Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, I am required to make the usual announcement that if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2014
(10 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the Grand Committee do consider the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2014.
Relevant Document: 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, in moving that the Committee should consider the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2014, I will also speak to the Immigration (Employment of Adults Subject to Immigration Control) (Maximum Penalty) (Amendment) Order 2014.
Members of the Committee will remember that I came to the Grand Committee on 28 January to debate the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2011, which provides powers to charge for visa, immigration and nationality applications and services. I am here today to debate the specific fees charged within the scope of that order. I am happy to take points on any of the fees proposals set out in the Written Ministerial Statement of 24 February 2014, both those contained within these regulations and those in the Immigration and Nationality (Cost Recovery Fees) Regulations 2014, which have been laid separately before Parliament.
The fees proposals aim to strike the right balance between ensuring that our visa fees compare favourably with other countries and providing sufficient income to fund the system and improve services. We have sought to limit most increases to 4%. It might help noble Lords if I now describe those fees which have increased by more than 4%, which include the following. The first is the fee for dependants applying to extend their leave. We propose to remove the concession on fees for dependants applying at the same time as main applicants in the UK so that all dependants will pay the same as main applicants. This is consistent with the charging policy for applications made overseas and with separate dependant applications in the UK. Each individual within an application may receive an independent set of entitlements and will involve additional administration costs.
The second set of fees are those for UK premium services. The in-person and the priority service are optional services for people who wish to have their application expedited. The in-person fee is increased from £375 to £400 and the priority service fee from £275 to £300. We have also looked at the two-year and five-year visit visas, which will increase from £278 to £300 and from £511 to £544 respectively in order that the 10-year visit visa may be held at the current fee of £737. Long-term visit visas offer good value for money for frequent travellers, since a long-term visit visa fee is less than the cost of multiple short-term visit visas to cover the same period.
We are also introducing further concessions to encourage tourism and promote economic growth. There is to be a fee reduction for those who transit the UK without passing through border controls from £54 to £40. The fee for a visitor-in-transit visa and for those who need to enter the UK for a short period pending onward travel remains unchanged at £54.
I turn now to concessions for tier 2 applications where the applicant has a job on the shortage occupation list. It makes sense to encourage skilled overseas workers to fill these important roles until we can improve the skills and employability of the UK workforce. Some fees have been reduced in line with unit costs, including those for sponsorship, the transfer of conditions, travel documents and settlement visas for refugee dependent relatives.
I turn now to some new fees which we are introducing. The proposed fee for tier 2 leave applications for up to five years, in line with new rules that allow a tier 2 (general) or tier 2 (intra-company transfer—long term) certificate of sponsorship for up to five years is £1,028 for applications made overseas and £1,202 for in-UK applications. That is equivalent to two tier 2 applications for up to three years’ leave but means migrants only have to apply once. There is a new fee of £1,093 for dependants of Armed Forces personnel applying for leave to enter for settlement. A registered traveller service will offer expedited border clearance to regular visitors from low-risk countries; after completion of the Border Force pilot, the service will be charged at an annual registration fee of £50 per year later this year.
Following a review of nationality fees, we are introducing a revised charging structure in line with the entitlements allowed by each route. The fee for naturalisation as a British citizen will increase by 4% from £794 to £826. Registration as a British citizen provides a similar entitlement to naturalisation but, in recognition of the fact that certain people would qualify by right to apply, the proposed fee is 10% lower at £743. Applications for other categories of nationality, such as British overseas citizen and British Overseas Territories citizen, will be charged at 20% less than the fees for those applying for full citizenship. Fees for children will be 10% cheaper than the equivalent adult fee.
Finally, we are bringing fees for optional premium services for visa applications into our charging legislation. Fees will be at a single global rate rather than set locally.
The second instrument for noble Lords to consider in this single debate is the Immigration (Employment of Adults Subject to Immigration Control) (Maximum Penalty) (Amendment) Order 2014. Noble Lords will be familiar with the civil penalty scheme to prevent illegal working from recent debates on the Immigration Bill. We are pursuing a broad package of reforms to tackle illegal working. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and I see a common objective in dealing with this scourge. Some measures are in the Bill, such as strengthening debt recovery and streamlining objections and appeals. Other measures concern changes to secondary legislation, including today’s proposal to increase the maximum penalty from £10,000 to £20,000 for each illegal worker.
We can only deliver a comprehensive response to illegal immigration if we work with UK employers to deny employment to those without the right to work in this country. Illegal working is the main incentive for illegal immigration and often involves exploitation and unfair competition. The civil penalty scheme encourages employers to comply with their obligations to check the right to work of all employees, without criminalising those who make a mistake. Under the scheme, an employer can establish a statutory excuse by undertaking specific document checks. The legislation provides a separate criminal offence for those who knowingly use illegal labour.
When an illegal worker has been identified and the employer has no statutory excuse, a financial penalty will be levied according to a statutory code of practice. Employers will have the right to object and, separately, to appeal to the court against the civil penalty. The maximum penalty was set six years ago at £10,000 for each illegal worker and has remained the same since. The Government are concerned that this penalty framework no longer provides a sufficient deterrent and does not reflect the full economic advantage derived from using illegal labour or the wider costs to society.
We intend to make the scheme tougher on rogue employers by increasing the level of the maximum penalty to £20,000 for each illegal worker. As is the case now, the maximum will be levied only on those who breach the legislation on more than one occasion.
We are also strengthening the penalty scale to ensure that higher penalties are applied where employers fail to conduct proper right-to-work checks. A revised draft code of practice that specifies the factors to be considered in determining the amount of the penalty will shortly be laid before the House. The scheme will continue to incorporate sensible penalty reductions for those employers who actively co-operate with the Home Office when failings in their recruitment processes come to light.
Legal migration brings economic, cultural and social benefits to the UK. We will continue to send a clear signal overseas that this country welcomes genuine visitors and the brightest and best migrants. I believe these instruments provide a basis for a sustainable immigration system that will command public support and I commend them to the Committee.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. In some ways the orders are fairly straightforward. The Minister will be pleased to know that we certainly support their principle and do not intend to oppose them. However, it would be helpful to have further clarification on detail. The Minister is smiling because he knows that I always seek further clarification and he would not expect me to do otherwise.
We have just finished the Committee stage of the Immigration Bill and it is helpful to have this debate against that backdrop. Many of the issues we have been discussing in the Bill have common themes with these orders.
On the first order, I understand that there is a flat 4% increase across the board. I tried very hard when the Minister was speaking to try to do some calculations in my head but the maths was beyond me at such short notice. It is projected that some increases will be more than 4% and some will be less. Is the Minister able to give me more detail? I do not expect it today; I would be happy with a more detailed breakdown in writing of the figures he gave for the percentage increases for different kinds of visas, given that it is supposed to be a 4% increase across the board.
I understand that this is an income-generating measure. I entirely agree with the Minister’s point that those who benefit should pay the cost; I have no difficulty with that. However, when reading the impact assessment I struggle to understand how much of this is to cover a shortfall in Home Office funding from the Government and how much is to cover the costs and ensure that this is self-financing. The impact assessment makes it clear that funding for the immigration system is going to reduce over the five-year period of the current comprehensive spending review. Over the CSR period financial planning requires the Home Office to deliver the maximum amount of fees agreed with the Treasury under the CSR. Any income above that amount is surrendered to the Treasury’s Consolidated Fund. I am trying to understand how much additional income the Minister thinks would be generated from the fees being proposed in this order today, as well as the impact of those increased fees.
I have already said that we support the principle. However, during the passage of the Immigration Bill the impact of the Government’s immigration policies on overseas higher education students has generated considerable discussion in your Lordships’ House. I would be keen to know what information is available to the Government and how robust the evidence is on whether foreign students are going to be deterred by the increase in fees. I know there are figures on applications in the impact assessment, but I am not sure how those are arrived at. More information about the process used and clarification of the figures would be helpful.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thank the noble Baroness for her support and general welcome for these measures. I appreciate her comments and have, for me, a surprisingly large number of answers. I hope that the Committee will bear with me on them.
First, I must say that I did not refer to “a surge” but “a scourge” of illegal migration. I hope that the record shows that because that is what I meant to say. I do not want to get my notes muddled up and will therefore deal with the fees regulations first and then talk about the order on illegal working. I have a fair amount of information and will make sure that the noble Baroness receives details of the percentage increases, which actually were set out in the Written Ministerial Statement of 24 February. I am sorry that I do not have a copy of it to hand but will certainly make sure that I send it to her.
Secondly, the noble Baroness asked how much of the income generated is to cover a shortfall. She is quite right: we use this money to help support immigration services in general, which are quite expensive. If we want effective immigration control which efficiently delivers a speedy resolution of difficult cases, we have to make sure that we have the right resources to do it. The fee increases are expected to raise approximately £50 million per annum.
The noble Baroness went on to talk about that familiar subject: student visa fees and student numbers. If I appeared a little breathless when I came into the Committee, it was because I had been talking to a certain noble Lord about this very issue. I do not seem to be able to move around the House without talking about it. Our view is that there is no direct relationship between the visa fee and volume demand at this price level because the major costs are not visa fees or even the health charge that noble Lords have spoken about. Independent research suggests that visa pricing is only a marginal consideration for students and the UK is one of the most desirable places to come to study. This is an argument I have been making in the Immigration Bill. University applications are up 7% as of last September. We know that there is a problem in the Indian subcontinent as a whole, and that is reflected in the Australian experience. Elsewhere, numbers are almost the same. We have had a considerable surge in the numbers from China, which has more or less offset the decline from India. We are confident we have got the balance right.
Visas are not used as a method whereby we limit migration. We have not targeted tier 4 applicants. The 4% increase that applies to other fees also applies here, so it is a standard across-the-board increase. We set fees based on the value of the successful application to the migrant and, to that extent, it is a market-led calculation.
I think the noble Baroness welcomed the increase in fees as long as it was going to maintain or, if possible, improve service standards. We have put measures in place. There has been considerable organisational change in the old UK Border Agency. UKVI is now in-house in the Home Office, and our performance against service standards is improving. In the past year we have made great progress in reducing the stocks of in-country case work and backlogs. A straightforward application made today would be dealt with within service standards.
The noble Baroness asked whether we have considered joining Schengen or have considered our relationship with the Schengen visa system.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I was not suggesting that we join Schengen. I was just taking about the comparative costs of visas.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Our visa product is competitive with Schengen in price and entitlement. We are running a pilot in China trialling ways to encourage tourists to apply for a Schengen visa and also to travel to the UK. This allows selected travel agents—that is fairly straightforward in the Chinese experience—to make offline applications for tour groups using the same form as they use for Schengen. We are trying to facilitate the use of Schengen applications in China and are monitoring that because some people say that having to make two applications for separate visas is a deterrent. However, I am pleased that the noble Baroness is not suggesting joining Schengen. In fact, I have to say that I did not think that she had said that, either—but my papers suggested that she might have done.
On the question of illegal working, I have the figures, which show an increase in particular years. They started off at 1,722 in 2008-09; the next year, they were 2,339, while in 2010-11 they were 1,898 and in 2011-12, 1,342. In 2012-13, they were 1,270 but last year, up to 28 February—we are still in 2013-14—the number was 1,862. I shall make sure that the record has the figures available.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I did not quite catch them, but I shall read the record in Hansard. Does that suggest that from 2010 until last year, the figures for actions against those who employ illegal workers went down?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Yes, that is certainly the case. They dropped in that period and they have now increased markedly, so the latest figure is on track to be the second highest since the scheme was introduced.
We are taking steps to increase our focus on illegal working. With the creation of the Immigration Enforcement Directorate last year, we have already seen a significant increase of 47% in illegal working operations in 2013, compared with 2012, and a corresponding increase in civil penalties involved. Around 10,000 civil penalty notices were issued to employers since the start of the scheme until the end of 2013. The gross value of penalties levied during that time is in excess of £90 million, but the net recoverable value is £70.8 million. During the period from 2008 to 2013, almost £30 million was collected. Civil penalties to the value of £20 million were written off. The noble Baroness is right to draw attention to that factor. That happened during the previous Labour Government as well as during this Government, often because the companies evade the penalty by dissolving their business. The remainder is still subject to recovery; we are still pursuing some of these people—but we are using the Immigration Bill to make it easier to enforce civil penalty debts in the courts. The change will accelerate the process of enforcement, reduce costs and provide clarity.
Lord Hussain (LD)
I wanted to clarify one point. What consideration has been given to how to implement the penalties on small employers whose sole income may not be as much as the penalties being introduced of £20,000?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Whether you are a small or large employer, it is clearly illegal to employ people who are not entitled to work here. The penalty regime is designed to provide the enforcement authorities with flexibility in how they apply the scheme. The whole point of the exercise is not to drive people out of business but to prevent businesses that gain an economic advantage by employing illegal workers from gaining that advantage and to discourage them—and to make sure that they have proper checks in place, small or big business, to make sure that they have proper records in these cases.
I would argue that in some ways it is easier for a small employer to have a rigorous regime, because people are more likely to be working alongside each other in small businesses than in larger organisations. We are trying to work with business. I hope that my noble friend will agree with me that the employment of illegal labour is a scourge that needs addressing and that, whether it is in large or small businesses, we are right to deal with it. They are treated equally, and we allow payments in instalments to reflect the impact on the business. I should just mention that.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
If the Minister has other points to make on the questions I asked about the penalty notices then I may be jumping the gun, but so far he has only repeated the information that I spoke of and has not given any of the information that was asked for in the debate. One question was about the money written off. The Minister in the other place said that £7.2 million was written off when companies were dissolved. I asked in particular whether we did any checks on the directors of those companies to see whether they set up other companies. I also asked what the £12.8 million remaining out of the £20 million written off was for. In the other place, the Minister, James Brokenshire, just said it was for “different reasons”. When we are writing off £12.8 million, I do not think that that is an adequate reply.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I cannot really add directly to the information that the noble Baroness already has but will certainly write to her on the matter. We are tackling phoenixism—the arrangement whereby a business is here today, gone tomorrow and there again the following week. We are intervening to prevent companies dissolving to evade penalties, which is a common enough phenomenon, and we act with the Insolvency Service to disbar directors who are clearly not prepared to abide by the law in this area. As I said earlier, the Immigration Bill accelerates debt recovery by enabling us to register the penalty as an order of the court. This avoids lengthy court processes, as we can insist on payment on a much easier basis than by having to use the court.
I have tried to answer a number of the questions but may not have answered them all. To the extent that I have failed to do so, I will make a point of writing to the noble Baroness and to my noble friend so that they are in the loop on this matter. I beg to move.
Immigration (Employment of Adults Subject to Immigration Control) (Maximum Penalty) (Amendment) Order 2014
(10 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the Grand Committee do consider the Immigration (Employment of Adults Subject to Immigration Control) (Maximum Penalty) (Amendment) Order 2014.
Relevant Documents: 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Combined Authorities (Consequential Amendments) Order 2014
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
That the Grand Committee do consider the Combined Authorities (Consequential Amendments) Order 2014.
Relevant documents: 23rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce the draft Combined Authorities (Consequential Amendments) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 10 March. In speaking to it I shall also speak to the other three orders in my name on the Order Paper relating to the three proposed combined authorities.
The orders we are considering this afternoon, if approved, will bring about the establishment of combined authorities in three major metropolitan areas: across Merseyside and Liverpool, around Sheffield and South Yorkshire and in West Yorkshire. The purpose of these combined authorities is to enable the councils and their partners in each of these areas to work together more effectively to promote economic growth, to secure more investment and to create more jobs. These combined authorities will be central to delivering the outcomes in the city deals that the Government have agreed with each of the areas. They will also provide the governance needed for any future growth deals drawing on resources of the local growth fund.
Each combined authority will be responsible for economic development, regeneration, and transport across the functional economic area. All the councils in each area have agreed that their combined authority will be able to exercise their functions on economic development and regeneration. The combined authority will also have the transport functions currently exercised by the area’s integrated transport authority. That integrated transport authority will be abolished when the combined authority is established.
The process for setting up a combined authority is set out in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. Crucially, all the drive and initiative has to come from the places involved. It is what we call a bottom-up process. It is a process where the first steps are taken by the councils involved. The first step is for the councils to undertake a governance review in their area looking at how decisions are taken on economic development and regeneration, and on transport. This review will allow the councils to decide whether the combined authority approach is the most effective way for them to work together and with their public and private partners, particularly the local enterprise partnership for the area concerned to promote economic growth and prosperity. All the councils concerned have followed this process and concluded that a combined authority is the right way to work together and with their partners to drive growth.
This Government’s approach is one of localism, which reflects our belief that residents and their representatives are best placed to decide what happens in their area. Where councils come forward with a proposal for a combined authority—like the three before us—which commands wide local support and we consider that the statutory conditions have been met, we invite Parliament to approve a draft order to establish the proposed combined authority. If, in the future, local councils decide that changes are in the area’s best interest—perhaps another council joining, or one leaving—and statutory conditions have been met, we would bring an order back to Parliament for approval to enable the change to take place.
As the 2009 Act requires, each group of councils concerned have provided the Government with detailed information about how they wish the combined authority to operate, to take decisions and be open, transparent and accountable. The Government have consulted on each proposal, and each proposal has been considered in the light of relevant statutory conditions to make sure that the proposal: is likely to improve the exercise of statutory functions relating to transport, economic development and regeneration in the area; is likely to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of transport in the area; and is likely to improve the economic conditions in the area. In each case I can tell the Committee that the Government consider that these tests are unambiguously met. The Government have also had regard to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities and to secure effective and convenient local government. Furthermore, we are clear that in each of these areas the combined authority would command wide local support—from local businesses, other public bodies and from local people and their democratically elected representatives.
I turn to the draft orders themselves. Three of them provide for the establishment respectively for combined authorities across the areas of Greater Merseyside, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire. Each of these three orders specifies the formal, legal name for the combined authority, to which all the councils concerned have consented. But—and I know that this is an important matter and one of great interest to many noble Lords in the Grand Committee today—how that authority will brand itself, including the use of any brand name, will be entirely a matter for the combined authority.
Each of these three draft orders also makes provision for the abolition of the integrated transport authority for the area, about the transport and economic functions the combined authority will have and about its membership and constitutional arrangements. A combined authority will be governed by its members and subject to scrutiny by one or more overview and scrutiny committees with a membership drawn from members of the councils concerned to hold the combined authority to account. Good governance practice will mean that such committees will be politically balanced, enabling appropriate representation of councils’ minority parties in the governance of combined authorities.
Combined authorities are also subject to the same transparency and audit requirements as local authorities, so they will be audited by an external independent auditor. Meetings of the combined authority are open to the public in the same way as local authority meetings, and in future people will have the right to film and use social media to report on council meetings. This applies equally to meetings of combined authorities.
Finally, the fourth draft order simply makes amendments to transport legislation which are applicable to all combined authorities.
In conclusion, these draft orders will enable the councils concerned and their partners to work together more effectively to deliver economic growth across their areas. Establishing these combined authorities is what the councils and their partners in these areas want. They want this because they believe it is the most effective way for them to promote economic growth. In creating their combined authority, they are putting the promotion of economic growth at the heart of all that they do. This is a priority for them. It is a priority for the Government. I commend the draft orders to the Committee and beg to move.
Lord Storey (LD)
I am very grateful for the comments from my noble friend. I am also delighted to hear the Minister address a number of issues that have caused concern among Members. We are very much in favour of combined authorities—they are an important economic opportunity for local areas. However, the thing that concerned us most was the citation. The word “region” is apparently no longer acceptable, and when in my area there was discussion about what name would be acceptable, it was not possible to come up with an agreed name. The notion of trying to market and get external investment into the Liverpool region using the citation “Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral”, would be rather difficult. I was going to ask my noble friend whether that was purely a legal name and whether these areas could choose whatever name they wanted to get this external investment and marketing which has been so important, certainly in my area, for the past 10 or so years, and she has said—it is quite important—that they can have whatever brand name they choose. That is hugely important.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry: we now have to interrupt proceedings. We shall reconvene in 10 minutes.
Lord Storey
I was just turning to the issue of transparency, having dealt with the issue of branding and flexibility. I was delighted to hear my noble friend talk about the issues of scrutiny and independent audit. I assume that the minutes of the proceedings of the combined authority are,
“kept in such form as the Combined Authority may determine”.
I presume that that therefore means that they would be open to press and public for scrutiny as well. That is quite an important matter. The same will be true of the role of transport, which will now be part of the combined authority. The Minister in the other place got it completely wrong when he suggested that Merseytravel had purchased £1 million worth of Beatles memorabilia which are worth only £300,000. Actually, it was the transport authority that did it, not the council. With transparency, issues like that will be dealt with and we will know which council or organisation is responsible. I am delighted with the orders and I thank the Minister for her helpful replies.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Storey, not least because in the 1970 general election, what seems like a million years ago now, we were both students and friends, and I sent him out on his first election day experience. Sad to say, he returned later that day minus the wheels of his car. I thought that that might put him off politics for the rest of his life, but it did not do so. On this occasion I am happy to be able to concur with what he has said, and I thank the Minister for the way that she introduced the orders.
Personally, I entirely approve of and agree with the decision to allow local authorities to create combined authorities. I think that they will encourage strategic cohesion and be a catalyst for economic development, notably job creation and transport, as we have just heard. It will allow the regions to speak to central government with a more united and stronger voice. It will create partnership between boroughs, in this case referring specifically to those on Merseyside where it will create cohesion and partnership between six boroughs, and it does not give disproportionate power to any of them. It is worth saying in this context that some 84% of those living within the city region work there.
I was struck by a report for Liverpool City Council produced in August 2013 by the Mayor of Liverpool, Joe Anderson OBE, which he has been good enough to share with me. He states:
“A Combined Authority is not a merger or a takeover of existing local authority functions nor would be a ‘Super-Council’. Instead it would seek to complement local authority functions in economic development regeneration and transport and enhance the effectiveness of the way they are discharged”.
I was struck when reading that report and an earlier one produced in July 2013 by the reasons given by the mayor why a combined authority would be so worth while. In the earlier report he states that,
“current governance is not helping rebalance the”—
Liverpool city region—
“economy quickly enough; the structural issues highlighted remain issues; a more collaborative approach is required for change; and there is a lack of coordinated delivery structures at present”.
In the August report I see that he points out some of the other challenges facing the Liverpool city region and talks about the opportunities that would be created if such a body was to be set up.
As a one-time member of Merseyside County Council and Liverpool City Council and as a Liverpool Member of the House of Commons for 18 years, I was saddened to see the title of the Liverpool combined authority as it appears on the order which has been laid before the Grand Committee. The Minister said by way of a curtain raiser to her excellent speech that she thought that this was one of the issues that was most likely to be raised. Whatever else might be said in its favour, the title, “Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral Combined Authority”, hardly trips off the tongue. This nine-word title is not just clumsy, it is a missed opportunity. This is not just about nomenclature or that ugly word “branding”, which has been used. In the early 1970s when Merseyside County Council was established, it puzzled me then that while Greater Manchester capitalised on a name that immediately told everyone in the world where it was, we were not to be known as “Greater Liverpool”, but as Merseyside. It was a decision based on petty rivalries and parochialism rather than on what was in the best interests of the common good. That lost opportunity weakened Liverpool and actually played into the hands of some of those who were agitating against the city and were exploiting some of the problems in the community during the 1980s, and which disfigured Liverpool’s reputation. Liverpool is at the very heart of the conurbation, and if a body’s heart is not well cared for, all the other organs will fail, too. During the past two decades the regeneration of Liverpool has become a sine qua non for the regeneration of surrounding boroughs. That success story is something that everyone in the six boroughs should be proud of and celebrate.
I am always struck that wherever I have travelled, even in remote parts of Africa, Latin America and Asia, Liverpool’s name immediately elicits a response. It is synonymous with sport, music and culture. Just think of the extraordinary success in which the noble Lord, Lord Storey, was involved in 2008—the Capital of Culture. I do not think that anywhere that has been designated a Capital of Culture has been able to rival the success of that year. Think of the city’s maritime legacy and its world-class universities. I declare an interest as holding an honorary chair at Liverpool John Moores University. Liverpool’s international reputation is further enhanced by the extraordinary work of its school of tropical medicine. I know from my time as chairman of the Merseyside Special Investment Fund that the city’s economy is in good shape, while its directly elected mayor is proving to be a good ambassador for the city and its interests. He has also been chair of the better-named Liverpool City Region cabinet for the past three years. That post of elected mayor was created as a result of the Liverpool Democracy Commission, which I helped to found and served on. It has proved to be a great success for the city of Liverpool.
In 1207, King John gave Liverpool its royal charter. Since then, there never has been a time in which Liverpool has not been the engine room for the region. It correctly describes itself as “the whole world in one city”. I agree with the Liverpool Echo’s assessment that the city is working,
“at a pace we’ve not seen for, arguably, the last 100 years”,
and that,
“it’s growing, it’s exciting and it’s the envy of most of its rivals”.
It is important to underline how vibrant the surrounding boroughs remain. In my professional life, I worked in two of those boroughs and, through the good citizenship award scheme that I founded at my university, I have been able to spend a lot of time in those neighbouring boroughs. The award scheme underlines what wonderful young people are emerging all over the region. It is their future that is at stake here, and it is their talent that the combined authority has to harness.
The new authority needs to be instantaneously recognisable. It needs a name that carries clout. It needs a name that exudes confidence and strength. People might mistakenly ask, “What’s in a name?”. “Everything” is the answer. A tongue-twisting piece of gobbledegook is no substitute for a name that would command immediate recognition, and I therefore hope that what the noble Baroness has said this afternoon—that it would be within the discretion of the authority to choose a name that resonates—will be heard loud and clear by the leaders of those six boroughs.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I strongly welcome these draft orders, and the fact that the north-east draft order is on its way, making four orders in total, with the potential for more to come in the months ahead. As we have heard, combined authorities are important on the grounds of geography and scale because they reflect natural regions and travel-to-work areas. In terms of scale, so many councils are comparatively small that investment and risk management are much more difficult for them, so pooling with neighbours is a much better way in which to proceed.
I noted that the leader of Manchester City Council has said that this Government have devolved more in three years than the previous Government did in 13 years. He is right. The importance of this devolution is that it is essential to help to drive growth outside London and the south-east effectively. Combined authorities, working closely with their LEPs, will be responsible for regeneration and economic development, and for strategic transport investment and management, as the Minister confirmed. That is a hugely welcome change. I have been involved in the first and second waves of city deals, which have been very important in increasing the understanding that councils have with their LEPs in terms of their leadership role in promoting economic development. I have no doubt at all that the creation of combined authorities will help enormously with that process.
