iron assurance to our foreign partners that the intelligence that they share with us will not be publicly disclosed and that, similarly, there should be no risk that information could be published that could in any way damage or harm our national security or strategic or national interests. It would also tighten the ouster provided in the Bill, which is drawn far wider than justifiably necessary.

I end on what I hope is a relatively humorous but serious note that David Anderson put in his evidence to the JCHR. I think that the Minister already recognises the quote that I am going to use. He said that,

“it applies to all information within the possession of the intelligence agencies. Presumably that includes the bill from Tesco for their sandwiches, to which no security importance whatever attaches”.

It is very difficult to see how that could be proportionate. As I said, we do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, but I hope that the Minister can take away some of those points for further consideration and come back with a response.

[Baroness Manningham-Buller]

I just say that I understand the concerns about the scale of the paragraph on sensitive intelligence. Equally, I think that Amendment 73 is a bit too narrow. Perhaps the Government can table something between the two by the next stage.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for moving his amendment and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for speaking to her amendments. There is recognition on both their parts and across the Chamber of the importance to us of information which we receive from other intelligence agencies. It is often crucial, and it is important that we can reassure them of its confidentiality. We have been trying—I acknowledge that this is the spirit in which the amendments have been moved—to ensure that there is a proportionate response to ensure that the information is protected.

There is the fundamental problem that the novel application of the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction, which has its origins in the intellectual property sphere of law, into the national security context has potentially been damaging to the United Kingdom's national security and international relations. As I have said, its very existence can erode the confidence of our agents and our intelligence-sharing partners that we can protect the secrets they share with us. Moreover, in the case of human agents—because it is not just information that we receive from other intelligence agencies; it is important to remember our own agents—there are real concerns of threat to life if there is a requirement to disclose. Each case that goes through the court has potential to cause damage, not just through the disclosure of sensitive information but by highlighting the risk that it could be disclosed.

In addressing the amendments moved and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I will indicate that in this sphere we believe there is a need to provide certainty and to reduce the scope for litigation. The noble Lord’s suggestion of moving to a certification model, with a narrowed definition of what qualifies as sensitive information, would allow the uncertainty and damage to remain. If we do not legislate in a way which provides sufficient clarity, we could again have the difficulty that our intelligence-sharing relationships stand at risk of deteriorating.

A certificate-only approach would only partially address the concerns of our intelligence partners and of our own agents that sensitive information is at risk of disclosure under the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction. It might leave them with the fear that a certificate might not be upheld and that their material might ultimately have to be disclosed. That in itself could have a chilling effect on the activities of our intelligence services and our intelligence-sharing relationships. An absolute exemption therefore provides a clearer and neater protection for this material and more certainty for our partners and our own intelligence services.

I turn to the restriction of the statutory protection to identity, which seeks to define what might be the intelligence with national security concerns. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, illustrated this by the identity of intelligence officers, their sources and capability and to control principle material alone. We believe that is insufficient, as there is sensitive information falling outside of these two categories that also requires statutory protection. That picks up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, that this is far too narrowly defined.

Given that the work of the intelligence services is covert, a considerable amount of material would not fall into the category of identities and capabilities but the disclosure of which could nevertheless still be very damaging. Such information includes information about operations and investigations, as well as threat assessments in relation to sabotage, espionage and terrorism, assessments of vulnerabilities of critical national infrastructure or systems, military plans, weapons systems and information on the development or proliferation of nuclear weapons overseas. It may also include operational planning and intelligence reporting, as well as material relating to national security policy and intelligence policy issues and funding, and so on. I hope that giving these examples shows that it is a much broader sphere of activity than is proposed in the amendment.

Likewise, that narrow definition can also create scope for litigation about what does and does not fall within the definition—what, for example, would be meant by the “capability” of intelligence officers? These issues alone could result in lengthy litigation, all of which would divert intelligence officers from front-line duty. The model proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, also allows no statutory protection for sensitive information whose disclosure could cause damage to the interests of the international relations of the United Kingdom. This point was also picked up on one of the latter amendments in the group by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. The Government need to offer protection to this category of material to ensure that our international partners remain willing to talk to us in a frank way, so that we can protect and further the United Kingdom’s interests. The mere embarrassment that would be caused from disclosure of diplomatic material would be no basis to certify. Only if material would cause damage to international relations would we be able to certify.