I would like to raise one important issue of principle with the Minister, which concerns the membership of the combined authority. I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say earlier. I understand that the overview and scrutiny committees will be politically balanced so that minority parties in councils will have representation in the governance of the combined authority. Can the Minister say, either now or at a later date in writing, a little more about how proportionality will work, whether an opposition member will be required to chair them and how agendas will be constructed to ensure that debate is not stifled by individual party political interest? That is a very important issue and there have been a lot of discussions around it.
There is a strong case for saying that minority parties should have access to the main deliberations of the combined authorities. However, it would help significantly to know now that the Government understand the issue and are prepared to ensure that the rights of minority parties are guaranteed in the orders when they are finalised, either now or at a later date. In terms of principle, it is important, as my noble friend Lord Storey said, that the public have confidence that this is not to be the creation of a one-party state.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these important orders in a clear and comprehensive way. As the noble Lords, Lord Shipley, Lord Alton and Lord Storey, said, and as would have been clear from the debate in the House of Commons, we thoroughly support these orders. Indeed, why would we not, given that the authorities involved are largely Labour and that the primary legislation from which they spring—the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act—was legislation of the previous Government? We acknowledge that the work of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, has spurred the coalition Government to take the opportunities that that legislation offers, and we acknowledge the Government’s current commitment to localism. I am bound to say that those of us who spent many hours ploughing through the Localism Bill and its detail will recall that it seemed to us then to be as much about power for the Secretary of State as about freedoms for local government, but it would be wrong to be too churlish on this occasion.
As for growth, of course we welcome the improvement in the economy. We will have to see how sustainable it is and how much of it genuinely comes from a rebalancing of the economy, a point touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. We agree that local authorities working together in the interests of their communities can be a real engine for growth, particularly outside London. As my honourable friend Andy Sawford put it when this matter was debated in the Commons:
“The new combined authorities will bring many benefits, including the strong and visible collective leadership of an area with democratic accountability and an influential and unified voice. That leadership will be able to have a single conversation with the Government, national agencies and business leaders and to align decision making and economic growth at a strategic level”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/03/14; col. 707.]
As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, combined authorities should enable more effective engagement with LEPs and facilitate delivery of city deals.
The issue that York is currently a non-constituent council in the West Yorkshire Combined Authority was the subject of some discussion in the other place, particularly following an earlier intervention from my right honourable friend Hilary Benn. We took it from the Minister’s reply in another place that the current problem is that combined authorities require whole local authority areas that share the same boundaries. The Minister undertook to consult in the next few weeks about how the legislation could be changed to address that problem. Perhaps the Minister could add a little more about the propositions that are being developed in that regard.
We welcome the commitment to see the combined authorities brought within the VAT refund scheme, which is another matter that was discussed in the other place.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their strong words of welcome in support of these orders. I shall start by acknowledging a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He quoted a report stressing that a combined authority is not a merger. I agree with that. These combined authorities open the way for more effective collaboration between the councils and their partners to promote economic growth and secure investment for their area. This is about collaboration. It is most definitely not a merger.
My noble friend Lord Storey again flagged the question of the naming of these combined authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, went into greater detail about his concerns and said that the statutory names on the orders do not trip off the tongue. The most important thing for me to do is to be absolutely clear in restating what I have said and to answer directly the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that the decision about what a combined authority might want to call itself will be a matter for that combined authority. The names on the orders are the legal names, but we feel that it is right for these combined authorities to decide the best way to—I know the noble Lord did not like the word “brand”—present themselves and their local people to the rest of the country and indeed the world. As the noble Lord said, there is widespread awareness of Liverpool around the world. On that, I can be absolutely clear, and I hope I have reassured noble Lords on that point.
My noble friend Lord Storey asked for some assurances around accountability and transparency. I am happy to confirm that these orders and other existing legislation place robust requirements on the combined authorities. To the point made both by him and by my noble friend Lord Shipley, I can say that the combined authority will be governed by its members and subject to scrutiny by one or more overview and scrutiny committee, with membership drawn from members of the councils concerned, to hold the combined authority to account. Good governance practice will mean that such committees will be politically balanced, enabling appropriate representation of councils’ minority parties in the governance of combined authorities.
My noble friend Lord Shipley asked some specific questions around how proportionality will work, who would choose the chairman of the committee and how agendas would be decided. I understand why he raises these questions and certainly acknowledge to him the importance of these points. However, what he has outlined is what I would describe as, and what would be commonly described as, good practice. What we are clear about is that it is for the individual councils and the combined authority itself to decide how they will put in place their arrangements. I urge them to take the good practice approach that we would all expect and want them to follow, not least because of the strong welcome that we all have for this new governance structure.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
Can the Minister clarify further how it will be possible to see minority representation when in a combined authority there is only single-party representation—and, therefore, only leaders of that party are part of the combined authority? Is it not therefore particularly important that there should be some specificity when it comes down to the openness of meetings, and some requirement that meetings should be able to be accessible by the public and the media?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The noble Lord raises a couple of points there. The point that I am getting to with the overview and scrutiny committee is that it would be made up of representation from the various authorities that make up membership of the combined authority. The scrutiny committee that will hold the combined authority to account will be made up not of the chairman or the leaders of the different local authorities but of people from the different parties represented in that local authority. So there will be a variety of political parties represented on the scrutiny committee that holds the combined authority to account.
As to access to meetings of the combined authority, I was going to come on to that, because it was a point that my noble friend Lord Storey also raised. They will be subject to exactly the same transparency requirements as local authorities. So, yes, the meetings of combined authorities will be open to the public; this is a statutory requirement. Their minutes will be published in exactly the same way as local authority minutes will be published—and, indeed, they will be subject to the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act in exactly the same way as local authority meetings are at this time. I hope that before I sit down I will be able to confirm that the scrutiny committees will also be open to scrutiny in the same way.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, referred to West Yorkshire and York in particular. He acknowledged there that we are seeking what we describe as a legislative reform order to amend primary legislation on combined authorities to enable a council that is not contiguous with other members of the combined authority but which is in the same functional economic area to become a constituent council of that combined authority if it wishes. As a first step, we will be consulting on proposals for such a legislative reform order, which will be an opportunity for those with views on this to put them to government.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, also referred, I think, to the combined authorities’ ability to reclaim VAT. I confirm that they will not be disadvantaged by VAT legislation. Last week, the Government launched a consultation on the proposal to add Greater Manchester and these proposed combined authorities to the existing VAT refund scheme for local authorities, which can be achieved through secondary legislation. The consultation closes on 18 April and, following that, if the Government decide to proceed, parliamentary approval will be sought to give effect to this and to enable established combined authorities to recover VAT, just as the constituent local councils can.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, also sought confirmation that local authorities and the ITAs that will be abolished would not be subjected to any disadvantage around tax arrangements. I will see whether the answer to that emerges, but if it does not, I will write to the noble Lord. I can confirm that there will be no disadvantage. I am nearly at the point where I might be able to avoid a letter, which would be great.
Going back to the point that I was talking about previously, I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and all noble Lords, that the scrutiny committee will be open to the public, as will be the combined authority meetings.
Several noble Lords mentioned devolution and localism more generally. The Localism Act 2011 devolved powers not only to local authorities but to local communities. We are interested in discussing with local authorities what more can be done to empower them to deliver economic growth and take their communities forward. We certainly hope that more of the combined authorities will come forward. As my noble friend Lord Shipley said, the combined authority covering local authorities in the north-east will be with us very shortly. I hope that I have been able to address all the key issues that have been raised.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I may be able to avoid the Minister having to write. I am not sure that she dealt with the point about funding and whether the opportunity runs beyond the existing opportunities in relation to transport funding. In particular, given what is effectively a recent change, as levying bodies, presumably these are the very sorts of levies that have to be taken into account by individual local authorities in judging whether or not their council tax increases are excessive. Within the overall constraints—whether we agree with them or not—that the Government have imposed, there is an effective cap, subject to referendums, on what the combined authorities would charge in their constituent authorities. Should that not be an argument for perhaps some relaxation in relation to prudential borrowing for so long as it could be funded through the levy mechanism?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The noble Lord is right to say that I had omitted to respond to him on that important point. We are absolutely clear that levies should be included in the regime for the consideration of council tax levels. Levies will therefore be caught by the council tax referendum policy. We are absolutely clear that local people should be able to have their say on any proposed excessive increase in council tax, whether caused through a levy on the council or by any other reason. Certainly in Leeds, where this has been a particular debate, we are confident that the measures proposed in that area would be possible without an increase above 2%. If a combined authority wanted to propose an increase above 2%, it would be open to it to conduct a referendum.
Lord Shipley
Will the Minister give further guidance on the overview and scrutiny structure? She referred to good practice. Will she write to the councils that form combined authorities about what that good practice might entail? In particular, will she advise that having an opposition chair of scrutiny, which anyway is common practice in many councils for the overview and scrutiny process, might be recommended by the department? Will she also advise on whether all members who are appointed to serve on an overview and scrutiny panel are able to place items on the agenda? I am seeking to avoid a situation in which the majority party on the combined authority chairs the overview and scrutiny panel and then controls the items placed on the agenda. Good practice is what I would expect to happen, and I am sure that in the case of the combined authorities orders we have today, and get in the future, that would be deemed to be good practice, but it might help if the Minister defined clearly what good practice actually means so that everybody can be aware of it, including those authorities that are yet to put in their proposals.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My noble friend raises some very important points. As a point of principle, I or one of my ministerial colleagues would be happy to write to the combined authorities, and I will discuss with them the precise detail to put in such a letter.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
The exchange has prompted a thought. Presumably the combined authority will have to have an audit panel, subject to the constraints or requirements of the recent Act.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Yes, it will. I commend these orders to the Grand Committee.
Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority Order 2014
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
That the Grand Committee do consider the Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority Order 2014.
Relevant documents: 23rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral Combined Authority Order 2014
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
That the Grand Committee do consider the Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral Combined Authority Order 2014.
Relevant documents: 23rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
West Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2014
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
That the Grand Committee do consider the West Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2014.
Relevant documents: 23rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Urban Development Corporations in England (Area and Constitution) Order 2014
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
That the Grand Committee do consider the Urban Development Corporations in England (Area and Constitution) Order 2014
Relevant documents: 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce to the Committee the Urban Development Corporations in England (Area and Constitution) Order 2014, laid before this House on 10 February 2014.
The order formally revokes the statutory instruments under which the West Northamptonshire Development Corporation, London Thames Gateway Development Corporation and Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation were established in 2003. The former urban development corporations of London Thames Gateway and Thurrock Thames Gateway closed for business on 28 February 2013 and 31 March 2012 respectively. The corporations were subsequently formally dissolved. West Northamptonshire Development Corporation will close on 31 March 2014 and be formally dissolved on 31 July 2014. These three urban development corporations were set up to promote and enable growth in their areas, unlock economic potential and drive local regeneration to deliver new homes, businesses and jobs. Their role was always intended to be time-limited, with a planned lifespan of up to 10 years. The purpose of this order is to make the necessary legislative changes to the statute book by revoking the statutory instruments that set up these three urban development corporations and provided them with their powers.
This order is linked to another two orders specifically related to the West Northamptonshire Development Corporation. The first of these is the West Northamptonshire Development Corporation transfer order, which transfers the corporation’s property, rights and liabilities to relevant local authorities in the area and comes into effect on 27 March. That is a negative SI that is not the subject of today’s debate. The second is the West Northamptonshire Development Corporation dissolution order, which formally closes down the corporation but allows for any residual winding-up tasks, including the preparation of the final report and accounts by a skeleton team and board members on the audit and risk committee. That dissolution order is not subject to any parliamentary procedure and will come into effect on 31 July.
The three urban development corporations achieved much in their lifetimes, but their lifespans have reached a natural end. They leave a legacy that local authorities and other public sector bodies can build on as we enter a different phase. Their achievements allow us to pass responsibility to locally led delivery bodies that are already rooted in their areas and can be responsive to the needs of their local communities.
Urban development corporations are only one of several ways in which we can support major developments, and this Government intend to use them only sparingly, when they are the appropriate model to deliver growth. For example, as the Chancellor announced last week, we will set up a new urban development corporation that will work with local communities and has been welcomed by them to drive and accelerate progress at Ebbsfleet and deliver up to 15,000 homes along with new jobs and infrastructure.
This order is the final step to fulfil the legislative requirement to revoke the respective area and constitutions that established the three urban development corporations. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for moving this order. When I first looked at the Explanatory Memorandum, I assumed that we were in effect dealing with two orders because the negative order as well as the affirmative order is covered in it. I hope that the Minister will therefore allow me to raise one or two questions about the West Northamptonshire Development Corporation (Transfer of Property, Rights and Liabilities) Order 2014. As we have heard, the urban development corporation order would appear to revoke the order which established three further development areas. The Thurrock Development Corporation was dissolved in 2012 and the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation was dissolved in 2013. In each case, the property, rights and liabilities were transferred to other bodies. However, in the case of the West Northamptonshire Development Corporation, it appears that some assets and powers have already been transferred to successor bodies. One of the orders completes the transfer and enables the revocation of the third urban development order.
As a general point, if each of the development corporations is devoid of assets and has been dissolved, is the revocation order just a tidying-up exercise to prevent them being revived at some stage in the future? I think the noble Baroness said that they have a 10-year life, so no wonder if they expire anyway. Given that there will be nothing in them, why is there a need formally to deal with them in this manner?
Specifically in relation to the West Northamptonshire DC transfer order, a reference is made to a dissolution date, being a dissolution by an order made under Section 166(1A) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, so presumably that order will be laid in due course. I think that that may have been what the Minister referred to when introducing the order. Can she say why paragraph 2 of the West Northamptonshire DC order is being revoked separately from the residual revocation which is to take place with effect from 31 July 2014?
On paragraph 4.1 of the transfer order, can the Minister say what remaining property rights and liabilities are to be transferred to the Secretary of State? Also, what is the final destination of the property, rights and liabilities which are on the retained list? Similarly, what is the position in relation to contracts of employment and pension schemes under paragraph 3(3)(b), given that the import of those arrangements is obvious? What is the position of West Northamptonshire DC if it has not completed the winding-up of its affairs by 31 July 2014, or is there an inevitability about that? Paragraph 8.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum indicates ongoing discussions between Northampton Borough Council and the Department for Communities and Local Government. What are the points at issue and have they now been dealt with satisfactorily?
More generally, can the Minister confirm that there will be no adverse financial consequences for any of the local authority transferees from these arrangements, including their prudential borrowing power and capacity? Will that be affected in any way by these transfers? It is presumed again that there are no taxation consequences for the West Northamptonshire DC, but perhaps the Minister can confirm that. I ask the question simply because if an entity is transferring a range of assets to another entity, typically if it were a private sector entity, valuations and capital gains tax would have to be dealt with, as well as other issues. I presume that that does not come into play with the sort of body we are dealing with here, but it would be good to have that confirmation. Lastly, what measures are the Government putting in hand to estimate whether the successor arrangements are delivering on regeneration?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for his remarks. I thought that he might have some questions about the orders that are referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum but are not before the Grand Committee for debate today, so I have some information which I hope will be helpful to him.
One of the first points he made concerned why we are introducing the order formally to bring these corporations to an end. Although there was an expectation that they would be time-limited when they were set up, no specific time was fixed for them at the point of their creation. Therefore, it is necessary to draw them formally to a close.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am very grateful to the Minister for a very full reply. There are a couple of points that we might just have in writing. In relation to prudential borrowing by the transfer-in entities, if they are going to get a bunch of assets for a nil value, some of those assets are presumably quite valuable and some may be very valuable. Routinely you would expect that potentially to influence what prudential borrowing that entity might be able to undertake. The answer may be that that is not how the rules operate, but I would be grateful for further clarification on that.
In relation to pension arrangements, I was not quite sure what was transferring to CLG. Presumably employees will be TUPE-ed to the new transferee councils. What pensions is CLG picking up?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I have just been handed a note. I understand the words on it but not how they relate to the question the noble Lord has just asked me. If he will allow me, I will write to him on that matter and on borrowing capacity against assets because I do not think that the note that I have been handed quite answers the specific point he raised so I will not take up your Lordships’ time by reading it out.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his broad support for this order, and I commend it to the Committee.
Prevention of Social Housing Fraud (Power to Require Information) (England) Regulations 2014
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
That the Grand Committee do consider the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud (Power to Require Information) (England) Regulations 2014.
Relevant documents: 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Stowell of Beeston)
My Lords, the power to table these regulations is contained in the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act 2013, which your Lordships may recall was originally a Private Member’s Bill which was very ably introduced in and steered through your Lordships’ House by my noble friend Lady Eaton, and I am pleased to see her in her place.
Social housing is one of the most important resources we have as a nation, providing as it does so many hard-working people with the safety and security they need. While the vast majority of social housing is being used as intended, statistics show that around 98,000 of these homes are being occupied unlawfully, including those that are being sub-let without permission or that were allocated following a fraudulent application. Encouragingly, an increasing number of social landlords are recognising the importance of tackling this abuse of their stock. Yet, while the recovery rate is going up and has gone up about 50% since 2008, in 2012-13 only around 2,600 unlawfully occupied local authority-owned homes were recovered. It is clear that social landlords need more powers to tackle the problem. What they have told us is that they really need better access to data, and, when an offence is suspected, this is what these regulations will give them.
When investigating social housing fraud, it is important to be able to link the tenant or applicant to another address. I am about to explain what I mean when I say access to more data. This can show, for example, that an applicant for social housing owns a property that they have not declared on their application form, or that an existing tenant is actually living elsewhere, suggesting they are sub-letting the property that they were allocated in good faith. However, social housing fraud investigators cannot always get hold of the data that they need to prove their case. Currently, they can ask for information, but cannot compel it to be given. This means that in many cases their requests to holders of key data such as banks, building societies and utility companies are refused. These regulations will give local authorities the power to compel certain data-holders to supply them, for social housing fraud investigation purposes, with information that they hold. Local authorities already have such powers in relation to their social security fraud and council tax reduction scheme fraud investigations.
Clearly, the list of bodies that can be compelled to supply data should not be any longer than is necessary. When considering which types of organisation to include, we wanted to strike a balance between giving landlords access to the data that they have told us they need and not including those who we felt would be asked for information only very rarely. We will keep the list under review, so if it proves to be longer or shorter than is necessary we will seek to rectify matters. This Government are keenly aware of the need to protect individual freedoms, and a privacy impact assessment for this new power has been published.
The power comes with a number of safeguards. For example, requests may be made only if it is reasonable to do so. In practice this will mean that investigators must have made efforts to obtain via another route the data they need; this power will not be the first port of call. Information may be required only if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person in question or a member of their family is committing, has committed, or intends to commit a social housing fraud offence. The protections set out in the Data Protection Act will continue to apply. These include requirements that the information obtained must be: fairly and lawfully processed; processed for limited purposes; adequate, relevant and not excessive; accurate; not kept longer than necessary; processed in accordance with the individual’s rights; and kept secure.
The intentional delay or obstruction of someone authorised to obtain data, or the failure or refusal without reasonable excuse to provide information when required to do so, will incur a maximum penalty of a fine of £1,000. Thereafter, continuing non-compliance will incur a penalty of up to £40 per day.
The Bill introduced by my noble friend Lady Eaton received generous cross-party support in both Houses before it became an Act. It gives landlords the tools they need to clamp down on the abuse of their stock. I therefore commend these regulations to the Committee, and I beg to move.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted that we are here today to see this stage in the process of tackling social housing fraud. My noble friend the Minister explained to us the amount of fraud that is still taking place, so the necessity for these powers to be made available is a very important factor. I am someone who is very much in favour of individual freedom, so I do not fit comfortably with lots of legislation forcing people to give information, but I am reassured by the safeguards that my noble friend described and the fact that the investigator should have tried all other possible routes before we get to the demand for data—and that the data protection legislation still applies.
I fully recognise the need for a penalty for those who still refuse to comply with the regulations as they are drafted and tabled. This is a really important move and I look forward very much to seeing the number of fraudulent lettings decrease enormously. As we are to have a review of what is needed and which lists of data are going to be necessary, I am sure that we will have more of an idea about how successful we have been in stamping out this unnecessary fraud.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I again thank the Minister for introducing these regulations, which, as we have heard, are focused on facilitating investigation into social housing fraud. We support that focus and support these regulations. The Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act 2013 introduced deterrents, additional to the right to terminate a tenancy, relating to unlawful subletting and recovery of profits. As we have heard, it was a Private Member’s Bill and was very ably steered through your Lordships’ House by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton—we should again congratulate her on that effort.
We have common cause in tackling social housing fraud. Cheating on the system and denying those whose housing needs are thereby frustrated can in no way be condoned. This would be the same in any era, let alone that which faces us currently, with a housing crisis with, simply, too few new homes—private and social—being delivered; and notwithstanding also that those to whom social housing is unlawfully let may themselves be faced with appalling housing situations. We have heard the Audit Commission estimate that some 98,000 of the 4 million social homes are unlawfully occupied—4% of the stock in London and 2% elsewhere. Other estimates put it even higher. Whatever the actual numbers, we know that unlawful occupation prevents tens of thousands of social homes being allocated to the people who need them most. For many who let unlawfully, there are profits to be had: the difference between private sector rents and social rents. The inexorable rise of private sector rents make such letting potentially very lucrative. There is also the cost to the public purse of families being displaced into the private rented sector, with increased housing benefit bills.
As the privacy impact assessment makes clear, and in tune with what the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, has just said, compelling certain private sector organisations to provide data to local authorities for social housing fraud investigation purposes raises important issues around privacy and data protection. It is asserted that although the key task of the social housing fraud investigation is to link the tenant to another property, through evidence of the receipt of rental income from a sublet or mortgage payments suggesting ownership of another property, the information reasonably requested should not include sensitive personal data. That analysis is one that we agree with. We accept that the powers sought in these regulations are based on the well established procedures for social security fraud and, indeed, are not as extensive in that levels of income, for example, are not needed. We understand that the fact that subletting is now a criminal offence itself enables organisations to lawfully disclose certain information but does not compel them—hence the need for new powers.
There are express safeguards surrounding these powers, which the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, spelt out. I will not repeat them now. There are obviously, at least theoretically, robust safeguards but the issue is how they are being monitored in practice. The expectation is that local authorities will publish information through their Freedom of Information Act publication scheme—for example how often they use the gateway. There is also the expectation that they will comply with data protection principles around processing and handling the relevant data et cetera. Perhaps the Minister can just say a little more about what is expected in this regard and what local authorities’ records have been in relation to their powers in this regard to date. We will expect the Government to keep Parliament updated on how effectively the regulations are working in ensuring that social homes are reallocated, and on whether the anticipated savings are materialising, before the official departmental review in 2018. We are pleased to support these regulations.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for his warm support for these regulations. I am also grateful to him for describing in some detail how the impact assessment on privacy has been carried out and what it contains. He is right—as, indeed, is my noble friend Lady Eaton—that we have to be careful that the relevant privacy issues are properly taken account of.
On that particular point, the noble Lord asked whether there was any evidence of misuse of these new powers. We certainly expect local authorities to have strong systems in place to prevent misuse. We would expect disciplinary action to be taken against an authorised officer who misused the power to require information because it is an offence to obtain unlawfully or disclose personal data. The Information Commissioner will be able to investigate complaints about the use of data by a local authority, and it will be for the Information Commissioner’s Office to investigate such claims. Should it find any failings in this area, it can, and will, give out fines for the misuse of data.
On the noble Lord’s questions about publication of the use of this power, that issue will be coming through to me and I will respond before I sit down. More generally, as I have already said and as we have acknowledged, social housing is an extremely valuable asset. While the vast majority of social tenants play by the rules, it is vital that social landlords have the tools they need to root out those who do not. Along with the other measures in the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act, the new power introduced by these regulations will help free up much needed homes for many of those on the waiting list who are in genuine need.
We talk a lot about the need to build more new homes but we are mindful also of the need to ensure that the existing social housing stock is being used as intended. Reducing fraud will mean that more households in genuine need will enjoy the security and stability that a decent home provides. Cracking down on that fraud will reduce the benefits bill by moving households on the waiting list from expensive temporary accommodation into the newly freed up social homes.
It is worth saying that about 90% of responses to the government consultation were in favour of the new data access power. Councils already have similar data access powers for social security and council tax fraud reduction schemes. As well as tackling fraud that is already in the system, these regulations will help to prevent fraud by stopping cheats getting into the system in the first place. The Government want social landlords to tackle fraud in their housing stock and we must give them the tools that they need to do that. I am very pleased that this power will enable them to do so.
Sadly, it does not look as though I am going to be able to provide the noble Lord with any more information at this time about how we will ensure that local authorities place their use of these powers in the public domain. However, I will ensure that I follow up that information in writing. I am slightly frustrated that I cannot find it in my brief because I know that I read something over the weekend about providing information of this kind to allow for proper accountability and scrutiny. However, I am confident that I will be able to send the noble Lord forthwith a comprehensive letter in reply.
Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) (Amendment) (Wales) Order 2014
(10 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Wales Office (Baroness Randerson) (LD)
My Lords, this order will enable billing authorities in Wales to continue to contract out certain additional functions relating to the administration and enforcement of council tax, following the making of new regulations in relation to council tax reduction schemes for 2014-15 onwards.
I will first provide a brief overview of the legislative background. The Council Tax Reduction Schemes and Prescribed Requirements (Wales) Regulations 2012 and the Council Tax Reduction Schemes (Default Scheme) (Wales) Regulations 2012 introduced council tax reduction schemes in Wales for 2013-14. Schemes introduced under these regulations are now being successfully operated by local authorities as part of the council tax system.
However, as the 2012 regulations are limited to 2013-14 by virtue of a sunset clause agreed with opposition parties in the National Assembly for Wales, a new set of regulations has been brought forward to govern the operation of the council tax reduction schemes from 2014-15 onwards. These are the Council Tax Reduction Schemes and Prescribed Requirements (Wales) Regulations 2013 and the Council Tax Reduction Schemes (Default Scheme) (Wales) Regulations 2013.
It is now therefore necessary to update the references within the numerous pieces of interrelated subordinate legislation to take into account the new set of regulations that will govern the operation of council tax reduction schemes in Wales from April 2014 onwards. This work includes making the Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) (Amendment) (Wales) Order 2014. The purpose of the 2014 order is to enable billing authorities in Wales to continue to contract out certain additional functions relating to the administration and enforcement of council tax following the making of the 2013 regulations, which will operate from 2014-15 onwards.
This time last year the Committee approved the Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) (Amendment) (Wales) Order 2013. The 2013 order enabled local authorities in Wales, under the Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order 1996, to contract out functions connected with the administration and collection of council tax. We wish to ensure that local authorities in Wales continue to have the freedom to contract out these administrative functions. The order being considered today amends the 1996 contracting-out order for Wales by substituting references to the 2012 regulations with references to the 2013 regulations.
The 2014 order will enable local authorities to continue to contract out the following administrative functions: the issuing of council tax reduction decision letters; the payment of a reduction amount under certain circumstances where the billing authority is of the opinion that it would be appropriate; the serving of a penalty notice in connection with an offence committed with a reduction; and the repayment of an amount paid in connection with a penalty related to a local scheme that has been subsequently quashed.
Although this order does not expand on the provisions that are currently in place for the administration of council tax reduction schemes, if it is approved by noble Lords it will carry out an essential function by enabling local authorities in Wales to continue to choose how to deliver their local schemes, whether that is by using internal resources, external providers or a mixture of the two. It is important that we provide local authorities with the tools they need to deliver a cost-effective council tax system. I commend the order to the Grand Committee and I beg to move.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that explanation. It is probably worth dwelling on the fact that this is not just needed because of the sunset clause. We need to go back further than that and think about why this needed to be done in the first place. It was necessary because in 2012 the UK Government abolished council tax benefit as part of the coalition’s Welfare Reform Act 2012. The responsibility for replacement schemes was passed on to local authorities in England and to the devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales. However, when it was handed over, there was of course then a cut of 10% in the funding that had previously helped people pay their council tax.
The IFS warned that 320,000 council tax benefit recipients in Wales would lose, on average, £74 a year and that this would hit the poorest the hardest, as 80% of council tax benefit spending in Wales went to those households with the lowest incomes. Unlike in England, where the IFS says that this approach has left 2.5 million households worse off by an average of £160 a year and has resulted in 500,000 people receiving summonses for non-payment, the Welsh Assembly has thankfully stepped in to protect this entitlement for those 320,000 people in the poorest households through a council tax reduction scheme. As the Minister has described, councils in Wales need to be able to contract out council tax services, as they do other services. For that reason it is important that the draft order is passed as quickly as possible, and the Government have our support in that.
What we have seen this week is a concerted effort—the start of an attack—by the current Government, pointing out problems in Wales. We have seen Grant Shapps come to Wales talking about problems we have had there and a concerted effort by the Daily Mail and the Times. This is an example of Wales understanding the needs and problems of the people and standing side by side with the most vulnerable. I do not suppose we will see any coverage of that in our newspapers in the next few days.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her support for this order. I would point out, in relation to her detailed comments, that my introduction referred to the 1996 scheme on which this is built. This is not a new system. It was introduced all that time ago and it has been adapted to the new council tax reduction schemes.
I make no apology for the fact that the Government have devolved responsibility for this to the Welsh Government. It is my view and that of the Government that this responsibility should lie with the Welsh Government and local authorities. It is right because council tax is levied by local authorities, and arrangements for reduction schemes should therefore also be made at that level.
In relation to the latter part of the noble Baroness’s comments, I would point out that fewer people are this year claiming for council tax reduction than in the previous year. In other words, fewer people are in the difficult circumstances that would ensure that they needed to make such a claim. That is part of the general series of symptoms of an upturn in the economy. The situation in Wales is getting very much better; some indicators suggest that it is doing so at an even faster rate than in the rest of the UK. Council tax is one of the areas of which the previous Labour Government lost control, and I make no apology at all to this Committee for the fact that the Government stepped in to take control. I commend the order to the Committee.
Whistleblowing at Work
Lord Wills
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will implement the recommendations of the Commission established by Public Concern at Work on Whistleblowing.
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, 100 years ago, the great American, Justice Louis Brandeis, said that electric light is the best policeman. The merits of transparency have long been recognised, and so too has it long been recognised that whistleblowing—making a disclosure in the public interest—is crucial to the promotion of transparency in public organisations. Almost 20 years ago, the Nolan committee said:
“All organisations face the risks of things going wrong or of unknowingly harbouring malpractice. Part of the duty of identifying such a situation and taking remedial action may lie with the regulatory or funding body. But the regulator is usually in the role of detective; determining responsibility after the crime has been discovered. Encouraging a culture of openness within an organisation will help: prevention is better than cure. Yet it is striking that in the few cases where things have gone badly wrong in local public spending bodies, it has frequently been the tip-off to the press or the local Member of Parliament—sometimes anonymous, sometimes not—which has prompted the regulators into action”.
We have seen the value of whistleblowers demonstrated over and over again, most recently in the revelation of scandals in the NHS. The Government recognise this and the Prime Minister has said:
“We will always back whistleblowers when they challenge poor standards, particularly in large organisations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/14; col. 257.]
He has also said that,
“we should support whistleblowers and what they do to help improve the provision of public services”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/4/13; col. 882.]
And yet we are still some way away from a situation in which whistleblowers are adequately protected, and we are still further from the creation of a comprehensive culture in public institutions in which whistleblowing is encouraged.
Whistleblowing reveals wrongdoing in great public institutions and those carrying out functions in the public interest, but such institutions are always powerful, usually driven by a potent internal culture, and often inward-looking. Every case of whistleblowing challenges the powerful vested interests that run such institutions. After every scandal is revealed, after the abuses have been tackled and the guilty punished, and after the fine words about whistleblowers have been spoken, it is all too easy for those dominant interests to revert to carrying on much as they did before. The powerful never like being challenged.
The inward-looking culture that dominates so many of our great public institutions discourages whistleblowing. Repeated failures within the NHS have highlighted not only how important whistleblowers can be in protecting the public, but also how very difficult they find it if they try to expose incompetence and wrongdoing. These problems are not confined to the NHS. For all the police wrongdoing after the Hillsborough disaster that has now been exposed, for 20 years no one blew the whistle. No one blew the whistle on the scandal of MPs’ expenses, even though the Fees Office was well aware of the scams that were going on. There is clearly a need to do more to encourage and protect whistleblowers. Just this month, the National Audit Office made a series of recommendations for improvements, including the creation of a strategic lead within central government, a series of clarifications, and more effective communication of existing arrangements and protections. I hope that the Minister will consider those recommendations carefully.
The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 was a landmark piece of legislation providing statutory protection for whistleblowers, but it is now nearly 15 years old and it has never been reviewed officially. But the whistleblowing commission set up by Public Concern at Work and chaired by a retired Court of Appeal judge, Sir Anthony Hooper, has done so. Following a public consultation and research produced by Public Concern at Work, Ernst & Young and the University of Greenwich, the commission has made a number of recommendations aimed at changing culture and extending, simplifying and improving the processes for delivering protections for whistleblowers. If we are to give whistleblowers the protection they need, the Government need to address these recommendations and, if they are not willing to adopt them, at least give the reasons why.
I would be grateful if the Minister could give his response to the following key recommendations made by the commission. To help change workplace culture, the commission has recommended the introduction of a code of practice on whistleblowing that would set out best practice for employers, workers and whistleblowers. Similar to ACAS codes of practice, this code should be rooted in statute, taken into account by the courts in whistleblowing cases, and included in the inspection regimes of regulators. Will the Minister pursue this?
Next, legal protection for whistleblowing in the Public Interest Disclosure Act needs to be extended to prevent the blacklisting of job applicants, which is such a potent disincentive to whistleblowing. Protection also needs to be extended to those working in sensitive positions in organisations that could benefit significantly from encouraging and protecting whistleblowers. The definition of “worker” needs to be clarified—and there is some doubt about the current definition under the recent Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act—so that it includes without doubt student nurses, doctors, healthcare professionals, social workers and general practitioners. It should also be clear that the term “worker” includes volunteers, interns, non-executive directors, professional partners, including partners in LLPs, priests and ministers of religion. These are all categories of worker listed under the Equality Act 2010 but not currently protected, or at least it is not clear that they are, under the provisions of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. Overseas workers raising concerns about their UK subsidiaries need protection as well. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the Government will find the first available legislative opportunity to extend such protections.
Whistleblowing protection needs to be extended to allow individuals seeking advice from trade unions to be more easily protected. Whistleblowing protection needs to be simplified to ensure that everyone understands that gagging clauses are illegal, to make the causation tests for dismissal and detriment the same, and to make sure that whistleblowers can easily raise concerns with regulators. Will the Minister undertake to do this?
At present, it is possible for wrongdoing to be buried in settlements as there is no open register of claims under the Public Interest Disclosure Act. In 2008, the then Government introduced a process whereby claimants could request that their claims be sent to the relevant regulators, but this process is not mandatory. Not all such claims were sent forward, and it should be mandatory. The employment tribunal process needs to be improved for whistleblowing claims, a register of claims under the Public Interest Disclosure Act should be made available to the public, and the referral of such claims to regulators should be made mandatory. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the Government intend to make progress in these areas.
There are also complex issues around extending whistleblowing protection to members of the armed services and those involved with national security. At the moment, national security whistleblowers enjoy no protection, even if the concerns they raise have nothing to do with national security but are about other issues such as human rights abuses, bribery, procurement and corruption within the chain of command. I should be grateful if the Minister would agree to look at these issues and write to me with proposals for extending protections in this area. Perhaps he could also copy the letter to those noble Lords who are taking part in today’s debate and place a copy in the Library.
Finally, the Public Interest Disclosure Act does not protect disclosures by workers, primarily in law firms, of information that is subject to legal professional privilege, even where the worker raises the concern with a senior colleague in their firm or with the client. This appears to be an anomaly as in both cases such communication would not be a breach of the privilege or of confidentiality, even though the information itself is privileged. There would therefore seem to be no good reason to deny the protection to such whistleblowers. I would be grateful if the Minister would agree to bring forward an amendment to that effect at the first available legislative opportunity.
I recognise that this is a long agenda for the Minister to address, but it is still not comprehensive. This is such an important area of public policy, with the potential to transform the way public services are delivered, that I hope the Minister will be able to engage constructively with it and make significant progress on all the issues I have raised today.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Wills, for bringing the Committee’s attention to and providing the opportunity to debate, the document that we have all received from the Whistleblowing Commission, which was initiated by Public Concern at Work. As I was a Member of Parliament for 18 years, I am very familiar with the charity Public Concern at Work. I have recommended it to many constituents who have come to me with problems because, as whistleblowers, they found themselves under pressure for trying to do what they saw as the right thing and becoming the victim. In some recent very high profile cases, we have seen appalling results that have happened to whistleblowers who have tried to do the right thing, particularly in very severe cases to do with the health service.
I support the request by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, to the Government to look at this and see if they can use this as a blueprint—that is what is being asked for—to implement and tighten up not only the way in which the public sector works as far as whistleblowers are concerned but to help prevent the need for people to feel that they have to whistleblow in the first place.
I shall focus on two aspects of the report in its summary of recommendations. As the noble Lord, Lord Wills, said, recommendation 1 is for a code of practice, which is outlined in detail at the back of the report. One of the points in the proposed code of practice, at section 8, is:
“Where an organisation publishes an annual report, that report should include information about the effectiveness of whistleblowing arrangements”.
It goes on to show that this should be incorporated as a normal part of what we would all regard as the essential reporting of governance of any organisation. It applies to the corporate sector as well as to the public sector.
This recommendation should be adopted because if an annual report is produced it should also show who at the top on the board of directors of an organisation—whether public or private sector—is responsible for overseeing that this happens, if that is what has been agreed. As a Member of Parliament, I was involved in cases in which potentially there could have been whistleblowers who might well have prevented some tragic happenings. Many that we started to investigate resulted in suspensions. For example, in the case of a hospital, staff were interviewed and asked why they had not said something earlier. A certain culture has developed in recent years, particularly in the public sector.
I am very pleased to see that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is in his place because in a similar debate a while back he gave me a quote that sums up this culture and why whistleblowing is so essential, so that people feel strong and secure enough to come forward. The noble Earl said that collectivisation of risk equals abrogation of individual responsibility.
I have experienced this culture myself. Where several people now share the risk and make collective decisions, that sounds all very well; but it often results in people asking, “Who is in charge and who will actually take a decision?” One often finds this culture in what I can only describe as process-driven organisations that are looking at processes rather than outcomes. That needs to be looked at that. If we can change it and if—as in this code of practice—there are people who have to take responsibility and publish what the outcome of that responsibility is, that should trickle down through the organisation and there should be less need for people to feel that they have got to blow the whistle. I believe that systemic problems will be identified in a much more structured way and before crisis point is reached. I therefore commend the code of practice.
The other area I particularly commend to the Minister is in recommendation 2, concerning regulators, in the summary of recommendations in the report. It is essential that regulators have a much more hands-on role in their inspections. We have heard of far too many cases lately in which regulators in different areas of the public sector have significantly missed huge, life-threatening problems, despite the fact that they have been into a premises, inspected its processes and interviewed people; and still tragic consequences have come about as a result of those regulators not asking the right questions or picking up on the really serious issues. Again, this is a really important area in which regulators should have a much more hands-on role in making sure they are involved, not just in identifying problems but in dealing with the policy of the organisation as far as whistleblowers are concerned, so that they can help prevent the need for whistleblowers in the first place.
Sometimes there is a little cynicism about people who whistleblow. Of course, occasionally one comes across a person who one might describe as a vexatious complainant. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, has been a Member of Parliament and he and I have had our fair share of vexatious complainants. However, most people who see what is happening in a workplace or in the organisation they work for and can see that it is causing harm to others should be supported, and know that the law is on their side and that there is something they can do about it.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)
My Lords, I should declare an interest in that 20 years ago I set up the charity, Public Concern at Work. I think it took me five or six years to persuade the Charity Commission that it should be given charitable status, but we got there in the end and it has done a wonderful job ever since. I commend the PCaW commission on this report. It is led by my old friend Tony Hooper—the right honourable Sir Anthony Hooper and a former judge in the Court of Appeal, I should say. There is no point in pretending that this is anything other than an incredibly vexed set of issues and that there is a great deal of fear where whistleblowing is concerned. There is also no point in disguising from ourselves the fact that we live in an age of collapsing standards. Over the past few years our own proud City of London has been embroiled in tragic and scandalous behaviour of all sorts. Great banks have completely lost their way. However, it is not just about us because this is a predicament across the developed world, and probably the underdeveloped world. The need for whistleblowing is therefore ever greater.
It is an extraordinary fact that in the LIBOR and PPI scandals and the foreign exchange rigging, apparently no whistleblowing went on. Those corrupt scandals lasted for years and involved hundreds of people—in the PPI case tens of thousands of people—all of whom knew that what they were doing was wrong. Most of them knew that it was unlawful and some knew that it was corrupt. The need, therefore, to act on the central provisions of this report certainly seems to be quite plangent. In saying that, I am not deluding myself, because I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, that without an underlying moral cohesion of our society in the minds and hearts of ordinary people, no amount of law and regulation will succeed. The one can only buttress the other, but we need to buttress more effectively.
The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 was good as far as it went but, first, it did not go far enough. Some of the areas of insufficiency are set out in the commission’s recommendations. Secondly, I want to emphasise strongly that there is a total insufficiency of enforcement, a point that I hope the Minister will take back with him. Given the choice of putting much more effort into enforcement and making no changes to the law, I would go for the former every time. How many cases of fraud have been prosecuted on the back of evidence given by whistleblowers? The Minister may not know—it is not fair to spring it on him.
Perhaps I may mention Paul Moore of Halifax Bank of Scotland, who 10 years ago was dismissed for blowing the whistle on a state of affairs within that massive entity that was wrong and completely unsustainable. To give him his full title, Mr Moore was the head of Group Regulatory Risk and the good practice manager. After a great deal of in-depth inquiry, he reported to the main board, as he did at every board meeting, that the bank’s system was not sustainable. Indeed, one senior employer told him that to meet sales and marketing targets, the bank had to act unethically and that it could not be done ethically. That man has been blackballed in the City from that day to this. He never got an interview for any job he applied for and he was not offered a job. We have to understand, too, that we have a culture whereby people involved in certain aspects of our economy are themselves corrupted by all this, and who view anybody who tries to uphold the law as a traitor. Noble Lords would not believe what this man has been called in the intervening years. I have spoken to him about this at length and in depth and have his consent to mention these facts today.
I know that this is a difficult area of enforcement—I make no bones about it. It requires sensitivity, extreme tenacity of prosecutorial effort and a detailed knowledge of the law. Whoever takes this on will be met by legions of expensive lawyers and accountants because that is another feature of our times—the total disparity of resources in trying to uphold the law in relation to fraud and so on.
I commend recommendation 21 which asserts that tribunals dealing with the Public Interest Disclosure Act should be presided over by someone with specialist training in this field. We should look at what the Americans do, as they have a public authority with responsibility for dealing with whistleblowing. I think that is right. We need to go that way and have an authority—it may be small, but strong—which can uphold and enforce the law in conjunction with the prosecutorial authorities.
Finally, I believe that the most important body of recommendations in the commission’s report are those which beef up the role and the duty of the regulators in all aspects of our economy so that they have the power to require large companies to do something effective to enable whistleblowing to thrive to the benefit of companies, the economy and the country. That is the point, is it not? I wish well the Minister, the Government and all who have to take these important matters forward.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wills, for securing this debate because I took quite an interest in the legislative framework on whistleblowing when the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill was going through the House last year; and because I argue there are reasons for believing that the need for that framework to be as positive and supportive as possible grows ever greater by the day. Indeed, that point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. Some themes are beginning to emerge—that is just one of them—but I hope that it will do no harm if I underline one or two of them.
Research commissioned by the charity, Public Concern at Work—the organisation which commissioned the report whose implementation we are debating—has shown that in recent years, at least, attitudes to whistleblowing and whistleblowers are positive. However, it was not always so. This led to a series of Private Members’ Bills in the Commons during the latter half of the 1990s, sponsored by the then MP, Tony Wright, and the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, which finally culminated in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, steered through by Richard Shepherd MP, which sought to give legal protection to whistleblowers against the negative reaction their conduct attracted from fellow workers and employers.
There are good reasons for keeping this legislation under review so that it remains fit for purpose. The commission whose report we are discussing makes a compelling case in its own terms for saying that it could do with updating and simplifying in a number of respects. Indeed, Public Concern at Work is much to be commended for commissioning this report, and the commission itself is to be congratulated on producing a report which is both comprehensive and lucid, and all within a modest compass.
I hope that nobody imagined that I was trying to pour cold water on any of its recommendations by upsetting my glass of water when the noble Lord, Lord Wills, was in full flood. He was in full flood and I am glad to say that I created only a minor one over here.
The report argues that PIDA is not working as intended, and that it could benefit from some amendment. Whistleblowing may be viewed in a positive light at a societal level but this is not commonly how it is experienced by the whistleblower at a local level, where whistleblowers are typically regarded as trouble-makers by their employers and traitors by fellow workers. Blacklisting of workers who raise concerns about health and safety issues is thought to be commonplace in the construction industry and is also found in other sectors. Lisa Martin, for example, who exposed serious abuse at the Orchid View care home revealed that she had been unable to get a job in the care sector ever since reporting her concerns to the police in 2011. Some workers have even had death threats. It is little wonder then that in such a climate, workers fail to speak up because of their concern that they will not be listened to or that nothing will be done at best, or from a fear of reprisals at worst. The report makes a number of sensible recommendations for dealing with the current legislation’s shortcomings in dealing with these abuses. I hope very much that the Government will look at them very seriously.
However, as I have hinted, the reasons for welcoming this report and urging its rapid implementation in full go wider. Such is the decline of trust in many of our key institutions—politics, the police, the NHS, the press and even the BBC—that whistleblowing now assumes a strategic significance, outstripping anything that it had before. There has been a succession of scandals, such as the Savile affair, Orchid View, which I have mentioned, the system of care homes in north Wales, the rigging of LIBOR and the foreign exchange market, price fixing in the energy industry, Hillsborough, the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust and phone hacking at the News of the World. All those scandals show that once where we thought we could rely on the corporate culture to ensure that organisations behaved properly, and that if they did not, wrongdoing was brought to light and malefactors were brought to book, we now have to rely on the whistleblower as our last defence against the corporate culture which thrives on malfeasance. As the report says in its foreword:
“Effective whistleblowing arrangements are a key part of good governance. A healthy and open culture is one where people are encouraged to speak out, confident that they can do so without adverse repercussions, confident that they will be listened to, and confident that appropriate action will be taken”.
The commission makes a number of recommendations designed to promote this strategic role of whistleblowing and it is to those that I particularly want to draw attention. Recommendation 1, on which the noble Lord, Lord Wills, spoke at some length, says that,
“PIDA be amended to authorise the Secretary of State … to issue a code of practice on whistleblowing arrangements, and provide that such a code of practice must be taken into account by courts and tribunals wherever it is relevant to do so”.
The report contains a draft code of practice which is recommended to the Secretary of State as a basis for consultation. Recommendation 8 states:
“The Commission recommends a simplification of PIDA”.
Recommendation 10 suggests that,
“the Secretary of State uses the powers set out in Section 20 of the ERRA”—
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act—
“2013 to add”,
a number of categories of workers to PIDA, including job applicants who are victims of blacklisting.
Recommendation 25(d) suggests that the Government “undertake research” to assess, inter alia,
“whether a state sponsored agency could carry out strategic litigation and give legal support to whistleblowers (similar to the model of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and its work in discrimination cases)”.
The Government have given a commitment,
“to ensuring a strong legislative framework to encourage workers to speak up about wrongdoing, risk or malpractice without fear of reprisal”.
In their national action plan for open government, the Government have agreed to take into account the findings of the Whistleblowing Commission and to consider legislative change, statutory or non-statutory codes of practice, guidance and best practice measures. I look forward to the Government delivering on those commitments.
Finally, the Government launched their own consultation on the whistleblowing framework last July. It would be good to hear from the Minister about the progress of that call for evidence and when we are likely to get the Government’s response to the evidence received.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wills, on securing this debate, Public Concern at Work on setting up the commission into whistleblowing and the commission itself on writing what is an absolutely excellent report. Noble Lords will know that my interest stems in particular from police conduct and crime recording. Given the systemic fiddling of the crime figures, it is surprising how few internal questions were being raised, and as we now know, the problems of widespread cover-up went much deeper. I pay tribute to the many people who have put themselves at risk to blow the whistle. Were it not for them, many very serious cases would never have come to light. Even so, we know that bad practices continue and, indeed, that lives are at risk, so we have no reason to be complacent. Thank goodness that, in retirement, some former police officers have retained a conscience.
The report identifies problems with bullying, harassment and blacklisting of whistleblowers. Some are seen as troublemakers, as we have heard, and have been unable to secure further employment in their chosen field. My analysis is that blacklisting would be to no purpose if it were not for senior people still in post whose policies and activities might yet be exposed by that same whistleblower being restored to their position. Weak, if not actually corrupt, management protects them. That is a sign of a great deal of unfinished business.
Under the Public Interest Disclosure Act, whistleblowing comes within employment law. As any business knows, employment issues are a nightmare even if there is a fully fledged HR facility. Separating terms and conditions of employment from the objective reporting of corporate wrongdoing is almost impossible. The whistleblower must go to the line manager, but there is an obvious conflict of interest for the manager, to add to the confusion between employee conditions of work on the one hand and reporting of behaviour contrary to public interest on the other. Whistleblower protection is thus inadequate, and the current system is ineffective as well as the process being divisive.
At paragraphs 79 and 80, the commission explains one paradox where an employee claims a genuine belief that disclosure was in the public interest, but the employer can dispute this without first addressing the primary issue of whether there was corporate wrongdoing. Recommendation 12 specifically highlights the issue of workers “wrongly identified” as whistleblowers. I do not believe that the necessary change in corporate attitudes will happen on its own without some sort of push. However, information about corporate misdeeds is not confined to employees. It may be an outsider—a family member, business associate, subcontractor or even an observant bystander—who sees things and cottons on to the fact that something is amiss, possibly something not affecting employment at all. These people have no reliable avenue for raising concerns, so I maintain that the current construct is too narrow and that its scope needs to be widened substantially.
Follow-up for both employee and non-employee categories can be extremely patchy, as we have heard. There are numerous instances where an employee has gone to their line manager or people outside have gone to the police with their worries only to find that nothing happens and the evil persists. It is a failure of corporate social responsibility.
Where a systemic culture of cover-up and large-scale complicity exists, management can, quite literally, close ranks and kill the issue. This also happens in hierarchical bodies and in uniformed services, where the concept of not grassing on your mates is a particularly potent bond. The other concept of noble purpose—perhaps public order, saving lives, curing disease—may even override all other considerations, including decency, proportionality and justice. The scandals of some police-on-police internal investigations in response to whistleblowing are an example.
The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, quoted me, but in fact I am not the origin of the comment. It comes from a 2008 article in Policing by Barry Loveday of the University of Portsmouth. He links some of these aspects with the construct of performance management. He says that when applied to public sector bodies as opposed to manufacturers with measurable outputs of widgets and sales, the results are often this collectivisation of risk, avoidance of individual responsibility and abrogation of leadership. Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust had precisely that generic problem.
These mutually reinforcing factors mean that we have to be particularly vigilant in the choice of mechanisms that enable people to speak out when they feel a compelling need and protect them from reprisals when they do so. My suggestion would be to follow recommendation 25 in the report, in that we need a completely independent, sector-by-sector whistleblower ombudsman—I use the term broadly—in other words, a totally confidential, external and objective mechanism with enough expertise to distinguish personal employment issues from plain mischief making, and both of those from genuine public interest disclosure. It would need powers to act on the findings.
The question will be asked: how do we fund this? To which my answer is that if there was proper assessment of the distress to families and individuals of miscarriages of justice, the damage to employee prospects, the dereliction of public interest and even the deaths, then it would happen. Today’s press coverage of fraud in the NHS tells us that the present situation is, frankly, unaffordable.
However, the final problem may be at the top. I refer, of course, to the reluctance of Governments to countenance anything that discloses unsavoury reactions by the state, often for long periods afterwards. The unnecessary use of the Official Secrets Act and of public interest immunity certificates in judicial proceedings are examples of the same corporate lockdown as confidentiality clauses and gagging provisions that are used to protect guilty people and prejudice innocent public interest whistleblowers. These factors should be subject to judicial scrutiny, even if by closed session.
There is also a dangerous belief that some areas of endeavour are above suspicion. They are not and must not be. We can, if we wish, make provision in an organised way, or we can leave it to default through the court of the press, the web and social media. There is a choice, and I suggest that we get ahead of the curve. The commission has helpfully fired the starting gun in a report that covers a wealth of issues. I hope the Government are listening.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Wills on initiating this debate. Contributing at the end, I find that the waterfront has been covered so well that I am almost tempted to say “ditto”. However, given my position as Front Bench spokesperson, I probably need to say a little more than that.