Diplomacy does not work if diplomats cannot talk in confidence and no Government would, or should, sacrifice the benefits which effective diplomacy can offer. As an example, vital work that is done in promoting human rights is not always done in public. Talking to international partners in confidence about their human rights record is an important part of how we seek to influence that agenda. The possibility that such discussions could be made public could have serious consequences for our ability to influence. Clearly, if international partners do not trust the United Kingdom to keep advice and assessments confidential, this could have a serious impact on the United Kingdom’s interests in the fields of human rights co-operation—as well as on consular assistance, trade and investment, and jobs, to name just a few other implications.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, proposes adding after,

“held by an intelligence service”,

the qualifier,

“where that information relates to national security or the interests of the United Kingdom”.

We do not believe that that is the right approach. The Freedom of Information Act, which I referred to earlier, does not try to exclude those agencies from the operation of the Act only in so far as they hold information relating to national security. Rather, it excludes them from the Act as a whole in recognition of the fact that, as far as the agencies are concerned, their entire function and raison d’être is to do with national security and necessarily the information they hold is connected with that. The Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994 both make express provision that the heads of those organisations are to make arrangements to ensure that no information is obtained by their agency,

“except so far as is necessary for the proper discharge of its functions”.

I am concerned that adding the wording suggested might only confuse the matter and give further opportunity for unnecessary litigation. We have heard about the canteen menu, and I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, referred to someone who had slipped on the floor and wanted to sue the cleaners. I do not think those examples have so far been used in Norwich Pharmacal to get information out of the security services. If that were the issue, there are many other ways that that information could be sought. We are talking about far more serious information, and I do not think that is being challenged.

The noble Baroness said that she could not find anywhere where the Government had said what they might mean by,

“relating to an intelligence service”.

The Opposition propose removing the clauses that protect information relating to an intelligence service and information obtained from or held on behalf of one of our own intelligence services, as opposed to a foreign intelligence service, or information derived from such material. Sensitive information that would not be afforded statutory protection under these amendments includes sensitive intelligence material held by, say, the Home Office, that has been passed to it by the Security Service in support of executive action, for example, deportation on national security grounds or a TPIM notice. It would also include intelligence the Security Service shared with the police in counterterrorism operations, the disclosure of which would readily compromise those operations in either preventing a terrorist attack or bringing terrorists to justice. Work done in other government departments on national security policy and intelligence policy, which relates to the intelligence services, would not be protected if the “relating to an intelligence service” clause were removed.

The Government have reflected on the constructive analysis and considered comment in the legislative period to date. Picking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I have no doubt that it will be considered further when this Bill goes to another place, but we have concluded, so far, that in the Norwich Pharmacal context, we need to provide absolute exemption for intelligence services information and certification for other sensitive information, the disclosure of which would be damaging to national security or international relations. Only by this can we provide the clarity required to enable the UK to protect its sensitive information in cases of third-party wrongdoing and to restore the confidence of our intelligence-sharing partners and our own security and intelligence services.

I have tried to outline some of the responses to what I appreciate are constructive approaches to what we all agree is a difficult issue. I hope I have explained why the Government resist these amendments, and I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Pannick]

I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I recognise the difficulty of defining with precision what information should be covered. I maintain the position that Clause 13(3) does not do a very good job of it. I suggest that the Minister and the Bill team would benefit considerably by having a word with the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller—although not tonight. At some stage, perhaps they could discuss a way of improving what is a very unsatisfactory Clause 13(3), but for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 66 withdrawn.

Amendments 67 to 76 not moved.

Clause 14 : Review of certification

Amendments 77 to 82 not moved.

Amendments 83 to 86 not moved.

23:15

Schedule 3 : Transitional provision

Amendment 87

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

87: Schedule 3, page 19, line 33, at end insert—
“( ) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to rules of court in relation to proceedings before the Supreme Court.”

Amendment 87 agreed.

Amendment 88

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

88: Schedule 3, page 20, line 25, at end insert—
“3A (1) An order under section 15(2) may, in particular, make provision about the application of section 12, and paragraphs 7, 8 and 10 of Schedule 2, to any direction or decision of the Secretary of State which—
(a) is of a kind falling within section 2C(1)(a) and (b) or (as the case may be) 2D(1)(a) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, and(b) was made before the section 12 commencement day.(2) Provision of the kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) may, in particular, provide for—
(a) the Secretary of State to certify under section 2C(1)(c) or (as the case may be) 2D(1)(b) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, on or after the section 12 commencement day, any direction or decision falling within sub-paragraph (1),(b) the termination of any judicial review proceedings, or proceedings on appeal from such proceedings, which relate to a direction or decision which is so certified (whether such proceedings began before, on or after the section 12 commencement day).(3) In this paragraph “the section 12 commencement day” means the day on which section 12 comes into force.”