I went on to the website to look at the call for evidence and I noticed that it finished in November last year. However, I did not find a report. It may be that I missed it but perhaps the Minister could say whether any summary of the evidence has been published as yet. I can see a head shaking so it looks as though the answer is no. It has been quite a long while but no doubt we will be informed why. If the call for evidence finished in November, I would have thought that by now we would have had at least a summary, if not a complete report.
I concur with much of what my noble friend Lord Wills said. He made the point that the PIDA is now 15 years old. It may not be whiskery but given all the analysis we have heard today and the tributes we ought to be paying to Public Concern at Work—I was fascinated to learn that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, was the instigator of that organisation—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am terribly sorry. I should not mislead your Lordships. I was only the mere lawyer who set the thing up; I was not the impetus for it.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
Okay. He played a significant role, we will say. It is not often that I dare to disagree with him, and his analysis is usually good, but when he said that if he had to make a choice between reform and enforcement he would go for enforcement, I did feel that that is not the advice we ought to be giving the Government. It is a 15 year-old piece of legislation and a very significant and comprehensive report—it ought not to be an either/or choice; it should surely be both. Reform is pointless without ensuring that we have adequate enforcement, as we have heard, with regard to all the difficulties that whistleblowers face.
I have to be careful how I comment on an issue that I was personally involved with recently as a school governor, when I saw what happened when somebody tried to deal with a difficult and sensitive issue. They were not exactly congratulated by all those concerned and it led to the individual feeling that they did not want to continue in their role as governor. The point has been made time and again: the pressures on people who try to blow the whistle are enormous.
I could not help but reflect on the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston. He listed a whole range of organisations, in construction, care homes, the BBC, the police—the list goes on and on. We have heard so much of this. It was actually the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who mentioned the E-word—ethics, although I heard it only once. I am always fascinated when people talk about what goes on in MBA syllabuses and business schools and I am constantly reminding them of the importance of ensuring that ethics is a part of training.
Someone else—I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Lytton—talked about corporate social responsibility. It is there in every annual report. In theory, it is in companies’ own interests to encourage whistleblowing. If you think of the cost when organisations fail—whether it is health and safety or PPI, for example—the payouts are enormous. Companies ought to have a strong vested interest in ensuring that all their procedures are right but we know that, time and again, whether it is the hierarchical resistance referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, or the sheer fear whistleblowers feel about the reaction from their colleagues—whether it is higher up in the organisation or, as we saw in Mid Staffs, your own work colleagues—it takes a brave person to become a whistleblower. There is no guarantee that what you are doing, even if it is deemed to be in the public interest, means that you will be seen as a hero. The reverse can happen: not only can you lose your job but you can then fail to get employment elsewhere.
Without going through every single recommendation of the report—I do not think that I need to do that because so many of them have already been highlighted—there was one that I wanted to draw out, which was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton: the question of whether workers who are wrongly identified as having made disclosures should be protected. I was interested in that because the Public Interest Disclosure Act says that the protection provided by the Act is not subject to any qualifying period of employment, so it is referred to as a “day one” right in employment law. Yet here, Public Concern at Work was saying, “Well, where the worker is wrongly identified as a whistleblower, there is a possibility that they will not get that ‘day one’ right to protection”. I hope that the Minister will be able to cover that in his response.
As regards all the points that have been made on regulation and being clear about what we mean by a worker—my noble friend Lord Wills was absolutely right when he gave us a long list of workers where it is doubtful whether they are necessarily included—I do not need to go through those again because they have already been adequately made. However, I look forward with interest to the Minister’s response, especially to the point I made about the call for evidence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wills, for initiating this important debate. As we have heard, whistleblowing is a sensitive issue which continues to be in the spotlight, bringing public matters of concern to our attention.
The noble Lord, Lord Wills, my noble friend Lord Phillips and the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Young, highlighted some examples—in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Young, a personal example—of incidents or tragedies that may well have been avoided if those people who had spoken out had been heard and some action taken. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, raised a number of questions, and I will certainly attempt to answer them all during this debate. If I fail to do so, I will write to the noble Lord and copy in all noble Lords who have contributed today.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Public Interest Disclosure Act was introduced in 1998 to provide protection in the workplace to individuals who make a disclosure which is in the public interest. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, described it, correctly, as “landmark” legislation. Where disclosures are made in good faith and in the specified way, the law protects the whistleblower from unfair dismissal, from being victimised by the employer or from otherwise suffering a detriment at work.
Last July, the Government renewed their position in support of the important role whistleblowing can play in a workplace by further strengthening the legislation. Through the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act, we made a number of changes to the whistleblowing framework. We introduced a public interest test, which requires an individual who brings a claim at an employment tribunal to show that they had a reasonable belief that their disclosure was in the public interest. That brought the law back in line with its original intention.
We made an amendment to the good faith test so that it is relevant to remedy and not liability, meaning that it affects the compensation an individual may get if they win their case rather than the outcome of the case itself. Previously, if an individual was unable to show they had made their disclosure in good faith at an employment tribunal, their case could fail. Now, even if an individual is unable to demonstrate good faith, they can still win an employment tribunal claim. However, any compensation awarded in respect of that claim may be reduced by up to 25%.
We also introduced vicarious liability, which ensures that an individual who has suffered a detriment from a co-worker as a result of blowing the whistle can bring a claim against both the co-worker and the employer, who may be vicariously liable for the actions of the co-worker. We made an amendment to the definition of “worker” to include certain contractual arrangements in the NHS to ensure that certain NHS workers, including GPs, would qualify for the whistleblowing protections. We also inserted a power enabling the Secretary of State to make further changes to the definition of worker by secondary legislation, so that the law can be kept current in this respect. To echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Low, many of those changes are a result of the hard work of groups such as Public Concern at Work—which the noble Lord is speaking for today—that bring important issues to the attention of the Government.
During the passage of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, the Government also committed to reviewing the whistleblowing framework through a call for evidence to identify whether further changes were required to improve the effectiveness of the legislation. The call for evidence was held between July and November last year, and officials in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are currently analysing the submissions. It involved a thorough process where discussion sessions were held, meetings with interested parties took place and responses were submitted by 81 individuals or organisations. My noble friend Lady Browning stated that she hoped this would be a blueprint for the future, and I hope so too. As part of its analysis, the department is taking into account all the submissions, including the recommendations made by the PCaW commission. I have had sight of the initial analysis produced by officials. Many of the issues raised here today by noble Lords and by the PCaW commission’s report have been taken into consideration.
My noble friend Lord Phillips spoke passionately, focusing particularly on enforcement. I do not wish to pre-empt the Government’s response, which I believe will be published before the Easter Recess—which I hope answers the question from the noble Lord, Lord Young—but it might be helpful if I outline for your Lordships today some of the key issues that have been established through this process.
First, we have established that there is a level of basic misunderstanding in relation to the provisions acting as a protection against detriment rather than providing a remedy once that detriment has occurred. Secondly, there is a high level of concern that the issues that are raised by whistleblowers internally to employers rarely become the focus of the employer’s attention. The focus tends to be about the existing working relationship between the worker and the employer. For example, if a concern is raised with an employer about inconsistent safety practices witnessed on a worksite, the expectation of the individual would be for the employer’s focus to be on the concern that they have raised, not on scrutinising the individual’s employment history as a way of deflecting attention from the concern itself. As my noble friend Lady Browning said, the focus should be on the issue, not just on the process.
Thirdly, the culture around whistleblowing seems to be the driving force behind negative responses to disclosures and the resulting victimisation or detriment that the whistleblower may suffer. Fourthly, it is of concern to the Government that practices and standards for handling whistleblowing disclosures made externally—to regulators, for example—are inconsistent across organisations, with a disclosure often negatively received. My noble friend Lady Browning made a particular point of this issue, while my noble friend Lord Phillips spoke about beefing up the power of the regulators.
I want to say a few words about regulators, because the Government recognise that there is more that the regulators could do to reassure the whistleblower that the disclosure is being dealt with, given that the whistleblowing legislation is designed to deal with the detriment that a whistleblower may suffer rather than the issue of the disclosure itself. There is a challenge here for the Government to identify an appropriate solution in this area, but I assure the Committee that efforts will be made to do so.
This is not a new issue to us and we are considering how to address it in practical terms. The answer here will most likely fall to addressing cultural behaviours—the noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned the important point that there is a close link between cultural behaviours and ethics—as well as through the legislative framework itself. Obviously we want to ensure that the level of understanding is correct and that individuals are willing to speak out without fear of reprisal. However, we also want to help business to understand the benefits that whistleblowers can bring to an organisation through helping to tackle corruption and malpractice by aiding the early detection of issues so serious that they can destroy businesses or even threaten life. The Government believe that the most effective way to do this is by setting direction and sharing best practice while giving employers the space to get it right in the way that works best for their organisations. Mandating best practice through statutory measures is not necessarily the best means to achieve the cultural change that is needed.
As I have already said, it would be imprudent and inappropriate of me to pre-empt the government response. However, I assure the Committee that a thorough review of the framework has taken place through the call-for-evidence process and that the outcome of the exercise will be available shortly. That is as far as I can really go in answering the question about timing from the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Young. We will continue to work with organisations such as PCaW to implement any changes that may come about as a result of the response to the call for evidence.
My noble friend Lord Phillips asked how many cases of fraud have been prosecuted. We have statistics for how many claims have been brought at employment tribunals by those who have suffered a detriment as a result of blowing the whistle. However, we are unable to confirm the number of fraud cases that have been prosecuted as a result of those disclosures. I will be very happy to try to establish the number and to write to the noble Lord on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Wills, who has been very patient, raised a number of points that I will address. First, on the matter of codes of practice, the Government agree that guidance on best practice needs to be improved to drive up standards and consistency across all organisations. Indeed, there are many examples where non-statutory guidance is an effective tool for ensuring certain standards within industries or sectors. For example, there is the fair access protocols advice that the Department for Education has developed to provide advice to help local authorities and schools understand their obligations and duties in relation to the schools admission code.
Furthermore, there are industry codes of practice, such as those used in the oil and gas industry, which are an effective means for self-regulation within a sector. Those examples demonstrate that statutory codes and guidance are not always required to drive certain behaviours, compliance and standards. However, as this is a matter that has come up in the call for evidence, I can assure noble Lords that the Government are currently deciding the best approach for ensuring that standards for whistleblowing are consistent.
The noble Lord, Lord Wills, and my noble friend Lord Phillips asked if the Government will do anything to address the issue of whistleblowers becoming blacklisted as a result of making disclosures, which was an important point. The Government are clear that blacklisting is a totally unacceptable practice and do not support it. Individuals who believe that they are being excluded from employment because of a blacklist should seek redress in the county courts in England and Wales, or Court of Session in Scotland, under the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010. While there are protections in place for this type of treatment, there is more to be done than just leaving individuals to rely on a legal protection.
The noble Lord, Lord Wills, asked about adding additional groups to the definition of worker. We are aware of some of the groups of people; noble Lords have raised groups that have been identified as not qualifying for whistleblowing protection in the event that they make a disclosure. The provisions do not definitively exclude some members of those groups. However, the Government are again looking at this issue and hope to strike the right balance to include those where there is clear detriment suffered and the appropriate remedy for address.
The noble Lord, Lord Wills, asked about the anti-gagging clause. The Government believe that the legislation on the invalidity of the gagging clauses is clear. However, these are not applicable in respect of a disclosure. The guidance around that issue will be updated to make it clear. In addition, he asked whether the Government will consider adding trade union representatives. The answer is that any further changes to the prescribed persons list will be considered at a point when the list is next revised.
The noble Lord, Lord Wills, asked about claim referrals. The Government are looking at the system of referrals in the employment tribunals as part of the call for evidence and will report on that in due course.
I fear that I am just out of time. There are a couple of questions that I certainly will endeavour to answer by letter to the noble Lord, Lord Wills, and, indeed, any other noble Lord who asked a question.
I hope this reassures noble Lords that the Government have been listening to a wide range of views on this important matter and that they will be taking steps to address these issues where possible.
Finally, I will be happy to send a copy of the government response when it is published—and I have said that that will be soon—to all those taking part in this important debate.
Flooding: Military Deployment
(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the military deployment during the recent floods.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con)
My Lords, our people lent invaluable support to the relief efforts, with a peak of 5,000 personnel from all three services and the reserves. They were available to provide everything from sandbagging to aerial reconnaissance, as well as highly visible reassurance to the public. Now, in the recovery phase, we still have 223 people in the field. Once the operation is complete, we will make a detailed assessment of our contribution to civil resilience within the overall national response.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his response. As we saw with the recent flooding and with the Olympic and Paralympic Games, when we deploy our military in the appropriate civil circumstances the results are always excellent. What further plans do the Government have to review the use of our military in other potential appropriate civil circumstances?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend—the work of the Armed Forces is always excellent. The lessons learnt will provide a valuable opportunity to look at how the contribution of our Armed Forces to civil resilience can be enhanced and accelerated in future emergencies. We are working with the Treasury to consider whether there is potential for improvement to the funding processes. We routinely support civil authorities on a wide range of resilience activities, such as support in the event of industrial action by fuel tanker drivers and firefighters.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, on 12 February the Prime Minister told Parliament that money would be no object in the response to the floods and that local authorities had only to request military assistance, yet the flooding started in late December in the West Country. Why did it take not far short of two months to make that statement on money being no object, and why was it so long before the military was called in? Why was no action taken by the Government in the first week of flooding to consider and determine the potential role that the military could play? Was it because the Government were not prepared to find the funding to enable cash-strapped local authorities to call in the military until weeks later, or was it because the Government just did not get round to doing it?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the department received its first request for assistance on 29 January and had deployed the requested support by the following morning. As the weather continued to deteriorate, defence became increasingly involved in providing support to local authorities.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con)
Can the Minister confirm that the contribution made by reservists to flood relief was in this case substantial?
Lord Astor of Hever
Yes, I can assure my noble friend that that is the case. The average number of reservists employed in mid-February, at the peak of the crisis, was around 80 per day. In most cases reservists were employed on man training days—the payment method used for routine reservist activity—although there were a small number of formal mobilisations, namely of signallers and engineers. I managed to visit some of the reservists who helped with the flood work, both infantry and engineers, who told me that they were very well received by the public for the work that they did.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister like to say a little more about the issue of funding? We are aware that when the military is called out in support of the civil power, if it is to reduce the threat to life there is no charge, but very quickly the charging becomes extremely high. That could well have been the reason why local authorities were concerned about calling the military out. That would seem to be counterproductive when trained bodies of people are available to help in civil situations. Can the Minister say what the Government are thinking of doing about that?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the noble Lord asks a good question. Certainly the perceived risk of a substantial full-costs bill at the end of an operation can be a concern to local authorities. We would like to do more to support the civil authorities, but we must ensure that the defence budget is not disadvantaged, nor indeed gains any inappropriate benefit, from so doing. The Secretary of State is currently in discussions with the Treasury, exploring the possibility of a full marginal costing recovery scheme, which would make the costing situation much clearer to all parties in advance.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that numbers themselves have a real strength? In our push to try to reduce the number of people in the military to get maximum efficiency, we are losing that. France in its White Paper, for example, saw the use of the military in various départements as a very important part of the whole structure. Have we really looked at this in detail? I believe that we have reduced numbers to a level at which they cannot assist the civil power where they should be able to do so, because they are formed bodies which are very often self-supporting.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, as I said in my initial Answer, we are looking at this whole process to see how to improve it in future. This is one area that we will certainly look at closely.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
Can my noble friend confirm that the deployment to which the Question and his Answer relate had no effect on routine operations?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the personnel allocated to assist with flooding were selected in such a way that their participation would have no impact on military units’ preparedness for future operations. That includes contingency operations should assistance be requested in the event of future flooding or other severe weather.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, as the flood water recedes and people begin to reoccupy their homes, can the Minister say whether he anticipates that the armed services will be needed for a similar role next winter?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I cannot say that I am very good at forecasting the weather, but if the Armed Forces are called on I am sure that they will do as good a job as they did this year.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, military assistance to the emergency services in the Environment Agency was very welcome. I well recall an even more acute situation in the foot and mouth disease outbreak. However, had that outbreak occurred a few months later, the military would all have been in Iraq. It is, therefore, important to recognise that military priorities change and we need to invest in the emergency services. I have just been given information that there is to be a huge cut in West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service of about £2.5 million this year and another £1.5 million next year. We depend utterly on those emergency services; help from the Army is good, but we need to continue to fund them.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point, but the Armed Forces are always ready to do what they can to help the civil authorities.
Burma
(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Cox
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the current situation in Burma with particular reference to the Rohingya, Shan and Kachin peoples.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)
My Lords, we welcome that the Burmese Government and ethnic armed conflict groups will establish a joint committee to draft a nationwide ceasefire text, but remain concerned by low-level fighting in Kachin state and Shan state. We are troubled by UN reports that at least 40 Rohingya people were killed in Rakhine state in January and by constraints imposed on Médecins sans Frontières. We have pressed for improved security and accountability, co-ordination of humanitarian assistance and a solution on Rohingya citizenship.
Baroness Cox (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer, including her expression of concern for the suffering of the Rohingya people. Is she aware that I visited Shan state recently and Kachin state last year, and that in both states, despite ceasefires, the Burmese army continues to carry out military offensives and atrocities, including the killing, rape and torture of civilians, while the Burmese Government continue their expropriation of land, theft of natural resources and displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians? Will Her Majesty’s Government not consider more robust responses? Many Burmese people and advocacy organisations such as Burma Campaign UK, in its recent report, Downplaying Human Rights Abuses in Burma, are concerned that the British Government are making trade and investment such a priority that the Burmese Government can continue to kill and exploit their own people with impunity.
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, as ever, the noble Baroness comes to these questions with probably the most up-to-date information available. She is absolutely right that, despite ceasefires having been signed, there is still concern about real human rights abuses happening in Shan, about fighting in Kachin and, of course, about the appalling situation in Rakhine. We take these matters very seriously. They have been raised in the most robust way at the highest level, by the Prime Minister, when President Thein Sein visited the United Kingdom, and most recently by me about a week ago, when Ministers from the national planning committee were here, as well as representatives of the chamber of commerce and the director-general responsible for all investment coming into Burma. I did not hold back in any way in making very clear to them our view that responsible business can happen in Burma only against a backdrop of human rights being observed.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, have we asked the Burmese Government directly why they are not providing adequate protection and relief for the 140,000 Rohingya displaced victims of ethnic cleansing in Rakhine state but are instead expelling humanitarian organisations such as MSF, which provided health services to these victims of the Government’s failure to protect them? Secondly, why does the FCO’s quarterly report on Burma as a country of concern play down or omit these and other human rights violations, such as the tolerance of hate speech?
Baroness Warsi
I assure my noble friend that the discussions in relation to Médecins sans Frontières are ongoing. We have huge concerns about it being probably one of a handful of NGOs that are providing health support in Rakhine. Those discussions are ongoing and I will certainly report to the House once we have made some progress. The quarterly report stated:
“More needs to be done to tackle hate speech, which continues to inspire violence and intolerance across Burma; we continue to lobby the Burmese government to tackle these underlying issues”.
We continue to raise these matters. As to humanitarian access, my noble friend will be aware that there are certain parts of the country which, unfortunately, due to fighting, we cannot access, but we continue to press the Burmese Government to allow us access in those areas where there is no fighting.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab)
My Lords, how does the Minister respond to the report of the outgoing UN special rapporteur for human rights in Burma last week, in which he concluded that human rights violations against the Rohingya people could amount to crimes against humanity that should be the subject of an independent international inquiry? Will Her Majesty’s Government support these well founded recommendations?
Baroness Warsi
We support a lot of the work that is being done by the special rapporteur. In that report, which he presented to the Human Rights Council, he felt that technical assistance was required from the international community for any investigation to be transparent, credible and acceptable. I know that the noble Baroness does a large amount of work in this area and continues to campaign. Of course, we will continue to press the Human Rights Council for a strong resolution on human rights against Burma.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that the forthcoming census in Burma is largely funded by the United Kingdom. Has she seen the calls by a number of non-governmental organisations that it should be postponed, not least because in Rakhine state, and other states where there are large ethnic minorities, it could certainly be a flashpoint for further confrontation. Will she at the very least ensure that, should the census be conducted, it will not be used to further distort the ethnic tensions in Myanmar?
Baroness Warsi
The noble Lord is right. We have provided about £10 million to ensure that the census is conducted in a technically sound way. We have also helped with the mapping exercise. We have concerns about the census, which is due on 28 March. This Friday will be census night and there will then be a period of 10 days when enumeration will take place. We have concerns because of the 135 officially recognised ethnicities—Rohingya, for example is not included—but we take some comfort from the fact that we have gained agreement from the Burmese Government for independent observers to be mobilised during this process. We hope that the option to self-identify will be used by the Rohingya community to be properly enumerated.
Lord Triesman (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has said that these issues are raised with the Burmese authorities vigorously and frequently and I know that to be the case. I am sure that these efforts are appreciated. To ensure that these issues do not drop between any cracks or rely on a single sentence to capture them, should we not adopt in the quarterly report a traffic light system under which countries that persistently abuse human rights are shown to all of those who read our reports around the world as red, those which are making progress as amber and others as green? As we take comfort in some progress, I sometimes feel that we have lost them on our radar.
Baroness Warsi
As the Minister with responsibility for human rights, I constantly keep under review how the quarterly and annual reports on human rights are presented, how we can present them better and how we can better judge countries that are making progress. I am starting to see the first drafts of the human rights reports which will be published later this year. They will include a great deal of detail on Burma, both as a country of concern and in relation to specific human rights abuses.
Israel and Palestine
(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Tonge
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the government of Israel about the actions of the Israeli Defence Force towards civilians in the Occupied Territories.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)
My Lords, we have serious concerns in regard to IDF actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including the killing and injuring of civilians, policing of non-violent demonstrations and treatment of child detainees. We have repeatedly raised cases with the Israeli authorities, including the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, COGAT, and the National Security Council.
Baroness Tonge (Ind LD)
I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that since last July, 44 civilian Palestinians have been killed and many hundreds have been seriously injured? Among them, for example, 12 year-old Attah al Sabbah, now a paraplegic, was shot while collecting his school satchel; and two young footballers, Adam and Johar Halabiyeh, from Abu Dis near Jerusalem, were shot in the legs before being beaten up, one having his knee joint shattered. They were returning from football training. Will the Minister ensure that, as well as the usual ineffectual representations that our Government make to the Israeli Government, they will also ask FIFA to impose penalties on countries which allow young footballers to be treated in this way? Will she also say why it is that we are prepared to impose sanctions on Russia for breaking international law but not upon Israel, which has been breaking international law for decades?
Baroness Warsi
I thank my noble friend for that question. She comes to these matters with great expertise. She has asked a number of questions—not only Oral Questions but Written Questions—on a regular basis. I can assure her that we take these matters incredibly seriously. There has been a worrying increase in violence in the West Bank. In 2012, nine civilians were killed; in 2013, 27 civilians were killed; and the number of civilians who have been injured is also on the increase. Last week I raised these matters with our officials and only yesterday—Sunday— our ambassador spoke with the national security adviser and again put our concerns before him.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, it is true, is it not, that in recent weeks the international community has taken a dim view of the occupation of one country by a neighbouring country and that this has led, quite properly, to a flurry of international activity, reference and the activation of sanctions? Yet, given that this question quite rightly refers to occupied territories which have been occupied now for more than 40 years, am I right in thinking that that there is no sense whatever of the same level of urgency and commitment being given to liberating these occupied territories as there is when similar events occur in other parts of the world?
Baroness Warsi
It is important that I try to focus on this Question. I understand why people try to read across to other matters, but successive government policies on the Occupied Palestinian Territories have been clear. Successive government policies about the two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, with agreed land swaps and a settlement for refugees in Jerusalem as a shared capital, have been the same. There is a Kerry framework agreement on which we hope progress will be made and we hope that that will be done by around the end of April. We are supporting and continue to support that, and we hope that it will yield some positive results.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, will the Government continue to raise the use of excessive force, the lack of proportionality and the almost complete impunity of the IDF when operating in occupied zones rather more strongly and effectively than has been the case in the past? There is the particular case of Raed Zeiter, a Palestinian civilian and a Jordanian magistrate, who was killed by the Allenby Bridge. Will the Government insist on a full and independent inquiry into his death?
Baroness Warsi
The views of this House are very clear, and I will certainly make sure that the strength of feeling on this matter is fed back. Officials from our embassy in Tel Aviv have raised with the IDF the issues of the Palestinian-Jordanian judge Raed Zeiter, who was tragically shot. I understand that there has been some progress, and that Prime Minister Netanyahu has issued a public apology and announced a joint Israeli-Jordanian investigation into the incident. Anger about it has been widespread and that has been communicated to the Israeli authorities.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, bearing in mind the incidents that have been referred to, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the particular importance of the two-state solution should be stressed and that the consequences of not achieving an agreement should be warned against? Whatever the incidents, the only way forward is an agreement on peace and I hope that the Government will support that.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, the bad behaviour of soldiers from any country is inexcusable, but is the noble Baroness aware of the many efforts made by Israel to support the Palestinians on the other side? These efforts relate to the economy, where the GDP in the West Bank is rising by about 7% a year, to the number of Arabs in East Jerusalem and Jerusalem, which is increasing at a greater rate than that of the Jewish population, and to the large numbers of Palestinians who are being treated in Israeli hospitals across the country, as well, incidentally, as those wounded from Syria. Should the UK not be concentrating on pressure on Mr Abbas to continue negotiations so that we can get to a two-state solution that the vast majority of the population in Israel supports?
Baroness Warsi
The Government have always been quick to recognise the progress that has been made on positive action by the Israeli Government. However, that does not take away from the real and serious concerns that we have in relation to child detainees, for example, that I know the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, was trying to get in on. We have concerns about IDF actions and continue to raise them at the highest level.
Lord Dykes (LD)
Does my noble friend agree that Israel is a great country with a great people, but unfortunately with a very narrow-minded and reactionary Government? Will our Government specifically seek out meetings with the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, which has recently made strong representations to the Israeli Government about these unacceptable Palestinian casualties?
Baroness Warsi
I am not familiar with that particular human rights group but I will certainly ensure that officials are aware of the work that it is doing.
Alexander Litvinenko
(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clinton-Davis
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to reconsider their decision not to hold a public inquiry into the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, following the judgment by the Court of Appeal on 11 February.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, the Home Secretary has decided not to seek permission to appeal the judgment and will give fresh consideration to the exercise of her discretion to establish an inquiry. The Government continue to co-operate fully with the inquest into Mr Litvinenko’s death.
Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his somewhat implausible Answer. The fact is that three eminent judges have concluded that the coroner was absolutely right, that the Government’s case was unconvincing and that a special inquiry was needed. As we have heard, the Government have not appealed against that. Why do the Government concede that a special inquiry might be adopted, not now but in the distant future? Is that sensible?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, the noble Lord is being rather uncharacteristically churlish about the Answer I gave. These are complex and sensitive issues, as I hope noble Lords will appreciate, and it is right that the Home Secretary gives proper consideration to whether or not to hold an inquiry. That is her right and we should support her in that.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recollect that on 11 February this year Lord Justice Richards, in giving the judgment of a unanimous and strong Court of Appeal, examined in detail each and every one of the six reasons given in the decision letter by the Home Secretary and rejected each and every one of them absolutely? He crystallised the situation with this sentence:
“If she is to maintain her refusal she will need better reasons than those given in the decision letter, so as to provide a rational basis for her decision”.
Does the Minister accept that failure to allow this matter to be properly examined under the Inquiries Act 2005 would not only be a denial of the justice that the assassinated Litvinenko deserves but a breach of the commitment that the United Kingdom has shown so honourably over the years to the rule of law?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, the Government have sought justice in this case ever since Mr Litvinenko died in 2006. That remains the position. This crime took place in this country and involved a British citizen. We want to see those whose arrests were sought by the Crown Prosecution Service—Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitry Kovtun—brought to and put on trial in the UK. Meanwhile, the noble Lord has emphasised why it is important that the Home Secretary gives proper consideration to the need for an inquiry.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
My Lords, the judgment of this very powerful three-judge court emphasised that the case for setting up an immediate statutory inquiry, as requested by the coroner, Sir Robert Owen, is plainly a strong one. As has just been said, the judges rejected all the reasons given by the Home Secretary for not doing so, and then said that there needed to be,
“fresh consideration to the exercise of her discretion”.
That was said in a judgment on 11 February. In the intervening weeks, has the Home Secretary given fresh consideration and can the Minister now tell the House what her reasons are for accepting or rejecting the idea of an inquiry?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble Lord is quite right. The judgment was a firm one. None the less, the decision to order an inquiry requires proper consideration. There is no deadline for this consideration but, clearly, the Home Secretary will seek to come to a conclusion as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the arrest of those whom we wish to see tried for this offence remains our priority.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there was in the past at least a scintilla of plausibility in the argument that, on prudential grounds, it was not worth provoking the Russian Federation because we needed to work with it in other areas, such as Syria and Iran, but that after Russia’s blatant invasion of Crimea, all that has gone and justice should now be done?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Yes, but, as I have pointed out, justice requires that those whom we wish to see put on trial in this country for this crime are brought to justice, and that requires the Russians to honour their agreement to extradite according to our request. I could not agree more with the noble Lord that our relationship with Russia has deteriorated as a result of the recent attempted annexation of Crimea. We are clearly not happy with that situation either, so it is yet another breakdown in our relationship with Russia.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, instead of passing sanctions of doubtful usefulness on various Russian citizens, would it now not be better to honour the promise given personally by the Foreign Secretary to Mrs Litvinenko, and to honour the Written Answer to me of 8 July last from the Minister, and respect the basic principles of British justice with a fully open inquest or inquiry? I have not understood whether the Government are committed to that or not.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I think that I have made the position quite clear. The Home Secretary is considering, in the light of circumstances, whether an inquiry is the proper course of action. Meanwhile, as noble Lords will know, the G7—not the G8—is meeting in The Hague today to consider developments as a result of Russian aggression in the Black Sea area.
Defence Reform Bill
(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:17 - Division on Amendment 2 - Ayes: 169 / Noes: 227 - Amendment 2 disagreed.
“Procurement of communications systems or servicesAdditional arrangements relating to procurement of communications systems or services
(1) To the extent that communications systems or services are procured for defence or related purposes under this Part (whether by the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers or officers of other states resident in the United Kingdom) and those systems or services are used or proposed to be used for the purpose of interception of communications or processing of intercepted communications, it shall be the duty of the Interception Commissioner to report on the use or proposed use of those services or systems for any activity which may be subject to the provisions of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
(2) In section 57 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (interception of communications commissioner), at the end of subsection (2) insert “; and
(e) the transmission of data through the jurisdiction and processing of data by means of any communication systems or services procured under Part 1 of the Defence Reform Act 2014 in the United Kingdom for defence (whether or not of the United Kingdom) or related purposes which has been obtained by interception, whether by—(i) the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers; or(ii) officers of other states acting within the jurisdiction.””
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I will take just a moment to remind Members of the problem that I am trying to address with this amendment—that is, that the ability to intercept communications has leapt ahead of the regulations governing them. However, that is a very broad area and I think it is generally accepted that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act needs a thorough overhaul. This amendment addresses just the update to governance that is needed in the area of defence procurement—the subject of this part of the Bill.
The capacity and scale of interceptions from the RAF bases used by our allies, the Americans, under the Visiting Forces Act means that Parliament must put something in place to be confident of a statutory basis for these interceptions. However, I emphasise that in no way should the amendment be seen as undermining of our relationship with our NATO allies or of the intelligence agencies—quite the reverse. It seeks to increase confidence among UK citizens that we are in compliance with international law and have a national legislative framework that respects citizens’ right to privacy while keeping abreast of threats and technological developments.
I raised this issue in Committee and, in tabling this more focused amendment, I have taken account of the Minister’s comments at that stage. Since Committee, both the Deputy Prime Minister and the shadow Home Secretary have made speeches highlighting the need to act quickly and decisively with regard to governance of the intelligence agencies and interception.
I welcome particularly my right honourable friend Nick Clegg’s announcement that the Royal United Services Institute—RUSI—has agreed to establish an expert panel to review the use of internet data for surveillance purposes. That panel will consist of a group of experts drawn from the worlds of intelligence, technology, civil liberties and the law, and it will be chaired by Professor Michael Clarke, the director-general of RUSI. The panel will look at the principles that ought to govern our use of surveillance, examine current practice and make recommendations for reform and, where necessary, new legislation. I am sure that the review will spend some time looking at the whole legislative framework.
This amendment does no more than try to plug a gap in the mean time in respect of how data are obtained from UK citizens and how they may be shared, stored and used. The DPM went to the heart of the matter in his speech to RUSI when he said:
“it is in all our interests to ensure that we can enforce the law in the online world in the same way we enforce the law in the offline world, targeting terrorist and criminal networks and preventing attacks from taking place, precisely to safeguard the free and open society that we want”.
Yet would our laws even apply as things stand? The facts about what is intercepted and stored by, for example, the NSA as opposed to GCHQ, are a matter of conjecture to most of us, certainly to me. No doubt many interceptions are joint operations, but just how do Ministers know which are which and what is going on? It is so that Ministers are precisely aware of what is being planned that I propose in this amendment a reporting obligation relating to the procurement of communications systems or services in the area of defence.
The amendment seeks to extend the existing reporting obligations of the Interception of Communications Commissioner to report on the use of all communications systems and services procured for defence purposes. This expressly includes systems used on US bases by officers of states who are in the United Kingdom. The proposal involves extending the remit of the ICC, as I have suggested in subsection (2) in the amendment. In doing this, I sought to take into account the Minister’s careful response to the more extensive series of amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Dubs, the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, and me in Committee. In particular, I accept the argument of my noble friend Lord Astor that an entirely new scrutiny group might not be necessary, with the caveat that we must therefore build on existing mechanisms to fill the gaps in regulation and monitoring of all communications systems in the UK. This modest amendment seeks to address those different points on which my noble friend Lord Astor, through absolutely no fault of his own, given existing regulation and the remit of the Bill, was unable to reassure us.
We were informed by the Minister when this issue was last debated in Committee that,
“under the Visiting Forces Act visiting forces are subject to UK law”.
In response to an earlier version of this amendment, which also sought to provide oversight by the Interception of Communications Commissioner of the activities undertaken at US bases on UK soil, my noble friend Lord Astor added that, if the visiting forces,
“ever wanted to undertake interception activities that engage the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act—RIPA—a proper authorisation must be obtained. All such authorisations are already overseen by the Interception of Communications Commissioner, and he reports annually to Parliament and the Prime Minister on the exercise of those powers”.—[Official Report, 5/2/14; col. GC 118.]
This reply puzzled me somewhat; perhaps I misunderstood it. I thought that US bodies or officers were not actually listed as those authorised under RIPA to apply for interception activity. With this in mind, I would be very grateful if my noble friend Lord Astor could explain whether and how such authorisations have been made. In addition, the reported scale of the interceptions would make the granting of such a volume of authorisations almost impossible.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, said, she also raised the issue of interception capabilities in Committee when she referred to concerns over the relevance of existing legislation in the light of rapid advancements in technology, the level of application of that technology by in particular American forces operating from UK soil and the extent to which UK law did or did not apply to them.
The amendment moved by the noble Baroness does of course refer to,
“officers of other states resident in the United Kingdom”,
and officers of other states acting within the jurisdiction.
I presume, therefore, that the amendment is nation-neutral and is intended to refer equally to other countries, although I am not sure that it is intended to cover any such activities being undertaken by, for example, embassy officials of such other countries.
As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, the Interception Commissioner, as I understand it, already monitors intercepted data, including of the Ministry of Defence, so I assume that is not the real issue since that individual reports annually to Parliament and to the Prime Minister. The Government have stated that if visiting forces want to undertake interception activities covered by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act a proper authorisation must be obtained, that such authorisations are overseen by the Interception of Communications Commissioner, and that covert surveillance powers are subject to separate oversight arrangements through the Chief Surveillance Commissioner.
In relation to foreign military personnel, the extent to which they are exempt from local jurisdiction is regulated through status of forces agreements negotiated between the sending and the host nation, which allow a sending state’s military forces to operate within, and at the consent of, the host state.
In 1951 NATO agreed a status of forces agreement covering hosting arrangements between the alliance’s member states, and thus from our perspective applies equally to visiting forces in the UK and to British forces based in NATO countries. The 1952 Visiting Forces Act incorporated the NATO status of forces agreement into UK law. The Act and the agreement provide for foreign laws and military discipline to apply to foreign military personnel in the UK, but such personnel are still subject to UK law, and this arrangement applies equally to our forces when they are overseas. The Armed Forces Act 1996 extended the Visiting Forces Act to third countries by Order in Council.
The Government have said that the US visiting forces are thus subject to both US and UK law. At present I believe that around 9,500 US military personnel and supporting civilian staff are permanently based at various locations throughout the United Kingdom. Most UK military bases involved are used by the United States Air Force, but RAF Menwith Hill is used by the US National Security Agency. The United States visiting force is responsible for internal security at the bases that have been made available to them. The parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee has oversight of the intelligence activities undertaken by RAF Menwith Hill, and the Government have stated that the mission at RAF Menwith Hill is conducted in accordance with UK law and with the knowledge and consent of the UK Government. The United States visiting force also declares its inventory of weapons in the UK annually to the MoD, which ensures that all weapons are appropriately licensed and stored, and the storage of US munitions on bases in the UK is governed by a 1997 agreement between the UK and the US.
I listened to the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, just as I listened to the Minister’s response in Committee, when he gave the Government’s assurance that oversight mechanisms were in place and covered any person subject to UK law performing such activities in the UK. Clearly the Government have a responsibility to make sure that appropriate arrangements are in place to ensure that we know what is going on in our own country in the field of military and security activity, including interception of communications and surveillance, and that what is happening conforms to UK law. That means that the Government have to satisfy themselves that both oversight mechanisms and the law continue to keep pace with increasingly sophisticated technological developments. I hope that in responding the Minister will be able to assure us that that is, and indeed will continue to be, the case, not only because a Government must know what is going on within their own borders in these vital areas, but to address some of the questions and concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in moving her amendment today.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for raising and giving an airing to this subject. I can only hope that this will not be the end of the discussion of this important matter. The point was made as to whether this amendment was within the remit of the Bill. I like to think that this is going to be not one that we will necessarily vote on today, but one that we will come back to in greater detail bearing in mind the reply from my noble friend the Minister.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, went into great detail, and I certainly do not intend to repeat his comments, but I share many of his concerns about the assurances that he seeks. Do my noble friend the Minister and the Ministry of Defence believe that, with our reduced Army, Navy and Air Force, we are more vulnerable without such interception? No one likes the breaking of privacy and no one likes secrecy, but with our Army being reduced by 20,000, our Navy by 5,000 and our RAF by 5,000 personnel, and with the increase in the Reserve Forces, which we will deal with later in the Bill, rising very slowly to reach the 30,000 level, how important is that interception, and how important is it that it is reported and transparent, as my noble friend Lady Miller asked?
That is brought very much to the forefront of our minds with the problems in Ukraine. What help or hindrance does such interception cause in the present climate of hostilities? Overall, how should such transparency be effected on forces such as those of the United States operating on UK soil?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 1 deals with the issue of interception of communications and follows on from the amendment on the issue that we considered in Grand Committee.
As I am sure that my noble friend appreciates, the issues that she has raised this afternoon, although important and interesting, are not entirely related to the Defence Reform Bill. In fact, the Interception of Communication Commissioner’s Office—the role and powers of which are covered by the amendment—is the responsibility of the Home Office, rather than the Ministry of Defence. I hope that she will therefore understand if I do not respond to all the points that she raised. In particular, as the Prime Minister recently made clear in the House of Commons, intelligence-sharing between the UK and its allies will not be discussed in public. I will, however, try to cover those aspects of the amendment that deal with defence matters and to touch upon the wider points where I am able to do so.
I can give my noble friend and other noble Lords an unequivocal assurance that the Government are fully aware of the activities at US bases in this country and that interception activity in this country is subject to the full rigour of oversight provided under RIPA. We all know that there is intelligence co-operation between the UK and US Government and that that is a key component of our relationship with them. I will not be drawn into commenting on the specifics of that co-operation, but I can confirm that operations at the base that my noble friend mentioned are carried out in accordance with United Kingdom law.
The amendment is in two parts. The first would require the Interception Commissioner to report on the use or proposed use, subject to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, of services or systems procured for defence purposes. However, the Interception of Communications Commissioner is already required by Section 57 of RIPA 2000 to keep under review the issue of RIPA 2000 interception warrants. Therefore, the additional legal effect of this part of the amendment would be to impose a requirement on the commissioner potentially to be involved twice for the same interception. He would be required to comment once in reviewing the use and proposed use of equipment to intercept communications, and then again when reviewing the actual issue of any subsequent interception warrant. Therefore, this part of the amendment is unnecessary; it provides no additional scrutiny, and could, in some circumstances, introduce uncertainty and lack of clarity. This would be an unhelpful extension of the commissioner’s remit, which, as it stands, is clear and distinct.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his thoughtful, thought-provoking and informative reply, from which I hope to have gained a lot more food for thought. Between us, we have managed to move the debate on this afternoon. I very much thank him for taking the time and effort to analyse the issues that we are looking it. I also thank my noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill for his support because this matter really goes to the heart of that balance of which I spoke, between security and privacy.
I also warmly thank my noble friend the Minister. I realise that his reply labours under the difficulty of the amount that he is not able to say. He has given, as far as he is able to, some of the assurances that I was seeking. The difficulty is that there is so much that we cannot possibly know that it is very hard to imagine that we will ever be able to legislate adequately for the technological advances that have been made. That is the challenge before us because at some stage we are going to have to update RIPA, and even where it crosses into areas of defence it will have to be within a legislative framework.
The Minister made one particularly useful and interesting comment that I picked up on. That is the fact that some of this falls under the jurisdiction of the Home Office and some under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence. Again, when we come to legislate that is a real issue because its effect is to leave a bit of a hole in the middle down which things can disappear. Also, had we had something about procurement and expanding defence capability back in about 1990, then what was going on and being built at Menwith Hill might have created a bit more of a stir about what was being procured there and for what purposes. There was some debate that it was for missile defence; I am sure that some of it is but some of it is for other purposes. The Intelligence and Security Committee may be aware of those purposes but of course many of them are poachers turned gamekeepers, which poses another challenge.
In concluding, I pay tribute to the Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases, which is based up near Menwith Hill. This is about accountability. It is not asking American bases to go home but saying that they should be accountable to the UK. Without that campaign, some of these issues would be much harder to keep our eye on from Westminster. However, I thank noble Lords for giving us the time during this important Bill and, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, we now come on to Part 2 of the Bill. I would like to acquaint the House with my interests in this from my history. In 2008, I was working for Defence Equipment and Support, and I therefore tend to come at the problems being tackled in Part 2 from perhaps a wider direction than is typical.
At this point, I also thank the Government, particularly the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Philip Dunne MP, the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and their civil servants and advisers, for the enormous amount of time that they have given to Peers in general and ourselves in particular in scrutinising Part 2. We therefore have only three groups and five amendments, because we have done all the probing—“What do these little clauses mean?”, et cetera—in those detailed meetings. The way that the Government handled that is highly commendable.
Before we move on to the amendments, it would be useful to pause and look at the problem that we are trying to fix. The Ministry of Defence procures between £6 billion and £8 billion-worth of equipment each year through contracts which are sourced by a single-source supplier. Why does it do this? It does it for the harsh practical reason that, in order to secure sovereignty, it has to cede monopoly. Why does it have to do this? It has to do this because defence technology cannot be this much-dreamed-about, off-the-shelf idea; you need your technology to be at the leading edge, and frequently the only people you can buy leading-edge technology from are your own suppliers. You use your own suppliers to assure security of supply.
The problem with these large contracts is that any vestige of competition recedes as the contract proceeds. The world changes and the Ministry of Defence is left with the harsh choice either to cancel or to pay more. These contracts are also very big. Taxpayers, not unreasonably, often feel that they have got a bad deal. This is compounded by the fact that contracts are frequently obscure and opaque—they are certainly not transparent. I would, en passant, like to commend the Government for the provisions in Part 2 that relate to the reporting regime, which we completely support and believe is an important step forward.
As I say, the people who tend to get blamed for this are the Ministry of Defence, civil servants and serving personnel who work in DE&S. We have to see the size of the problem of managing contracts of enormous size, difficulty and complexity over many years. The Government’s reaction to this was to ask the noble Lord, Lord Currie of Marylebone, to produce a report—which I have read and commend—and to invite a team of civil servants and at least one adviser to produce legislation to address the issue. That legislation is Part 2 of the Bill.
What Part 2 is trying to do is neatly summed up in the provisions referring to the Single Source Regulations Office: the aim is to ensure,
“that good value for money is obtained in government expenditure”,
and,
“that persons … who are parties to qualifying defence contracts are paid a fair and reasonable price”.
That is the objective, and the Opposition commend the Government’s efforts in this area. We support the generality. Part 2 is a good attempt but not good enough. That is why we have three groups of amendments on Part 2, which will focus on: the independence of the Single Source Regulations Office; the misuse of target cost incentive fees; and the focus on allowable costs.
Amendment 2 relates to the independence of the Single Source Regulations Office, or at least our solution to what we think is not its independence but its apparent independence. It is important to understand how Part 2 works. My interpretation of the way Part 2 works—probably the Government will put me right in a minute or two—is that it puts a straitjacket or constraint or series of rules on how government can behave in these contracts and hence prevent itself by law from being bullied by big suppliers. It is quite a complicated thing to do. You would think, “Well, why don’t you just tell them not to be bullied?”. Of course, in the heat of the moment, when an urgent requirement is coming through, when you have got to do the deal, when it is a matter of national security, it is very difficult to resist the bullying of a big and powerful supplier. The essence of Part 2, as I read it, is to create this framework or the straitjacket that officials will have to work within when they complete these qualifying contracts.
Right at the centre of Part 2 is the Single Source Regulations Office, the SSRO, which has an immensely important role. The two aspects that I would pick out are its responsibility for analysing the data—overlooking the contracts and creating some of the parameters within which they are created—and making rulings. This analysis and these rulings are very significant for the financial impact on the contractor and, conversely, the other side of the coin, on the taxpayer. The SSRO stands between the MoD and the contractor, and its very essence is that not only is it independent but it must be seen to be independent. It is the Opposition’s contention that it is not independent enough and certainly not seen to be independent enough.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, I welcomed the letter from the Minister. It gave a lot of confidence, which is needed not only by Members of your Lordships’ House but by contractors, who I am sure were worried about changes in circumstance and the new organisations that they would have to deal with.
These sections of the Bill talk about how both the Government and the contractor cannot be bullied; the question is whether they have the correct balance. The balance is pretty good. I have great confidence in my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who I am sure would deal with this admirably within his department. However, these contracts are very MoD-based, and there ought to be the ability within the MoD to deal with this probably in a better manner than the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Who should deal with defence: the MoD or Business, Innovation and Skills? I would like the Minister to take back to his department the question of whether there should be more co-operation between Business, Innovation and Skills and the MoD. There are skills in that department which the MoD would do well to emulate, such as regarding how contracts under EU regulations are dealt with. BIS deals with that better than does the MoD.
As regards inserting an organisation other than the MoD in the management appointment of SSRO, I understand the fears. There is a fear when the organisation that is appointing you is the one you are criticising—that point was well made. However, someone has to be in that role, and there is no better organisation for it than the Ministry of Defence.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, explained, the intent behind the proposed amendment is to increase the independence of the SSRO by giving BIS responsibility for the regulations relating to qualifying defence contracts. As we have made clear on countless occasions during the progress of the Bill, and indeed in positive meetings with noble Lords—we have met quite frequently to discuss this, so I am glad the noble Lord found that helpful—the Government are fully committed to the independence of the SSRO in order to achieve value for money for the taxpayer. The SSRO will succeed only if it is, and is seen to be, fair to both parties. If it is too biased towards the MoD we risk driving the best suppliers out of the market. It is precisely the need for an independent moderating authority that led the MoD to propose the creation of the SSRO in the first place.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, pointed out that the SSRO chair and other non-executive directors are appointed and potentially reappointed by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State sets the budget for the SSRO and can abolish it if he, or she in the future, so wishes. The noble Lord considers that that gives the Secretary of State considerable leverage. It would perhaps help if I were to explain in detail the context of our approach to the SSRO. In framing the legislation, we wanted to give the SSRO as much freedom as possible, including the ability to recruit its own staff. We did not want the SSRO to be a servant or agent of the Crown. These requirements have led to it being designated a non-departmental public body—NDPB.
Considerable public attention has been paid to NDPBs over the past few years, and substantial guidance has been developed. This includes the requirement that they must be allocated to a department, and the Secretary of State of that department must appoint the chair and the non-executives of that body. This department must also pay for the NDPB, which is why the MoD must set the budget for the SSRO. As to the ability to abolish the SSRO, this has been included in Clause 40 which relates to the termination of the whole of Part 2. This power will be used only if there is a desire to repeal the entire framework and revert to a non-statutory approach. In either case, the SSRO will no longer have a role, so the power will exert no leverage over the SSRO.
I turn now to what we have done to ensure the independence of the SSRO. The independence of the chair and other board members is essential, so I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I describe the recruitment process in detail. To ensure that this appointment will result in a suitably independent and unbiased person, we are running the process in full accordance with the guidelines of the Office of the Commissioner of Public Appointments—OCPA. The recruitment panel for the chair is headed by a public appointments assessor, who has been chosen for us by OCPA. Also on the recruitment panel is an independent person suggested by OCPA and approved by the public appointments assessor. There are two others on the panel—one MoD official, and a representative from industry, Mr Paul Everitt, the CEO of ADS, one of the industry trade bodies for the defence sector—so only one of the four members of the interview panel will be from the Government.
A similar recruitment panel, with the addition of the chair, will be used to select the other non-executive directors. There are additional requirements for suitable candidates. They must not have come recently from the MoD or a defence supplier. Together they must represent a balance of private and public sector experience. They must have between them a variety of relevant experience: for example, legal or regulatory expertise, and experience of acquisition within the price sector. This is a rigorous appointment process, and I am confident that the result will be an independent SSRO board.
Having a suitably independent and strong chair will safeguard the independence of the framework, and we have tried our best to achieve this. This is further backed up by guaranteed freedoms. The SSRO is largely free to determine its own procedures, including making committees. The exceptions to this are where procedures are laid out in the Bill, and the requirement to run a full public consultation in support of the quinquennial review, which will be included in the framework document between the MoD and the SSRO.
In addition, the SSRO, like all public bodies, will be subject to external scrutiny by organisations such as the Competition and Markets Authority and the National Audit Office. Moreover, the SSRO chair can be brought before a parliamentary committee at any time. All these points highlight the considerable efforts we have made to ensure that the SSRO will be independent and subject to appropriate public and parliamentary scrutiny. The fact that the Secretary of State appoints the chair and that he can dissolve it are not what will determine the independence and impartiality of the SSRO. While we fully share with the noble Lord his aspiration of protecting the independence of the SSRO and the framework, we do not believe that this amendment is a necessary or effective means of achieving it.
In terms of practicalities, the Ministry of Defence will be the sole government user of the single-source procurement framework. It already has the technical expertise, the understanding and the necessary contacts with the defence industry to understand how the framework will operate in the real world. While the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills would undoubtedly be able to develop the required level of knowledge and expertise, it would take considerable time, effort and cost to create and would, in effect, duplicate the existing capability of the Ministry of Defence.
Moreover, it is normally the case that a single government department acts as the sponsor for a regulatory authority. This amendment would have the effect of splitting this between BIS, which would be responsible for the regulations relating to qualifying defence contracts, and the Ministry of Defence, which would be responsible for all other aspects, including the application of civil penalties. This would create an unhelpful degree of confusion and inconsistency, especially with regard to relations between the Government and the SSRO.
By creating the SSRO, we will increase the number of parties involved in single-source procurement from two—the MoD and the supplier—to three. Adding BIS as a fourth party would add confusion. For example, a supplier might lobby BIS for a change rather than the SSRO, and BIS might seek the MoD’s opinion on a matter rather than trust the SSRO’s recommendations. It is true that BIS has a similar role with regard to other regulators, such as Ofcom, but in such cases BIS is acting as a moderating body between the privatised suppliers and the public. In the case of the SSRO, however, the proposed amendment would place BIS in the position of setting statutory pricing and procurement rules of which the MoD is the sole user. BIS would thereby become the moderating body between private industry and another government department. This would create a potentially unhelpful relationship.
I will make a final point on premises and the issue of independence. I reaffirm what I said in Committee, which was that the SSRO, although it will be on government estate, will not be co-located within the Ministry of Defence. In developing this piece of legislation, the MoD has consulted extensively with industry over a prolonged period. There has been no suggestion from industry that it would see any advantage in having BIS own these regulations. Indeed, the Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology, Mr Philip Dunne, recently met with Mr Paul Everitt of ADS, who said that industry no longer had any concerns over the independence of the SSRO.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about a couple of points, including performance targets. Targets are there to ensure the efficient operation of the framework and the organisation. They are likely to relate to how quickly the SSRO responds to opinions or determinations made by the MoD or the supplier. He requested clarification on communications between the Secretary of State and the SSRO. If they are not on ruling, what sort of communications will they be? The SSRO will be responsible for keeping the framework under review and this will require communication with the Secretary of State or his officials to discuss any matters relating to the performance of the framework of the SSRO. The SSRO will have similar communications with industry.