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, noble Lords will know by now that Clause 12 of the Justice and Security Bill amends the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act so that the commission—SIAC—is able to consider applications to set aside exclusion or naturalisation decisions, which have been made on the basis of sensitive material.

Currently, we have a rather unsatisfactory arrangement whereby the only course of action open to an individual who wishes to challenge the decision to exclude them from the United Kingdom, or refuse to allow them to naturalise as a British citizen, is to seek judicial review. The problem is that our High Court does not have the capacity for closed proceedings. Where the decision in question has been made by the Secretary of State on the strength of sensitive evidence, the court cannot consider it. The JR claim is therefore stymied, to the satisfaction of neither party, nor to the interests of justice.

In the case of AHK, the High Court called upon Parliament to remedy this situation through legislation; hence, Clause 12. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has also supported this approach. The amendments before the House are intended to ensure a tidy transition from the old arrangements, towards the new arrangement in which SIAC will consider the application to review decisions such as these.

First, there is a jurisdictional matter relating to the United Kingdom’s Crown dependencies. Officials in the Isle of Man and Channel Islands have requested the power to extend the provisions in Clause 12 to their own territories by way of permissive extent. Accordingly, we should allow for these sections of the Bill to be so extended, with or without modification. The Government and our friends in the Crown dependencies are quite sure that we would not want inadvertently to create a loophole on the Isle of Man or Channel Islands whereby justice is done differently from the UK mainland.

These amendments also propose that the Bill’s rule-making power shall include provision for “transitional” exclusion and naturalisation cases. The Government are keen to allow for a seamless and fair transition from old arrangements to new. It would not do to have a two-tier system in operation, in which judicial review proceedings already before the courts would continue to be heard in the imperfect setting of the High Court, while decisions made after the commencement of Clause 12 would benefit from being heard in SIAC. There are a number of JRs already on the books of the High Court, with judges unable to consider key evidence on which the Secretary of State’s decision was based. Accordingly, it seems right and proper that, in these cases, the claimant be given an opportunity to apply to have their case heard afresh in SIAC, where a decision can be made that takes into account all of the relevant evidence.

There will also be a number of cases in which, for instance, a decision has been made to exclude someone shortly before the commencement of Clause 12, leaving them a window of opportunity for applying for a JR which runs over into the new arrangements. It would be untidy to allow these claims to be considered in the High Court, and would create a two-tier system. It would be preferable for the Secretary of State to be able to certify material as sensitive on or after commencement, thereby transferring the venue of redress to SIAC. I should add that the amendments will allow for the rule-making power to take effect—commence—from the day that the Bill receives Royal Assent. This is consistent with the rule-making power already set out in the Bill.

These amendments, while not altering the fundamental purpose of Clause 12, will ensure that we are fair when offering individuals a suitable avenue of redress in respect of decisions that have been made against them, and will eliminate the possibility of inconsistency as to how we go about that. I beg to move.

Amendment 88 agreed.

Clause 16 : Commencement, extent and short title

Amendment 89

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

89: Clause 16, page 12, line 4, leave out from beginning to “come” and insert “The following provisions—
(a) section 1 and Schedule 1, (b) sections 2 to 14,(c) section 15(1) (except so far as relating to paragraph 3A of Schedule 3),(d) Schedule 2, and(e) Schedule 3 (other than paragraph 3A of that Schedule),”

Amendment 89 agreed.

Amendment 89A not moved.

Amendments 90 to 92

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

90: Clause 16, page 12, line 7, at beginning insert “The following provisions—
(a) section 15(1) so far as relating to paragraph 3A of Schedule 3,(b) paragraph 3A of Schedule 3,(c) ”

91: Clause 16, page 12, line 9, leave out “subsection (4)” and insert “subsections (4) to (4B)”

92: Clause 16, page 12, line 17, at end insert—
“(4A) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for section 12 and paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 to extend, with or without modifications, to any of the Channel Islands or to the Isle of Man.
(4B) An Order under subsection (4A) may, in particular, include (with or without modifications) transitional provision of the kind permitted by paragraph 3A of Schedule 3.”

Amendments 90 to 92 agreed.

In the Title

Amendment 93

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

93: In the Title, line 3, leave out “provide for” and insert “make provision about”

Amendment 93 agreed.

House adjourned at 11.21 pm.