On Amendment 3, as I stated, the purpose behind Part 2 is to ensure that in exchange for providing suppliers with a fair and reasonable price, the MoD will receive value for money for the goods and services it obtains through single-source procurement. Here we are in complete agreement. This works in two ways. First, it does this by establishing pricing rules that must be followed by the MoD and suppliers and by giving the SSRO the power to adjust the contract price if these rules are not complied with. This places a direct obligation on suppliers to use only appropriate and reasonable pricing assumptions.
Secondly, the Bill imposes transparency requirements which will allow the MoD to monitor suppliers’ costs: for example, ensuring that cost increases are highlighted in good time. These transparency provisions will allow the department, over time, to generate pricing benchmarks for goods and services. In turn, this will help the MoD to negotiate with industry over prices and to press for tough but reasonable efficiency targets. As it is in the interests of the MoD that these two features are applied as widely as possible, we fully expect that the Secretary of State for Defence will use the powers of exemption set out in Clause 14(7) only on an infrequent basis.
In Committee, I provided examples of where we envisage that the use of exemptions might be justified. However, I will summarise them again for the benefit of the House. The first circumstance is where there is no market failure. The framework addresses the situation where a contract price is not subject to the competitive pressures of the market. If those pressures are evident in the contract price, the framework is not required. An example is the purchase of additional items that are already available in the civil market, such as computers.
The second circumstance is one of national security. The Bill provides for some categories of contracts to be automatically excluded from the framework. One of the categories identified in the draft regulations is when the contract is for the purpose of intelligence activities. These exclusions apply only if the whole contract is covered by one or other of the excluded categories. So in the case where a significant part, but not all, of the contract is for intelligence activities, the contract would not be automatically excluded from the framework. As transparency is a significant part of the framework this is unlikely to be appropriate, so the whole contract may require exemption by the Secretary of State.
The third circumstance concerns our relations with other nations. Some of the standard reports would give us sight of a supplier’s plans for the key industrial sites sustained by MoD’s single-source procurement, which could result in a supplier having to reveal the forecast throughput assumptions of facilities that are used predominantly by a foreign Government, thereby exposing that country’s defence planning assumptions. This is likely to be treated with considerable reluctance by the foreign Government and therefore may require use of the exemption.
These are strong, valid reasons for the Secretary of State requiring this exemption power. However, not all the potential cases might be classed as being exceptional, as set out in the proposed amendment. Let us take, for example, the case where the market failures addressed by the framework are not present. It might be useful if I quoted the hypothetical but plausible example of where the department wishes to buy additional desktop computers. In the interests of operating only a single type, an open competition might be undesirable. However, in this example we do not need the full protections Part 2 offers to confirm that the price being offered to the department is fair and reasonable; we can simply compare it with the market price. This may be an unusual case as it requires a contract to be single-sourced yet fully priced using market prices. There would be a valid case for using the exemption powers, but it would be hard to argue that this constitutes exceptional circumstances.
We do not wish the Secretary of State to be constrained by how the new regime is applied in this way, but given that it is in the department’s interests that as much single-source procurement activity as possible is covered by the framework, the fewer exemptions there are, the greater the benefits there will be to the MoD.
I hope that this explains our position and therefore I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I thank all Peers who took part in this debate, and in particular the Minister for her various assurances. I have faith that the people currently in the Ministry of Defence will undoubtedly use the right mechanisms to select the chairman of the SSRO and the individuals who are its non-executive directors. The pressure, which I am sure the present Administration would not bring to bear on the SSRO, will nevertheless come from all the subtleties. I speak as somebody who has chaired a nationalised industry, and who has been the chief executive of one and therefore on its board. The most subtle pressure comes from something that is entirely within the discretion of the appropriate Secretary of State. The Commissioner for Public Appointments, whom the Minister quoted, stated in a recent press release:
“The Public Appointments Commissioner plays no part in a decision not to re-appoint someone at the end of their term of office. That is a matter for Government”.
As we have seen recently in the case of Ofsted, the Government exercised that privilege without recourse to any mechanisms or checks. Everybody will try to do the right thing in these circumstances, but at the end of the day “not being reappointed” is a code for being fired, and being fired can engage the mind rather firmly. I believe that we should do more to distance the SSRO from the Ministry of Defence; the solution that we have chosen is the best one, and because it is important that the Government understand the wisdom of our words, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Housing: Inherited Social Housing Tenancies
(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Employment, Esther McVey, in the House of Commons earlier today. The Statement is as follows.
“Mr Speaker, the Urgent Question called by the honourable Member for Rhondda is not a new one but part of the 1996 provisions which impacted on the spare room subsidy legislation in 2012 and one that we have debated in the House before.
Upon investigation early this year, it would appear that some claimants may have been unintentionally protected from the effects of the removal of the spare room subsidy, including those who have been in receipt of continuous housing benefit since 1 January 1996 and have lived in the same property since that date, unless the move was due to a natural disaster, fire, flood and so on. A grace period of four weeks—or 52 weeks if the claimant or their partner is a welfare-to-work beneficiary—applies. For example, housing benefit would be classed as continuous if the break is less than four weeks, or 52 weeks for welfare-to-work recipients. Where a claimant dies, the partner or an adult child can inherit the protection, but it must be in respect of the same dwelling and they must qualify for housing benefit.
The issue about inheritance of housing benefit has always been part of our understanding about what the loophole meant. This was also part of the guidance issued to local authorities some weeks ago. The loophole derives from a very narrow but complex set of regulations dating back to 1 January 1996, when local reference rent rules were introduced.
In January 1996, transitional protection was offered to existing claimants, which could, and still can, be inherited if the claimant dies; for example, by a partner, or, where there is no partner, by adult children, and the protection only applied in respect of the same dwelling. Therefore, partners or adult children must continue to live in that property and only if they qualified for housing benefit. This protection ends if housing benefit ceased or they moved address.
With hindsight, the protection offered by the regulations could have been time-limited, but it was not; it has lain dormant for 17 years. The effect is that it has now unintentionally been applied to a group of people who were not financially affected by the local reference rent rules. In fact, in the previous debate, my honourable friend for Hitchin and Harpenden, who was Secretary of State at the time, said clearly that this exemption was never intended to be the case. This matter was fully debated and voted upon on 26 February 2014 to approve amendment regulations to close the loophole. Clearly, the House has already spoken on this issue.
As guidance was sent out a few weeks ago, I would suggest that this is not the appropriate time or place to discuss any questions local authorities may have, and that there are clear channels for them to do so. However, our experience with local authorities at the moment is that they know what they need to do, and are just getting on with it”.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer—I think. Obviously, this House has not discussed the regulations concerned, although a regret Motion is coming up. I want to ask the Minister two questions, the first on numbers. He has told the House previously that the number of people affected by this loophole in the bedroom tax is small—the DWP says 3,000 to 5,000—but figures obtained under FOI by Labour show that, with more than a third of councils still to reply, already well over 23,000 people are likely to be affected. The new guidance, to which I think the Minister referred, may increase the number still further. Can he therefore tell the House precisely how many people will be affected by the loophole?
Secondly, I want to put to the noble Lord the following statement:
“I worry about what Labour chooses to call the bedroom tax, because so often what is a spare room is in fact a vital part of looking after an elderly person. It enables their relatives to come, it enables carers to be there … I think we introduced that rather without thinking it through very well, and I think that’s costing us”.
It is costing all of us, in discretionary housing payments, in rent arrears and in human misery. Surely the Minister agrees.
Lord Freud
My Lords, as I have said in this House previously, the numbers involved with this particular loophole are small. This particular inheritance issue does not change our estimates. A figure of around 5,000 has been attributed to the DWP in defining “small”.
On the FOI figures, it is worth making the point that local authorities are now getting to grips with the actual numbers. The Birmingham figures were quoted quite extensively. It was reported that Birmingham alone had 2,100 cases, the significance being that they make up a large proportion of the figure that we have been looking at. More recently, Birmingham put out a clarification, saying:
“We haven’t finished identifying them at Birmingham so can’t give you an exact number, but the number of possible cases has dropped substantially below the 2100 that was reported in the papers.”
So we can see that some of the FOI responses to which the noble Baroness referred—if that was an example—may be clarified.
We have a process for supporting local authorities and people to make the adjustments through discretionary housing payments, which we have increased in recent years from £20 million to £180 million in the current year—indeed, the signs are that that figure will be underspent. The number of people being affected is coming down reasonably rapidly; it is now below half a million.
Lord German (LD)
Can my noble friend tell the House roughly how many people in this country are living in overcrowded conditions or are on housing waiting lists? Can he also put on the record the number of new social houses being built by this Government and compare that with the number built by the previous Government, because, clearly, housebuilding and social housebuilding are crucial?
Lord Freud
My noble friend draws the comparison between the amount of capacity that we have in this country and the demand for it. The number of people on the waiting list is 1.8 million, with the figure for overcrowding running at 250,000 on some estimates and 400,000 on others.
When this Government took office, we were left with the lowest level of peacetime housebuilding that this country had seen since the 1920s. Since then we have delivered nearly 400,000 new homes and put in very substantial investment. There is £11.5 billion public investment to boost housing supply over the four years of the spending review, and this is meant to lever in more private investment. The volume of housebuilding is now picking up. The starts in the quarter to December were up 20% compared with the same period last year.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, every stat I have heard from the Government is either misleading or wrong. The bedroom tax will not help the waiting list because they too want smaller accommodation. It will not much help overcrowding as most families who are overcrowded do not live in the places where there are underoccupied houses. It will not make government savings. As we see, the GHP figures keep going up but the savings stay the same—false. Had the Government followed their own precedent of 1996 of transitional protection for the private rented sector, or had they followed what we did in 2008 by protecting existing tenants in the private rented sector, we would not have the calamity, misery and distress facing so many vulnerable and disabled people in this country. It is shameful.
Lord Freud
My Lords, the figures show that there is a reasonable balance around the county; there is not one place with overcrowding and another with waiting lists. We are staying with the estimate of roughly £500 million a year in savings. On transitional protection, we have given even more notice on the changes coming through than we gave on the LHA changes at the emergency Budget of 2010.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister tell us when the review on the bedroom tax will be published? In the mean time, will he undertake to meet many of the people who have been personally affected by this tax, and whose lives have been turned upside down as a result?
Lord Freud
We are conducting a review on the spare room subsidy; those figures will be published in the final review next year, and we have an interim publication later this year. I meet a lot of people all the time on this issue—in particular, I am seeing a large number of local authorities and holding discussions with them.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
The Minister says that he is seeing a large number of local authorities. Is he actually meeting people who have been affected by this tax? If he has, where has he met them—in what part of the country, in what boroughs? Perhaps he might tell us when. Also, he refers to 400,000 houses built since the last election in 2010—he mentioned 400,000 in his brief, which he read to the House. How many of those were started under the previous Labour Government? It was the Minister who was playing politics with the stats.
Lord Freud
I do not have to hand the number of starts. All I can say is that the number of completions in that last year—the handover year—was the lowest level of building in peacetime since the 1920s, which is a pretty shameful performance from a Government who saw a very long boom. I would like to be able to answer the question, but if I am not allowed to I will not.
Lord Martin of Springburn (CB)
There are communities where, unfortunately, the housing estates are known as hard-to-let properties. If the noble Lord, through legislation, is forcing families out of those houses, it is not necessarily the case that those who are on the waiting list will take up those houses. There is a danger that the people who are fighting hard to keep up the morale of the community in hard-to-let housing areas will see empty property vandalised, will despair and will leave the housing estate where they have worked so hard to keep up appearances.
Lord Freud
Local authorities clearly have a duty here and interest in their local areas to manage them. We are making sure that they have those resources in discretionary housing payments. Indeed, I have been very keen to spend the extra £20 million of funding on discretionary housing payments. It is a balance of maintaining the housing stock and the people in it with the right people in it. There are always isolated cases where the management of particular estates is tough; those are issues for the local areas.
Railways: High Speed 2
(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, the past few days have brought important proposals to make the most of High Speed 2. They will help us to build the line better, bring benefits to the north sooner and support job creation and economic growth. I want to update the House at the first opportunity, and I am sorry that, for unavoidable reasons, I was not able to do that last week.
The proposals are welcome, because HS2 is a vital project. It can do for future generations what Victorian railways did for previous generations and the motorways for ours. That is why it has the strong support of the Government, and it is why cities in the Midlands and the north are calling for its benefits to be spread as widely as possible.
We must heed that call, but for this to happen we also need to get the basics right: stick to cost, plan well, listen, respect the environment, build what really works and what we really need for the future and, of course, make sure that people get the benefits as quickly as possible.
I know, too, that HS2 is just part—but a vital part—of our long-term economic plan, one that will see better infrastructure for all parts of the country. It is a clear and ambitious plan, a plan that is already paying dividends—shown by last week’s welcome decision by Hitachi, the company that invented the bullet train, to move its global rail headquarters to Britain. That is the sort of opportunity presented by HS2.
First, let me respond to the report by Sir David Higgins. He began work as chairman of HS2 in January. The first task that I set was to look at how to maximise the benefits of HS2 and manage the costs. Last year, Parliament backed the principle of a high-speed rail link to the north with 350 votes in favour and only 34 against. Now it is up to us to make it happen. Given his great track record, there is no one better suited to the job than Sir David.
I turn to his proposals. First, on costs, Sir David has reviewed the cost estimates for constructing phase 1 and confirmed that they are realistic. The budget set by the Government in 2013 stands. As experience shows, in Britain we can build great projects on time and on budget, such as High Speed 1 and Crossrail. However, at this early stage, before Parliament has considered the hybrid Bill, we must include a proper contingency. Of course, for popularity’s sake, one option would be to slash the contingency and claim it as a saving. Sir David says that would be the wrong thing to do. I agree, but, as he also says, with growing certainty comes growing confidence. There will be the stage when we can bring the contingency down.
Let me turn to his second proposal. I have heard many honourable Members ask why we cannot build in the north sooner. I agree: we can. His report suggests opening the line to a new hub station in Crewe six years earlier than planned. Direct trains will of course be able to run off HS2 lines to serve places such as Stoke, Liverpool, Manchester, north Wales—and Scotland—faster too. A line to Crewe sooner would mean shorter journeys than with just the current phase 1: quicker to Manchester, quicker to Liverpool, quicker to Scotland.
This is a welcome proposal and I am commissioning HS2 Ltd to undertake work to allow it to be considered in detail. However, this must be seen as an acceleration of phase 2, not an alternative. Sir David said that we must make the most of this investment so that as many towns and cities as possible benefit. I agree, and we will make sure that happens.
With the third proposal—for the southern end of the line—our priority must be to get the benefits to the Midlands and the north as soon as possible. In short, we must put our money and time where it can do most good. Sir David is clear that he does not think existing proposals for the HS2-HS1 link meet that test. The HS2-HS1 link proposed in the hybrid Bill has not secured a consensus. The link requires too many compromises in terms of impacts on freight, passengers and the community in Camden. I therefore intend to remove the link from the hybrid Bill and withdraw safeguarding as soon as possible. I will also commission a study into options for improving connections to the continent which could be built once the initial stages of HS2 are complete.
I also agree with the report that much more can be made of Euston station—not just to build something we can be proud of but to maximise the economic potential of the line and use a site which has been neglected, and to generate private sector investment which can reduce the overall burden on taxpayers. I will, therefore, ask HS2 Ltd and Network Rail to develop comprehensive proposals for the redevelopment of Euston. Our ambitions for Euston must not, however, conflict with our commitment to control costs. I want to see substantive private sector investment to ensure this.
Secondly, I turn to the report from the growth task force published last week. It is from an impressive panel, including business leaders such as Sir John Rose, Alison Nimmo and Ray O’Rourke, city leaders such as Julie Dore from Sheffield, and the general secretary of the TUC, Frances O’Grady. I thank everyone involved and in particular the Commercial Secretary for his committed leadership. Their message is clear: we need HS2 and we need to act now to squeeze the most from it in terms of jobs, skills and growth.
The task force’s recommendations are plain common sense: things that business, government and cities can do together, and must start doing now. In relation to skills, this means proper training to ensure that our young people get the best jobs on the project. In relation to planning, it is ensuring that the line brings new strength to our cities. On transport it is ensuring that we link the existing road and rail network properly to HS2, and plan investment in them together. Regeneration and economic growth are vital parts of HS2.
City leaders have already started to put plans in place, but government has a role to play as well. That is why I am asking HS2 Ltd, and London and Continental Railways—which developed the King’s Cross St Pancras site—to come forward with proposals for a regeneration company that will respond to the growth task force’s recommendations on regeneration. This matters because, as I have said before, HS2 is a project that will be built over many Parliaments—and no doubt Governments too—and it will serve people through many generations. It is not the only answer to our transport needs but it is a central part of the answer. That means designing it carefully and building it right: building something that works, that we can be proud of, and that benefits as many people and places as possible for the lowest cost. We are on schedule to open the line in 2026—which, by the way, is exactly the date the previous Government set in 2010—or ahead of that date in the case of the Crewe proposal.
The Government are keen to rise to the challenge. I hope that honourable Members on all sides of the House will do the same”.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. None of us underestimates its significance. We should begin by congratulating Sir David Higgins and the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, on their substantial and very thorough reports. Significantly increasing capacity south of Birmingham and improving connectivity north of Birmingham are vital and will transform our great cities. I am glad that the penny has at last dropped and that the emphasis is being put on the real role of HS2, which is significantly to increase capacity in our crowded stations and not to reduce journey times from Birmingham to London by 20 minutes for businessmen. It is not that that reduction is unwelcome but it is not as important as the other concepts.
We will of course continue to hold the Government to account for keeping costs down on the project. One of the issues which Sir David Higgins emphasised is that significant savings will be made if the Government set about reducing delays. Therefore, I ask the obvious questions. Where is the hybrid Bill? When will we be able to consider it? What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that we consider the Bill at the earliest possible time? Delay costs money.
I am also glad that one significant objection, which was the concern of a very large number of people, has been allayed by agreeing to scrap the link between HS1 and HS2. That link was always fraught and it brought immense troubles to very large numbers of residents in the London Borough of Camden, while effecting the link on that route looked to be a matter which would be subject to great challenges during the passage of any hybrid Bill. Given the acute affordable housing crisis in Camden, a significant proportion of any new housing must be social housing. There will still be consequences for Camden from the fact that Euston is to be significantly enlarged, even though the link is not to be pursued. At Old Oak Common, where significant regeneration is planned, there is no decision yet from the Government about the relocation of the First Great Western and Heathrow Express train depots. That is of considerable significance to this project and we want to see a decision and proposals on that as soon as possible.
This means that the Government have to put themselves out and talk to the local authorities concerned, as indeed they need to talk constructively to the local authorities that govern our great cities in the Midlands and to the north of London, which will welcome the suggestion that Crewe should be developed several years ahead of what was forecast earlier. However, there are significant implications for our northern cities, which have every right to be prioritised for integration as much as elsewhere in the country. We want a coherent transport plan for the north, which of course has been historically underfunded. We are all too well aware that the Government committed the sin only a couple of years ago of transferring excellent rolling stock from the north to Thameslink. It is not surprising therefore that northern cities think that their needs take a lower priority than they ought.
We need a rebalancing of railway investment into the regions in order to close the economic divide. Even the Government, despite their commitment to government having little role to play in huge areas in the economy and everything being left to the market, recognise that we cannot afford such a significant and drastic difference between the growth of London and the growth prospects of our other major cities. We welcome the proposal on Crewe and the faster construction of phase 2 that is promised.
There is a great deal of consultation to be done. When will the Government announce their response to the phase 2 route consultation? Time means money with such a project in which so many resources are invested. I hope also that there will soon be an announcement of the site of the HS2 skills college. We have seen from the construction of Crossrail the stimulus that is given to high-level skills. We have also seen the difficulty of our own people being able to respond at the relevant level of skills in all aspects. It would be tragic if we did not ensure that the benefits of the construction of HS2 were directed towards the British people from the very construction of the lines.
We must also learn lessons from Crossrail on SME procurement. Contract numbers are high in volume, but the total value of the contracts is uncertain. We must ensure that the high speed pound reaches all parts of the United Kingdom. It is vital that we maximise the opportunity that this new north/south line can bring to the whole of our country. Of course we support the project, but we wait for the Government to rise to the challenge.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, there is clearly a great deal of consensus across the Benches in this House. I very much welcome that because, as the Secretary of State said in his Statement, this project will span many Parliaments and inevitably a number of Governments. Therefore, that consensus is absolutely vital.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and I welcome the comments that he made. I did not identify many questions within his comments. I found one to which I think he wanted a response, which concerned when we would respond to the consultation on HS2. We expect that to be in the autumn. There have been a very substantial number of responses. We need to go through those in a great deal of detail and we need to pay a great deal of attention to them. That is a complex process.
I assure the noble Lord that we have long recognised the importance of the Midlands and the north. In this process I have been spending a great deal of time myself in the north. I welcomed the growth task force report in Manchester with the leaders of Manchester council, the former leader of Trafford, and a number of other representatives of local communities. I underscore that importance and look forward to further questions from other Members of this House.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate Sir David Higgins and the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, on their two reports. I am very pleased that the Government have accepted them. They are a breath of fresh air. I look forward to continuing to work on the project.
I am particularly pleased that the HS1 link has been removed as it was not fit for purpose, but can the Minister encourage her ministerial colleagues not to be too negative about that? She may know that there is already a link with HS1—it was built with HS1—on to the North London Line and the west coast main line which could be used to run Eurostars north of London. It needs signalling—they have forgotten to do that—but that is a minor detail. The trains are operating in France but they could operate in Birmingham and Manchester very quickly and provide that link if there was a demand. I hope that she will take that back to stop any negativity coming from the northern part of the route and the claims that cancelling the HS1 link is a disaster. It is not.
Baroness Kramer
I fully agree with the noble Lord’s comments about the HS1/HS2 link, and those were indeed the comments of Sir David Higgins. It is something that could technically have been done but, given the impact that it would have had not just on the community but on passengers and freight traffic, trains would have travelled at 20 miles per hour on that particular link and no more of them than three an hour, at that, so it was not fit for purpose.
However, I give assurances, as the Secretary of State has said, that there will be an important study to look at how to connect the north through to the continent as HS2 progresses. We recognise the importance of that; it is a significant and serious piece of work. Sir David Higgins has recently welcomed proposals from others who understand transport and community issues, and the department had done so previously. We will continue to appreciate the input that comes in, and that expertise.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, the spirit of the Statement is in for a penny, in for pound—a lot of pounds, of course—but if it is to be done, it should be done well and quicker. I particularly welcome the extension to Crewe, which is in my diocese, so much sooner; I am sure that the people of Crewe, that noble old railway city, will welcome that warmly.
I notice in the Statement, though, that direct trains will be able to run off HS2 to serve north Wales. I have always assumed that the trains on the high-speed rail link will be electric. Does this mean that the Government are announcing plans to electrify the railways beyond Crewe to Chester and into north Wales? If so, when is that going to happen?
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, the line will be able to take classic-compatibles immediately, which will provide a great deal of the flexibility that is needed. Obviously there is a wide programme of electrification already under way. I can take a look again at the route that he has just suggested and come back to him with comments on it but, essentially, the way in which the line is being designed does not just mean that HS2 trains themselves will be able to run up and down it but ensures that it can be used by classic-compatibles that can go on to a wide range of other destinations.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
My Lords, I wonder whether I can start with a question: can anything be done to expedite the tortuous Bill procedure in both Houses? This is a matter for the Government and the House authorities, but we really should not wait for years and years while the Bill waits at the convenience of the House—or, rather, the convenience of the nation.
We have already been told that the fares policy will encourage use rather than deter it. I agree that the HS1/HS2 link as tabled is not very satisfactory, but we need a modern transport link between Kings Cross, St Pancras and Euston. I regretted to see in the report the issue of one stop on the Underground. That would mean carting your cases, luggage and everything down to where it is very congested. The time has come to bite the bullet and make a proper link. If these stations were an airport, they would be one terminal; the distance is very short.
I am most interested in what has been said about the north. I think that the north has been done badly to by successive Governments. The most recent bad thing that was done was when the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, cancelled an order for 200 new diesel trains that would have improved the services there. The north must have decent rolling stock, not the cast-offs from other railways and certainly not antiquated stock. Every city in the north needs its local enterprise partnership to get down now to planning how they will link supporting services into the stations that are served.
Lastly, I challenge the Government on the consistent reports I have seen for years that there is no business case for investing in the north. I think that the reason is that, with the present trains and present service, it is difficult to see why people should use the railway. However, we are looking at a new era, and I am sure that there will be a business case for investing properly in the north.
Baroness Kramer
We absolutely agree that we are looking at a new era. It is frankly inspiring to meet the city leaders, businesses and other stakeholders of the great cities of the north and the Midlands, who are coming together to create a sort of common strategy for maximising the benefits of HS2 by building interconnectivity between them. That is absolutely crucial. My noble friend may be hinting at a rolling stock issue in the north. That is an immediate problem that the department has said that it will find a way to resolve no matter what, but it has not yet found an absolute answer.
Parliamentary procedure is a matter for the two Houses. I am sure, though, that with the good will of Members of both Houses, we can encourage the process to move according to the speediest possible timetable. It is important that people who are petitioning are properly heard and listened to; I would not want to cut short the opportunity for that proper interface.
On fares policy, we have said that this will not be a premium service. There will be many ways to link Euston and St Pancras. They have to be looked at. Travelators have been mentioned; there is one stop on the Northern line.
Lord Popat (Con)
Order, please. I think it is my noble friend Lord Jenkin, then it will be the noble Lord’s turn.
Lord Snape
My Lords, I am grateful that the normal procedures of the House are being abided by. I strike a discordant note, as a supporter of this project, to say how disappointed I am—as I am sure many people in the Midlands and north will be—at the abandonment of the link between HS1 and HS2. Thirty years ago, during the passage of the Channel Tunnel Act, we were told that there would be through trains from Paris, Brussels and other continental cities to our great cities of the Midlands and the north. This was, at least, a chance for those through trains to run between those cities. How does the Minister suggest that a businessperson coming from the continent to the Midlands or the north gets between Euston and St Pancras? Do they take the Victoria or the Northern line? Or will they pull their luggage along Euston Road? Will the Minister accept from me that there will be a great deal of disquiet in many parts of the country about the abandonment of this link?
Baroness Kramer
Many of the cities in the north and the Midlands accept that the link as it was designed did not fit the purpose that they saw for it. It simply was not adequate in the role that it played. We will be looking at many more trains going to many more destinations out of Kings Cross and St Pancras. There has to be a much better way to create a link between HS1 and HS2. That will be a major study. It is a piece of work and it needs to be of the standard that a high-speed intercontinental link deserves.
In the short term, we will need a way to get between Euston and St Pancras. As I say, that will be looked at. The distance, as other people have said, is very limited; I walked between the two in four minutes yesterday. However, it will be important to make sure that that is an efficient and effective link and not a matter of trundling down the street.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, on this question of the HS1/HS2 link, there could be an additional dimension. I have had discussions with Sir Howard Davies who, with his commission, is currently looking at whether a Thames estuary airport could be a realistic addition to the shortlist of options that will be given to the Government after the next election. If, indeed, it becomes a realistic option—which is not impossible at all—then the question of a link from the north will become absolutely vital. People must have a way of travelling down on the HS2 and going on the HS1, with a link to the airport at the Isle of Grain if that is the one which is approved. That would be almost more important than a direct rail link to the continent.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, none of us is attempting to second-guess what the conclusions of the Davies report will be, or the conclusions of the Government of the day that will make the final decision. At that time it will be appropriate to take a look and work out how links can be created if they will be relevant to whatever the major airport will be for the south-east, and to the high-speed line. However, to attempt to do so at this point would delay HS2, which we want to get into the ground by 2017 to deliver the benefits which we all discussed earlier. That is absolutely crucial.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, I was very glad that the Statement mentioned Scotland on a couple of occasions. However, in her replies to all the previous questions, the noble Baroness mentioned just the Midlands and the north—she is reverting back to that again. Will she confirm that the best part of the whole economic case is regarding journeys between London and Scotland, and that that also frees the existing lines to have more stops at intermediate stations in England? Will she therefore initiate discussions with the Scottish Government as quickly as possible to ensure that work is under way to determine the route to Scotland, to start to think about the funding and to start working on dates for construction? Unless she and the Government do that, we will not think that they are being serious about Scotland.
Baroness Kramer
I am delighted to say that the department is somewhat ahead of the game. I have already commissioned a report and consultants have been retained; we expect a preliminary response on how to take the benefits of high-speed rail to Scotland. We will get our interim response in July, and that will be a very important document in being able to identify the future. Of course, HS2—even the “Y” that is currently planned—will help to bring journey times to Glasgow and Edinburgh down to less than three hours.
Lord Shutt of Greetland (LD)
My Lords, I welcome this report; I am in favour of HS2. However, I am rather more in favour of the “plus”. In this report, one word which bellows out is “connectivity”. In the foreword it says that there is,
“poor connectivity in the North”.
It wants us to be,
“more ambitious … about producing a coherent transport plan for the North”.
On page 9, the report states:
“In contrast, connectivity in the North is poor”.
I agree.
I do not want to detract from what has been said about getting to Crewe earlier, and the connectivity in the north-west. However, I want to speak about the other leg, from Birmingham up into Yorkshire, and the possibilities beyond that. The original proposals in January 2013 propose a terminal station in Leeds—what I describe as a “hammerhead terminus”—where the only connectivity is a long walk. That might suit Leeds but it is useless for connectivity for anywhere else, such as Huddersfield, Halifax, Bradford, Keighley, Skipton, Ilkley, going back round to Wakefield, or further connectivity to York, the north-east and Scotland.
Does the Minister agree that connectivity will be achieved if, in Leeds, we get a new station parallel to the Leeds City station of today, not a station that is a hammerhead terminus, which would mean that people would have to leg it such a long way, and the detraction that that would bring?
Baroness Kramer
Yes; I can reassure my noble friend that we are looking very closely at all the proposals that have come in through the consultation, and more generally we are going back to look at all the detailed elements of the second phase of HS2. The issues he raised have been raised with the department and will be looked at, as will other proposals. As I said, we will come back with our conclusions in the autumn.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest in HS2. Unfortunately, it is likely to be a post-mortem interest because by the time it reaches Newcastle I will have long since been dead and buried. The urgent need is for investment now, or as soon as possible, in the north-east in the intra-regional rail infrastructure and indeed, that which will extend across the Pennines to the north-west. It is a very poor route and service at the moment. Can the Minister give any assurance that investment will take place sooner rather than later in those regards, irrespective of what happens in the timing of the HS2 project as such? After all, the north-east has a mere fraction of the per capita expenditure on transport infrastructure, particularly of the south-east, but also in relation to many other regions in the country.
Baroness Kramer
The noble Lord will be aware that spending on transport in the next Parliament is to be £73 billion, of which only £17 billion will be on HS2. There will be a very substantial spend on other transport services, including upgrading and improvement of rail, electrification, and so on. I could go on with a very long list. I can assure the noble Lord that that is not being ignored. There are also great opportunities with the local growth fund, which is a £2 billion-a-year fund for stakeholders to bring forward plans that they see linking into and maximising the benefits to HS2, so that they can go ahead in preparation for the arrival of HS2. I expect many of the cities and communities in the Midlands and the north to be doing exactly that.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con)
Does my noble friend share my enhanced confidence in recent developments from the fact that the growth task force is chaired by our noble friend the Commercial Secretary, following his remarkable achievements on the infrastructure of the London Olympics, in particular?
Baroness Kramer
The noble Lord, Lord Deighton, has brought so much to this issue, not just his experience. The House will be aware that some years ago transport was looked at primarily in silos. It was about how to get people or freight from one place to another. It is now seen as inherently part of an economic development strategy. Local connectivity and integration with the rest of the network now have an importance that perhaps they once did not have. The noble Lord, Lord Deighton, has been very instrumental, with others, in making sure that we have those thoughts right at the forefront of the HS2 scheme.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, I greatly appreciate the Statement today, but when we talk about the great cities of the north, are we including cities such as Preston or Carlisle, which almost certainly will end up with an inferior rail service to the capital in London unless we get the connectivity right, as the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, has wisely drawn our attention to? There is no sign of that at the moment. For example, in a Parliamentary Question in the past few months, I was told that there was not even a business case made for high-speed trains from Wigan, which was to be the terminal to Glasgow. I find that incredible. I am also told that the high-speed trains will not run on the high-speed line, so the tilting trains will be providing an inferior service down the conventional west coast line.
Baroness Kramer
I am not sure that I fully understood the noble Lord’s last point. There will be the fast, specially designed HS2 trains, but the line can also take the classic-compatibles—diesel or otherwise—that can go off to a whole variety of other connections on the west coast main line and other routes. This frees up the west coast main line, the east coast main line and the Midland main line to take a whole complexity of other services. That issue has been raised by others on the Floor today. The expectation of an enhanced service from a much greater number of cities than those absolutely directly connected to HS2 is entirely viable. We just have to make sure that it is deeply embedded in our planning.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the Statement, representing as it does an increased and restated commitment to this project from the Government, added to by my noble friend Lord Davies, who spoke for the Opposition. It is extremely important that it is restated in that way, and it is encouraging to see what questions have been asked as well. However, I share some of the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Snape. I certainly do not wish to delay anything—the quicker the better, in terms of preparing the scheme and getting it going. However, with regard to the statement:
“I will also commission a study into options for ways to improve connections to the continent which could be built once the initial stages of HS2 are complete”,
I would like it to be spelt out in a little more detail what this commission is going to do and within what timescale, and I would like just a clue as to what the other conceivable options would be if there were not to be a direct link between HS1 and HS2, because that must be a concern for those of us in the Midlands and the north.
Baroness Kramer
The decision to not develop the proposed HS1-HS2 link is very recent. A lot of work and thought needs to go into framing the study. As soon as we are able to do that, I will be glad to share it with the House.
Defence Reform Bill
Lord Tunnicliffe
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, in her seat. I would feel inhibited in quoting extensively from her letters, as I intend to do, in her absence. As I mentioned earlier, my vision of Part 2 is essentially that it delivers value by forcing the Government into the constraints that the legislation will spell out once it becomes law. Broadly speaking, what it will do, I hope, is to force agreements into a shape whereby a price is set in one form or another and the excesses or losses that actually occur in practice are handled by Clause 21 entitled “Final price adjustment”. The concept seems to be very sound. You have to go into the regulations to understand it but, broadly speaking, if the actual outturn cost goes up, then pound for pound the contractor makes a loss until the cost becomes excessive, and then, by a formula, the loss starts to be shared with the MoD, eventually on a 50:50 basis. Similarly, if the actual cost goes down because of the efficiency of the contractor, initially all that efficiency and improvement falls to the contractor. Only when the profits start to become excessive is there any clawback to the MoD. It looks to be a good idea that contracts can be forced into that by law. We will wait to see whether that comes off but it is a good aspiration, which we support.
As I mentioned earlier, the Government facilitated extensive discussions on the contract. Of course, when everyone sees a formula, one at least takes some interest in how one would get round it, because that is what people will try to do. As an example, I examined the Statement on carriers made by the Secretary of State for Defence on 6 November in the House of Commons, in column 251 of Hansard. He criticised extensively the previous deal, which was for the carrier but then went on to be a deal which I will call a critical industrial capacity deal. In other words, it was a deal, quite complicated in nature, that essentially paid BAE Systems to do nothing if it had nothing to do in order to retain the essential workforce, facilities and so on. It is a very uncomfortable deal but nevertheless you can see the wisdom of it. Our Government made such deals, this Government have made a similar deal, and despite all the wonderful planning in the world I suspect that future Governments may have to make a similar deal. We agreed with BAE on 6 November.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, this amendment seeks to remove Clause 16 of the Bill.
The clause is essential to ensure the consistent and widespread application of the new framework to all types of contracts used by the Government in single-source procurement. The purpose of Clause 16 is to allow for qualifying defence contracts that use a target price rather than a fixed price. These target-price contracts include sharing arrangements in the event of cost overruns or underruns. The benefits of any cost reductions are shared by the MoD and the supplier, as are the risks of costs being greater than anticipated. They are usually referred to as target-price incentive fee contracts, as the noble Lord has said. This kind of contracting approach is a model often used in high- value single-source MoD procurements where there is insufficient pricing certainty to make a firm or fixed-price contract a sensible option. In the past they have accounted for approximately 40% of our single-source contracts by value.
The Typhoon-availability contract, which provides support to the RAF’s Typhoon fleet, is one such contract. We want to retain the ability to use these target-cost contracts. We also do not want these contracts to be excluded from all the protections offered to both parties by Part 2. Clause 16 ensures that such target-cost incentive fee contracts, or indeed any other pain/gain share models based on a target price, can benefit from all the protections of the new regime.
Target-cost contracts are typically used when it is not reasonable for either party to take the risk of a firm price at the outset of the contract. This risk may be so great that in order to accept it a supplier would have to price in a very large contingency. This does not represent value for money. In this case, the price at the outset is deemed to be a target price. The final price is determined by comparing actual incurred allowable costs with those used to set the target price. Contractually agreed terms specify the share each party takes, whether 50:50 or some other split. Clause 16 ensures that the allowable costs included in the target price, and the allowable costs later agreed as the actual costs, must conform to all the pricing rules within the Bill. It is possible that there might be a disagreement at the end of a contract over what the actual costs were. In this case Clause 16 allows one or both of the contracting parties to ask the independent SSRO to make an expert determination. This helps ensure that disagreements are not overly prolonged.
Clause 16 also specifies that Clause 21—“Final price adjustment”—does not apply to target-cost incentive fee contracts. This requires a little explanation. The purpose of Clause 21 is to deal with any excessive profits or losses that might apply to firm- and fixed-price contracts. Most of our single-source contracts—approximately 60% by value—are such firm- or fixed-price contracts. A fixed price is typically used for contracts that are not risky enough to justify the use of a target-cost approach. They provide suppliers with the strongest incentive to become more efficient, as any cost reduction will improve their bottom line. This, in turn, will create better value for money for the taxpayer in lower follow-on prices.
However, when profits become excessively high, we do not want to have to wait until we engage in a follow-on contract. Indeed, it is possible that there will not be any follow-on contract at all. That is why we want to ensure that we get a share of these profits even if we have agreed a fixed price. Equally, we do not want to force a supplier to be subject to potentially crippling losses simply because they agreed to a fixed-price contract. For cutting-edge defence equipment, a contract that did not appear risky at first may turn out to be just that, which is why Clause 21 also provides a minimum protection for suppliers in the event of excessive losses. Because Clauses 16 and 21 both include profit-sharing arrangements, they cannot run simultaneously. That is why Clause 21 is excluded from target-price contracts.
Turning back to the amendment, we would like to maintain both options: the option to agree a fixed- or firm-price contract, with suitable protections for excessive profits and losses, as set out in Clause 21; and the option to agree target-price contracts if the contract is clearly high-risk and a fixed-price contract would not give us value for money. Clause 16 is what allows us to do this. The clauses have clearly distinct purposes and will be used in different cases.
Target-price contracts typically account for more than £2 billion worth of contracts per annum. This clause is therefore essential to the overall functioning of the new framework and must remain within the Bill if the substantial financial benefits expected under Part 2 are to be realised. I hope that this explains our position, and I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation. But, as she knows, I do not need that explanation because I agree with everything she said. What I am challenging is the use of Clause 16 to explain an agreement where the share is 100% of the losses to the Government and 0% to the contractor. That seems incompatible with the spirit of Clause 16. I do not want Clause 16 to be removed and the noble Baroness knows that I will withdraw my amendment, but I would like at least some assurance that such a deal will not be done in the future. It makes a mockery of the target-price sharing if the so-called share is 0% versus 100%.
Baroness Jolly
I thank the noble Lord for his patience. I would rather not give him inaccurate information. How an agreement works out is very much due to commercial judgment, assured for value for money by the Ministry of Defence or HMT—the Treasury. That is the answer that I have. It is determined as a result of judgment, assured for value for money by the MoD or HMT.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, there is much agreement between the Opposition and the Government. On this area, I am afraid there is not. Considering the interest that has been shown in this debate by the rest of the House, and my lack of success on a previous occasion, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
“(1) The Secretary of State shall set out in regulations the overarching principles governing the treatment of allowable costs under qualifying defence contracts, and such other measures as may be necessary.
(1A) Having regard to the principles set by the Secretary of State under subsection (1), the SSRO shall issue guidance about determining whether costs are allowable costs under qualifying defence contracts.”
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, Amendments 5 and 6 seek to bring out the relative weight given by the Bill to the contract profit rate and allowable costs. The contract profit rate is the subject of Clauses 17, 18 and 19; allowable costs are the subject of Clause 20. The split between profit and allowable costs is typically that more than 90% of the final price will be allowable costs and less than 10% will be profits.
Clause 17(1) states:
“Single source contract regulations must make provision for determining the contract profit rate for a qualifying defence contract”.
Since it is a regulation, it will be made by statutory instrument, with all the parliamentary attention that that will enjoy. Clause 20, which is about much, much more money—nine or 10 times as much money—simply says that the SSRO,
“must issue guidance about determining whether costs are allowable costs under qualifying defence contracts”.
The essence of our concern is that the real potential for profit and loss in a defence contract comes from how the allowable costs are set. They are the much bigger proportion, and once the deal is set—unless it is a profit-sharing contract such as we have just discussed, and even there, the allowable costs are set—every pound by which the contractor is able to produce the goods cheaper than the allowable cost converts to profit on their account. It may not be under the profit part of the pricing deal, but it drops to profit. One has to realise that a substantial amount of the allowable costs—sometimes more than half—are allocated overheads. If you are the finance director of this large conglomerate, you are probably more concerned about making sure that you can—I was about to use a very unparliamentary word—get as much of your overheads into the allowable cost as possible. If one were negotiating this deal, one would not worry about the profit; everybody knows that it is going to be about 10%, as it is laid out by statute and all that sort of thing. The concentration would be to get as much into the allowable costs as possible, both in terms of the original price setting and in terms of taking advantage of some of the price adjustment mechanisms.
It is therefore our contention—and Amendments 5 and 6 give effect to this contention—that the allowable costs rules should be set out in regulations and that there should be a framework of regulations setting out the criteria for allowable costs, recognising that the actual detail of allowable costs will be extensive and that those criteria should go on, as Amendment 6 proposes, to be the subject of guidance from the SSRO. It is a very simple idea, but, we think, a very important one: to give the debate on the most important part of the price a higher profile in the public domain, and to try to persuade the Government that they should be as accountable—indeed, more accountable—for the criteria setting allowable costs as they are for those setting profit.
The Government will no doubt come back and point to Clause 20(2), which sets out criteria. I was somewhat scathing about the criteria in Committee, so I shall try to be less so now. The three criteria are that the cost should be,
“appropriate … attributable to the contract, and … reasonable in the circumstances”.
Working backwards through them, my general understanding of administrative law is that things have to be reasonable in the circumstances. I would not quibble at throwing “reasonable” into the Bill, but it is not a particularly heavy or precise definition.
The next criterion is “attributable to the contract”. It does not seem to me a very exciting idea that the cost should be attributable to the contract; I think that the average lay person would expect allowable costs to be attributable to the contract. Nevertheless, that is what is set down.
The only criterion that seems to have any substance is that the cost should be appropriate. I have a very low opinion of the word “appropriate”. I used to stand on the opposite side of this Chamber and read the stuff that the officials produced for me. Whenever I saw “appropriate”, I knew it meant that they could not find a better argument—I fear that that is what “appropriate” means.
The overarching framework of allowable costs should be set out in regulations so that they can come before Parliament and be widely developed. The SSRO’s guidance should be developed from those fundamentals and should be in the public domain. I beg to move.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I will consider Amendments 5 and 6 together. They concern the statutory guidance that the SSRO must issue for determining whether costs are allowable costs under qualifying defence contracts. The allowable costs make up the bulk of the price, and we agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that it is important that there should be clear and comprehensive rules that help ensure value for money.
Amendment 5 would introduce an additional step requiring the Secretary of State to set out in the single-source contract regulations principles governing the treatment of allowable costs. The SSRO would be required to have regard to those principles in the regulations when issuing its statutory guidance. Amendment 6 would require the parties to a qualifying contract—that is, the MoD and the supplier—to have regard to those principles as well as to the SSRO’s guidance.
It is in the interests of both the MoD and our suppliers that the rules determining allowable costs should be clear. These costs will typically account for around 90% of the value of a qualifying contract. The SSRO’s guidance must be sufficiently detailed to ensure that inappropriate costs are excluded and to avoid unnecessary ambiguity. The guidance must be enforceable. The Bill provides a strong enforcement mechanism underpinning the SSRO’s statutory guidance on allowable costs. This ensures that its guidance will be adhered to unless there is good reason not to do so, and it is achieved through several provisions.
Clause 20 provides three high-level principles that are binding on the parties to the contract. The noble Lord listed them. Costs must be reasonable in the circumstances, appropriate in nature and attributable to the contract. However, the noble Lord must know that, in the past, costs have not always been attributable to contracts. That has been unavoidable, but it has always been found to be the case after the event. Clause 20 also requires the SSRO to issue statutory guidance.
The guidance issued by the SSRO will have effect in several ways. First, both parties to a qualifying defence contract must have regard to the guidance when agreeing the price. Secondly, the Secretary of State can require a supplier to demonstrate how they have followed the statutory guidance at any time. Thirdly, the SSRO may make a binding determination on the extent to which a cost is or is not allowable.
If either party feels that the guidance was not followed, they can appeal to the SSRO, which can change the price. Any deviation from the SSRO’s guidance carries with it a significant risk. Following an appeal, the SSRO has the power to adjust the price back to what it would have been had the guidance been properly applied—and it is likely to do so unless there were good reasons not to follow its guidance, supported by a robust audit trail. Therefore, although it is called guidance, it is enforceable guidance.
Turning to the content of the guidance, we are confident that the statutory guidance will be substantial. We have agreed with industry that we will jointly recommend to the SSRO that its initial guidance should be heavily based on the existing government accounting conventions. These make up a substantial part of the current “Yellow Book”. For example, there is substantial and detailed guidance on the treatment of costs such as research and development, rationalisation and redundancy, and other such cost categories. These conventions can be imported into the initial statutory guidance, and will be expanded on to include areas not yet covered. Producing this guidance will be one of the first duties of the SSRO, which it will do in consultation with the MoD and industry. MoD officials are already working on the material we intend to provide to the SSRO in support of its consultation, and we know that industry is doing likewise.
The statutory guidance will also continue to evolve as new circumstances are considered. This will happen through the SSRO’s ongoing reviews and consultations on the framework, where the MoD and industry will suggest amendments. The SSRO will also make amendments following opinions or determinations that it is asked to make in relation to allowable costs. For example, if there is any ambiguity in the case of a particular contract, one or other party is likely to raise this with the SSRO for an opinion. After the SSRO has considered the matter, it will be likely to amend the guidance at the next appropriate point so that all parties have the clarity they need. Therefore, the existing provisions of the Bill contain everything required for substantial guidance backed by a strong enforcement mechanism.
In issuing its guidance, the SSRO is acting in its role as an independent expert charged with regulating the framework. The SSRO’s aim is to ensure value for money for the taxpayer and a fair and reasonable price for suppliers. This aim is provided for in the Bill under Clause 13. We do not consider that there is any need to limit the SSRO’s power in relation to providing detailed guidance consistent with that aim. In the event that the MoD objects to the SSRO’s guidance, it can make that case to the SSRO. However, we consider that a strong and independent SSRO will provide the best outcome for the new framework, and it should be fully empowered to fulfil its aim, as with other regulators, without unnecessary constraints.
There may also be an unintended consequence to these amendments. One of the parties to qualifying contracts—the Secretary of State—would be allowed to limit the power of the SSRO to independently set guidance on the allowable costs of those contracts. This may be perceived as introducing a partisan element to the regime, which we do not want.
There is one final point I wish to make. These amendments would lead to there being three tiers to the rules that determine allowable costs: primary legislation, regulations, and statutory guidance. This would add an additional level of complexity to the framework. MoD commercial officers and their industrial counterparts would have to follow and have regard to all three. There are cases where it may be appropriate to have three levels of rules, but clearly it should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. In this case we do not consider it necessary. We have taken the simpler approach of having three high-level principles in primary legislation, supported by substantial detailed guidance issued by the independent SSRO.
In summary, we want a framework that provides clear guidance on allowable costs, supported by a strong enforcement process, and for the SSRO to be able to act as a strong and independent regulator. The Bill as drafted does this, and we do not consider that these amendments are required. They will unnecessarily constrain the power of the SSRO and may introduce uncertainty for contractors. I hope this explains our position. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment 5.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I am still not convinced by the argument. The essence of my argument is that there should be symmetry of regard for profit and allowable cost. The allowable costs are so intrinsic to how much defence equipment costs the taxpayer, and so much a part of contracts which, over the years, have received massive—perhaps unfair—public criticism. This part of the Bill—which, as I have already said, is a good try and something that we support—will have the biggest impact on cost and profit, and we are not exposing it to the public scrutiny that having the criteria and framework in regulation would allow and, indeed, insist on.
I am incredibly impressed by my arguments but equally seized of the fact that I would not win a vote, so, with enormous reluctance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
South Sudan
(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Chidgey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the progress of peace talks between opposing armed groups in South Sudan and the influence exerted by Sudan on those developments.
Lord Popat (Con)
My Lords, in view of the absence of my noble friend Lady Warsi, it may be for the convenience of the House to adjourn briefly. I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure for five minutes.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)
My Lords, it appears that four of the 11 speakers are not in the Chamber at the moment. We could either adjourn for a further five minutes or we could start and allow them to speak.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
I think another five minutes would not hurt. It is so short.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I wonder if it would not be more flexible to start and to allow speakers to speak when they arrive.
Baroness Warsi
I do not know what the protocol is—I look to the clerk for advice on what the procedure would be. I am quite happy for speakers to speak as and when they—
Baroness Warsi
In those circumstances, my Lords, shall we just adjourn for five minutes to see who else turns up, possibly until a quarter past?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for our timing being so far out. There are some noble Lords who have not been able to come here. If they come within the next two or three minutes, we will allow them to speak. They may well be expecting to start much later. In these circumstances, we will not enforce the six-minute rule quite as sharply as is our wont, but we might enforce the seven-minute rule quite sharply.
Lord Chidgey
My Lords, I presume that the extension of time also applies to the opening speech.
While diplomats attempt to find a lasting solution to the long-standing rivalry that sparked widespread conflict in December, millions of South Sudanese are suffering an acute humanitarian crisis. Fighting spread rapidly from the capital to volatile locations in Jonglei, Unity and Upper Nile states, fuelling local political battles and inflaming old civil war grievances.
More than 1,000 people were killed during the five weeks of violence before President Salva Kiir and the former vice-president Riek Machar signed a ceasefire agreement. Terrible human rights atrocities have been documented throughout the crisis. Taban Deng Gai, the rebel chief negotiator at the peace talks in Addis, confirmed that innocent people lost their lives in Malakal, Bentu and Bor, the state capitals of Upper Nile, Unity, and Jonglei states. Human Rights Watch concluded that armed forces from both sides have looted extensively, destroying civilian property and desperately needed aid facilities. They have targeted civilians and carried out ethnically based extra-judicial killings.
A substantial solution to the crisis will come only through an inclusive political process that engages South Sudanese communities and deals with the underlying causes of unrest. A political agreement between leaders that does not address people’s grievances, nor clearly invite citizens across the country to play their part in finding long-term solutions, may be a first step. It will, however, prove a poor foundation in the search for sustainable peace.
On 30 December, the Peace and Security Council of the African Union called for the establishment of a commission of inquiry to investigate abuses perpetrated during the conflict to ensure accountability, reconciliation and healing among all South Sudanese communities.
A five-member commission of inquiry was appointed on 7 March 2014, to be headed by former President of Nigeria, Olusegun Obasanjo. The mandate of the commission is to,
“investigate the human rights violations and other abuses committed during the armed conflict in South Sudan”.
I ask my noble friend what actions the Government are taking to ensure that the commission is adequately supported and that it focuses on all its objectives— including modalities for reconciliation—as well as identifying perpetrators of human rights abuses. How are our Government working with the Security Council to press all the warring parties to allow unrestricted humanitarian access across the country, and to stress the need for UNMISS to fulfil its mandate to protect civilians more effectively?
On 30 March, east African heads of state met in Addis Ababa in the latest push for peace. Leaders from the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, IGAD, were called together, even as fierce fighting took place around Malakal. They authorised the prompt deployment of a regional protection and deterrent force that would operate as part of the IGAD monitoring and verification mechanism established to support the 23 January ceasefire. Riek Machar, the leader of the SPLA in opposition, immediately rejected the proposal, saying that UNMISS already had a clear mandate in the country.
The current crisis has its roots in wide-ranging failures of governance, security provision, reform, justice and reconciliation in Sudan. If the country is to move forward, there needs to be a process that is ready and willing to embrace these issues and address these drivers of the crisis. This will involve a change in political participation, not just a power-sharing deal. The peace talks must lead to a fundamental change in the way in which politics is done in Sudan, not just a political power-sharing deal between two leaders, which would be a return to the status quo. The peace process needs to deal with the roles of current leaders in any future Government, including what the appropriate role is for Salva Kiir.
South Sudanese civil society organisations are calling for robust justice mechanisms as well as reconciliation to be built into final agreements. These will need to deal with historic grievances that are not dealt with by the comprehensive peace agreement, as well as those from the newest outbreak of conflict. What are our Government doing as a matter of urgency to ensure that civil society plays an effective role in the negotiations and in the monitoring and verification mechanisms? What political and material support are we providing to help them to fulfil that role? Do our Government agree that the IGAD and international funds must quickly take steps to expand participation in the mediation process and engage representatives from South Sudanese communities, the diaspora and religious communities to ensure that the process is seen, heard and active across the states of South Sudan?
The Security Council received an advance copy of the Secretary-General’s report on South Sudan on 6 March, which it is understood was discussed on 18 March. The report apparently contains a reprioritisation of the core functions of the mission—protecting civilians, rather than capacity-building. In December, the Security Council voted to increase the mission’s military component by 5,500 to 12,500. However, UNMISS is unable to have a broader impact on the crisis and is increasingly seen as partisan by both sides of the conflict. On 13 March in Western Bahr el Ghazal, an area that has largely escaped conflict, youths demonstrated against the force, citing it as working with the rebels.
That same week, the Government of South Sudan openly accused UNMISS, or agents working with it, of channelling weapons to Riek Machar after they found mislabelled weapons in UNMISS-marked trucks travelling to Unity State. There is a strong perception that agents of armed groups have infiltrated protection areas within UNMISS bases and are monitoring who is inside. These perceptions increase fear, anxiety and tension within camps. UNMISS and UN police should expand their patrolling efforts and engage with communities to better control their perimeters and reassure populations.
Do our Government agree that the UNMISS mandate should be refocused on the protection of civilians and away from giving capacity-building support to either party? It is understood that finding additional troops for UNMISS is proving difficult. What are our Government doing to help to ensure that the reinforcements agreed in December arrive in good time?
On 14 February the UN Security Council welcomed the positive bilateral relations between Sudan and South Sudan. President Bashir visited Juba on 6 January and sent an envoy to the South Sudan peace talks. Sudan’s position is critical to the course of the ongoing conflict in South Sudan. The split in South Sudan mirrors the division seen in the second civil war, when Riek Machar and a number of other groups split from John Garang and ultimately received support from Khartoum. The split differs in a number of ways from that of 1991. For example, the Bul Nuer of Mayom County, who comprised the core of the SSDF forces of Paulino Matip and remained allied with Khartoum until 2006, fought with Salva Kiir this time. The core of the rebellion was also from Bor, John Garang’s home territory.
Ugandan forces have been reported to have been fighting alongside the Government of South Sudan in the recent conflict. There is some argument that worse scenarios might have developed if they had not been present. The consensus at the Addis talks and among the international community, however, is that the involvement of the Ugandan army is counterproductive because it has undermined the ability of IGAD, in which Uganda is a main actor, to act as a mediator between the parties.
The 27 September 2012 agreements on outstanding issues between Sudan and South Sudan still lack implementation, and the situation in Abyei has deteriorated terribly. Sudan’s internal conflicts have also escalated, and the international community should make every effort to avoid its piecemeal approach of the past, of following the crisis and taking its eye off the bigger picture. I ask my noble friend what reports our Government have received, if any, of any international actor providing political or material support to the SPLA in opposition. What are our Government doing to ensure that the Government of Sudan withdraw their oil police from Diffra, and that the SPLA and South Sudan police forces withdraw from Abyei, in line with the United Nations Security Council statement of 14 February?
What representations are the Government of the UK making to Sudan about accessing the 25,000 or so refugees who fled to that country from South Sudan in the recent fighting? Finally, I ask my noble friend to confirm, given the complexity of these issues and what I am sure will be the large number of questions put by noble Lords, that she will write to me to answer the questions more fully than is possible in the time available.
Baroness Cox (CB)
My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, on securing this very timely debate and on his comprehensive introduction of it. As I have recently returned from a visit to South Sudan with the Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust, I will highlight three aspects of our visit: the continuing problems and suffering resulting from the failure to secure agreement on Abyei; the escalating humanitarian crisis in Bahr el Ghazal and Warrap state; and the prerequisites for an effective peace process.
Our visit began in Agok, near to Abyei, where we met senior representatives of the Ngok Dinka community. Their situation remains cause for deep concern. Abyei town is still devastated; the continuing refusal of the Khartoum Government to remove their military forces maintains a reign of terror, so civilians cannot return to their homes; the murder with impunity last year of the paramount chief has left deep scars; and the failure of the international community to fulfil obligations for a referendum created such frustration that the local community organised their own, with an overwhelming mandate for joining South Sudan. Sadly, recent weeks have seen an increase in violent attacks, with many more civilian casualties reported. There is also a justifiable fear that the conflict which has erupted in South Sudan will deflect the attention of the international community from the urgent requirement to address the continuing needs and suffering of the people of Abyei.
We then visited Man-Angui camp, where nearly 5,000 internally displaced people are living in horrendous conditions. Warrap state and Bahr el Ghazal have been inundated with thousands of civilians fleeing from the conflict in Abyei, from Khartoum’s continuing genocidal bombardment in the Nuba mountains and in Blue Nile, and, most recently, from the tragic eruption of conflict in South Sudan. Many are without any humanitarian aid, living in flimsy cardboard shelters which will disintegrate with the imminent heavy rains; some have no shelter at all. There is such a shortage of food that people are forced to eat leaves with no nutritional value. For many, there is no health care, so pregnant women are giving birth with no midwives or access to clinical intervention if needed. The current crisis in these parts of South Sudan is becoming another catastrophe. The rains will bring even more disease, worsened sanitation, famine and severe challenges for access for humanitarian assistance as more than half the country becomes impassable. What support is being given by DfID to address this critical situation in this part of South Sudan?
The urgent need for a genuine peace process is intensified by Khartoum’s continuing genocidal policies in Darfur as well as Blue Nile and South Kordofan, where it has ruthlessly tripled aerial bombardment while the international community’s attention has been focused on the conflict in South Sudan. February saw the highest number of civilians killed or injured in South Kordofan since the current conflict began in 2011, with the number of fatalities more than double those recorded in January. The Sudanese Air Force is now employing even more sophisticated weaponry against civilians, including upgraded aircraft.
The Famine Early Warning Systems Network argues that food insecurity in South Kordofan will reach emergency levels by April. In Blue Nile state there is even less humanitarian assistance. When we visited there last year, many hundreds of people had already died of hunger. What are the British Government doing to try to help humanitarian assistance reach these civilians before hunger and disease claim many more hundreds of lives in South Kordofan and Blue Nile?
The proposed peace process needs to meet the complex realities on the ground, as the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, emphasised so well. As the conflict erupted, myriad locally focused groups in north-eastern South Sudan—only some of them Nuer—took up arms against President Salva Kiir in order to protest localised grievances. While those groups have grievances against the president, only a small minority support Riek Machar. However, in mid-March 2014, when IGAD announced the formation of the Protection Deterrent Force—PDF—for South Sudan, Riek Machar announced that “his forces” would not co-operate with the PDF.
Therefore, for a genuine conflict resolution process to be effective, the complex reality must be recognised and addressed. First, the diverse grievances of the myriad grassroots groups must be studied, understood and resolved. That process should be conducted separately with each group, with cessation of violence as a precondition for such discussions. There is no other way to stop the fratricidal violence that currently plagues so much of South Sudan.
The second phase can come only when violence has subsided, making it possible to engage in meaningful discussions with all the key political forces in South Sudan—not just President Kiir and Riek Machar—about governance reforms and the political future of the nation. President Kiir has outlined an excellent eight-point road map for a return to peace and moving the country forward, which needs to be considered by the international community, although there is no comparable proposition from Riek Machar or any other opposition groups.
Having just returned from a heartbreaking visit where we witnessed first-hand the massive scale of suffering, I urge Her Majesty’s Government to fulfil their continuing responsibility, as a member of the troika, to support a realistic, just peace process, essential for urgent action to alleviate the current catastrophes; to prevent escalation of yet more conflict; and to ensure that the Government in Khartoum do not take advantage of the conflict in South Sudan to escalate their ruthless assaults on their own people. The United Kingdom has a responsibility to bring some hope to people in both nations, Sudan and South Sudan, who have suffered too much for far too long. I sincerely hope that the Minister will provide that hope this evening.
Lord Sheikh (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Chidgey for initiating this short but important debate. I was born and brought up in Africa and still have many connections throughout the continent, so I feel particular resonance with this debate. I have visited Juba, as my family undertook business in that part of the world. I also declare that I am the chairman and a funder of a charity which has undertaken humanitarian work in Sudan.
There was a long struggle for independence for South Sudan, with decades of conflict, but since it was granted independence in July 2011 its problems have not been erased. In Sudan, there has been a history of problems relating to cultural differences, poverty, tribal intolerance, violence and ethnic religious prejudice. After South Sudan gained its independence, differences arose within the ruling Sudan People’s Liberation Movement. It started as a political dispute between President Salva Kiir and his former deputy Riek Machar, but has escalated into a full-scale conflict, with some of the fighting along ethnic lines. The President has accused Mr Machar of launching a coup, which Mr Machar denies strongly. Following the ceasefire of 23 January there was hope that a long-term peaceful solution could be found. However, the brutality witnessed less than a month later in the city of Malakal shattered all our hopes and disturbed even the most seasoned of aid workers on the ground.
Two months on and I am now very disappointed that the second round of peace talks has been delayed. The two sides are unable to even agree on who is to attend such talks. This is extremely frustrating and illustrates the scale of the challenge ahead. The international community must be swift and assertive in condemning any obstruction to progress on negotiations. I support the threat of sanctions by the European Union and the United States in the event that progress is not forthcoming. Most importantly, it is the humanitarian situation and human rights violations that are threatening innocent people’s livelihoods. I commend the work of the United Nations and the World Food Programme to assist with this, but it is not and cannot be enough.
The UN mission in South Sudan has been clear to both sides that its premises and facilities must not be violated. I welcome the temporary strategic shift towards the protection of civilians and the facilitation of humanitarian assistance. I also welcome the establishment of a commission of inquiry so that human rights abuses are properly investigated and perpetrators held accountable. Any eventual solution must be thorough and comprehensive enough to prevent such a catastrophe from recurring. I believe that the participation of all sides and relevant parties is crucial if this is to be achieved. The decisions of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development must be respected in its role as mediator in the region.
It is also paramount that we see the withdrawal of all allied forces and armed groups, as originally drafted in the cessation of hostilities agreement. The people of South Sudan are enduring suffering every day. Twenty thousand people have died and nearly a million people have been displaced in the space of just three months. There are now also warnings of a potential famine if farmers do not feel safe enough to return to their homes and plant their fields. It is depressing that the world’s youngest country has descended into such chaos. The people of South Sudan had already encountered far too much suffering prior to independence. Ultimately, these divisions must be healed and governance must be strengthened for the sake of the South Sudanese people.
This will happen only through mutual compliance with the cessation of hostilities and mature political dialogue. During the January ceasefire, our Foreign Secretary was clear that the UK was ready to lend its full support to efforts for a process of national reconciliation. I hope that we will do so and respect this commitment, and I would be grateful for clarification on this point from my noble friend the Minister. I am, however, encouraged by our Government’s commitment to working closely with the Republic of South Sudan towards international peace and stability. I ask my noble friend to update the House on the representations that the UK has received from the African Union on the assistance the UK can provide.
I also call on the Government to further press South Sudan to implement the agreements from September 2012 to resolve outstanding areas of disagreement with Sudan and uphold the ceasefire. We need to continue to work towards resolving the political, tribal and humanitarian problems to achieve peace and prosperity not only in South Sudan but in Africa as a whole. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks at the close of the debate.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, I begin by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, for arriving late in his introductory speech. I should normally be struck off the list, but business is very hard to predict in the House of Lords. I thank the Whips on the Front Bench for resurrecting me.
All of us who follow South Sudan regularly have been dismayed and disturbed by the events in December, having had high expectations of Africa’s youngest country. What concerns me most is that so much killing will discourage even those who supported and nurtured this country long before its independence. I am sure that noble Lords will have read, as I have, other harrowing accounts about Malakal and Bor and especially the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross and of Médecins sans Frontières, which we must highly commend for their swift action. Through the aid agencies and the churches, we somehow have to rebuild the trust that we know exists among the people of South Sudan. We have to remind ourselves of the many bonds between the different races and that this is primarily a political conflict, in my view, based on and exploiting ethnic divisions. In short, it is a failure of leadership where it was most needed.
One of the most critical problems is the loss of confidence in UNMISS and the possibility that the UN itself will have to rethink its mandate in terms of nation building rather than state building. What is our Government’s analysis of this? Does the Minister agree that there has been perhaps too much emphasis on influencing—at times even controlling—organs of central government? One can imagine the enthusiasm of supporting states at a time of independence. Does she agree that there has therefore been too little emphasis on devolving power and ensuring that capacity building in the regions and people’s participation in local communities are equally important?
The showdown between Salva Kiir and the UN may now have passed, judging by more soothing comments I read recently from the GOSS. It would be very serious if this row halted the basic humanitarian work of the UN and the related agencies, on top of the considerable present challenges of feeding and sheltering tens of thousands in the midst of civil war and the continuing arrivals of refugees from almost every direction. The fighting has continued in Upper Nile, Unity and Jonglei in spite of efforts at diplomacy and peacekeeping.
I have no doubt that the UK has played a useful and important role in the troika during the IGAD talks in Ethiopia, but if the principals are not willing to settle their differences—which have a long history going back before the CPA—what hope is there for diplomats? I trust that we are not going to reduce the staff any further in the Sudan unit, for instance, or in South Sudan itself at a time when, at the onset of the rains, we are going to see a much bigger humanitarian disaster unless aid agencies can pre-position their supplies in time. I understand that, so far, owing to official obstruction as well as road conditions, the World Food Programme has been able to reach only 765,000 people—about three-quarters of a million—out of the 2.5 million affected by the conflict, and that is only in the south, although it has now begun airdrops in the three conflict states. UNHCR and UNOCHA estimate an even higher figure at risk of food insecurity, and there has been concern about the high level of malnutrition seen among young refugees arriving in Ethiopia from the north-east.
As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, the situation in Abyei remains precarious. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that across the border in South Kordofan the Nuba people are still the victims of bombardment by the Sudanese armed forces. There is no doubt that Khartoum has taken advantage of the situation in the south to exploit its own position.
What about Riek Machar, the maverick opposition figure who has a long track record in Sudan? I notice that the IGAD statement loosely condemned tribalism and ideological bankruptcy. I am not sure which one of those applies to whom, and I do not know whether the member states of IGAD have any idea how to deal with Riek Machar. There are suspicions that he may return to his old alliance with the north. He has long had ties with the UK, and the FCO needs to make more effort to bring him back to the negotiating table. Perhaps the Minister will update us also on the position of his colleagues, who are in detention and the subject of diplomacy.
Finally, there has to be national reconciliation. There are currently three different official bodies concerned with justice and reconciliation and, although they put out a joint statement in January, there is concern that they are not yet active. The churches, on the other hand, led by Archbishop Deng, are an essential part of this process. They are already active and I understand that their initial focus will be on the displaced from Bor, Malakal and Nimule, who have suffered most in the recent conflict.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, for initiating this debate. I claim no special expertise on this subject but, like other noble Lords, I am extremely keen to hear the Government’s assessment of how the peace process is proceeding.
It is indeed tragic that so soon after South Sudan came into existence as an independent country in 2011 such a vicious civil war should have broken out. I do not think that the world as a whole has yet woken up to the scale of the disaster, with more than 10,000 dead, according to the latest Economist report, and close to 1 million internally displaced people, according to the report of the United Nations Secretary General on 6 March. As we have already heard, major towns such as Bor, Malakal and Bentui have been totally destroyed.
Sadly again, as we know, it looks as though the conflict has taken on a horribly strong ethnic dimension, with Dinka and Nuer pitted against one another, and, even more tragically, that atrocities have been committed on both sides. However, it is important to note that the Government were formed from and still contain people from both ethnic backgrounds—and, furthermore, that they remain the elected Government.
The parish in which I reside and help when not working elsewhere has close links with South Sudan and, through this, I have information from a source who is not only very well placed but, in my view, is utterly to be trusted. He is quite convinced that the vice-president, Riek Machar, tried to depose the president in a coup and that he and his associates were certainly guilty of embezzlement. As we know, Riek Machar denies this and says that the spark for the conflict was fighting in the presidential guard. Nevertheless, we know that he broke away from the SPLM in 1991, signing a peace deal with Khartoum in 1997 and accepting arms from the north.
Furthermore, it is absolutely undeniable that he is now leading an armed conflict against the Government. If this reading of events is true—as I say, I know and trust the source, who is a good position to know what is happening—the wording of the Motion does not quite reflect the situation when it refers simply to “opposing armed groups”, as though there was an equality of blame. There are indeed some other breakaway armed groups and both the Government and Riek Machar’s forces are to blame for the atrocities, for local troops on both sides have got out of control.
However, the conflict is at heart one between a constitutional Government and a faction that has tried to overthrow them by force. In these circumstances it is difficult to see how the President could agree immediately to a power-sharing agreement, which he has been asked to do, without at least some adequate international backing to ensure that what has happened in recent months does not happen again, if and when first a ceasefire and then an agreement have been reached. Nevertheless, the UN Secretary-General was surely right when he said:
“While the declared intention by Mr Machar to remove an elected government by force is unacceptable, both sides now bear full responsibility for bringing the senseless fighting … to an immediate end”.
It will be very interesting to learn the Government’s assessment of Sudan’s role in all this. We cannot help wondering whether Sudan is once again trying to influence the course of events in the south, not least with a view to the oil fields, a significant portion of which are occupied by rebel forces. However, against this there is the fact that according to the latest Security Council report from the UN, President Omar al-Bashir and President Salva Kiir of South Sudan have met, and President al-Bashir has agreed to support a cessation of hostilities, and to participate in a monitoring and verification team.
We cannot underestimate the sheer difficulties that this country now faces. As we know, it is very poor. The Government are limited in the resources that they have to bring to bear. There are high expectations among the different tribal groups, and there is a long history of conflict that is still simmering and erupting. The number of troops on the ground is limited, considering the country’s vast size. Despite these difficulties, clearly every effort must be made, first, to bring about an immediate ceasefire, because nothing can happen until there is one. Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, emphasised so forcefully from her long and passionate engagement with the country, there must be an immediate stepping-up of humanitarian aid. There must be a serious examination of the kind of political system that might work there—without forgetting the fact, as I have emphasised, that there is a constitutionally elected Government in place and there is surely some duty to try to support them.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, I echo the warmest congratulations that have been expressed on my noble friend Lord Chidgey’s masterly analysis of the appalling consequences of the civil war and the useful proposals that he has made for the solution of the conflict.
After what was originally a political dispute between President Salva Kiir and former Vice-President Riek Machar, the tensions escalated until they became acute. It was the President who fired Machar, accusing him of trying to oust him in an attempted coup. If the allegations that have been referred to by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, are correct, I really wonder whether Machar has any future role to play in the politics of South Sudan, or whether the international community should say that he is no longer a fit person to engage in a dialogue with the Government.
After the power struggle escalated into violence, there were, first, clashes between units of the SPLA in Juba loyal to the two leaders respectively, and then almost immediately ethnic cleansing against the Nuer in the capital, resulting in tens of thousands abandoning their homes and possessions, and taking refuge in the UN camp next to the airport. This conflict spread with extraordinary speed to other parts of the country, as my noble friend said, particularly to the three capitals: Bentiu, the capital of Unity state; Malakal, capital of Upper Nile, which is the largest oil-producing region, recaptured as I understand from the rebels three days ago; and Bor, capital of Jonglei. The fighting has continued in spite of the ceasefire agreement between the warring ethnic factions. As has been said, the UN estimates that over a million people have been displaced, a quarter of a million of them across the borders, 90,000 to Uganda alone, with 500 people a day still crossing that border.
My noble friend mentioned the IGAD meeting 10 days ago in Addis, which authorised the prompt deployment of a regional “protection and deterrent force” in support of the ceasefire. As to Machar’s prompt rejection of that proposal and his idea that UNMISS should have sole responsibility in those areas, I ask my noble friend the Minister: what discussions have there been between IGAD and the UN with a view to dovetailing their mandates and even assigning specific tasks to IGAD?
The criticism of UNMISS that we have heard about may well be partly justified, particularly the episode when it was found that weapons were being shipped in a truck that was otherwise engaged in humanitarian assistance. UNMISS has explained this by saying that those arms were destined for Ghanaian peacekeepers, and apologised for departing from its usual practice of shipping weapons to the peacekeepers by air. Nevertheless, a nasty smell remains over that allegation, which needs to be cleared up.
UNMISS has not done anything substantial to prevent the carnage and destruction so far, even though its mandate includes the deterrence of violence and the protection of civilians. However, should the revision of its mandate called for by my noble friend explicitly authorise the use of armed force in support of those objectives? I ask my noble friend the Minister: will Ugandan troops remain in South Sudan as part of the IGAD force? My noble friend is surely right to say that Uganda has played an important role in preventing even greater loss of life, which would have happened without its troops. It would seem perverse if IGAD did not build on its knowledge and experience of the situation on the ground, but I understand that it is not on the list of potential contributors to the IGAD force.
The UN says that 3.7 million people are at risk of food insecurity, and the situation could become even worse if the conflict continues. Aid agencies have so far reached only about a quarter of these people, and I wonder if my noble friend has any information about the further plans of the eight humanitarian agencies whose emergency directors just concluded a three-day visit to the country to enhance the response that they are already making.
Do we know the timetable for the deployment of IGAD forces, and will they give priority to Unity, Upper Nile and Jonglei, where not only was the fighting worst but 90% of the food-insecure are concentrated and all the WFP food stocks, offices, computers, vehicles and other assets were looted or destroyed? In Upper Nile’s two WFP warehouses alone, 1,700 tonnes of food were stolen, which would have been enough to feed 102,000 people for a month. What guarantees have been given by the rebels that when these assets are replaced, as they have to be, the same will not happen again?
With the rainy season about to start, any planting will cease, turning the country’s acute food crisis into a long-term problem, as the FAO has said. On top of its lack of capacity and resources to deal with the humanitarian needs of its own population, South Sudan has to look after some 200,000 refugees from Sudan and to cope with the continued aerial bombardment of civilians in the border area by the Sudanese air force, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will at least be able to say that the UK has responded to this dreadful crisis with our accustomed generosity.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the whole House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, for tabling this Question for Short Debate. I am sure that we all thank him for the eloquent way in which he set the scene for this debate.
Following the fighting that broke out in Juba last December, we have seen the violence spread like a plague to Jonglei, Unity and Upper Nile states, where fresh clashes only last week have rendered those areas inaccessible to humanitarian agencies. As we have heard, unverified reports suggest more than 10,000 fatalities. The key message of our debate to all sides should surely be that there should be an immediate cessation of hostilities with no delay.
Both President Kiir and his former deputy, Riek Machar, must understand that anything which further exacerbates the existing ethnic tensions, particularly between the Dinka and Nuer, risks the very future of South Sudan and plays into the hands of those who wanted the world’s newest state to fail from the very outset. They should also take careful note of the statement of the special envoys of the European Union, the United States and Norway in which the troika warned them that, if they fail to engage constructively with the IGAD-led talks, “they will face consequences” and that:
“The people of South Sudan expect renewal, they expect their voices to be heard in forging a more sustainable peace. Business as usual is not a viable way forward”.
The suffering of the people of South Sudan is being further compounded by the collateral effects on humanitarian relief and those who work so selflessly to provide it. Since January there have been three fatalities among aid workers, more than 100 were prevented from relocating from Yirol in Lakes state to Juba for safety, and more than 75 humanitarian vehicles have been commandeered or stolen. It is impossible to feel anything but deep admiration for those aid workers still in the field, risking their lives to bring relief and help to the destitute. Surely there is more that we could do to give them practical help and support.
With 3.7 million people now experiencing acute food insecurity and 7 million facing some degree of food insecurity, according to figures provided by the food security and livelihoods cluster, does the Minister agree that if, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has just mentioned, pastoralists and farmers prove unable to move with their livestock or to plant their seeds at the outset of this rainy season, it is becoming increasingly possible that this crisis of food insecurity will freefall into outright famine? I hope that the Minister will update us on the Government’s own assessment. Perhaps she can also tell us whether, with the reallocation of funds from development projects in other parts of the country to emergency food relief, she would concur that this poses a threat to the country’s long-term recovery. Is it the case that the crisis response plan for humanitarian activities until June 2014 is around only 23% funded, with a shortfall of £592 million? How can that gap be filled?
Over these weeks we have seen former allies become enemies, old grievances reignited, and tribalism and factions threatening the cohesion of South Sudan. The failure to address many of these underlying issues and challenges—many of which were well known but ignored in the framing of the 2005 comprehensive peace agreement—has played its part in the genesis of this new eruption of violence. Any political agreement crafted between power brokers and warlords that does not address grievances and fails to reach out to affected communities will be a poor basis on which to build a peace. There needs to be a fundamental shift in the way that politics is practised in South Sudan. It cannot be based on deals between a couple of competing leaders. Sudan’s churches have always had a historic and important role as peacemakers, and groups such as Citizens for Peace and Justice—a coalition of 30 civil society organisations—should be given direct and independent participation at the IGAD negotiating table. They at least, in contrast to some of the political leaders, have had an enduring interest in the humanitarian needs of the people.
As is always the case when violence replaces negotiated political solutions, powerless, vulnerable people, especially women and children, are caught in the cross-fire and are the ones who suffer the most. From December to mid-January, almost 500,000 people were displaced. It is predicted that total displacement may reach more than 900,000 and that 40% of those will be children. The impact is also spreading to neighbouring countries. As we have heard, there are now around 222,000 refugees. As of 12 March, 70,000 South Sudanese had crossed into Ethiopia seeking asylum, with the number expected to reach more than 150,000 by the end of this year. Perhaps the Minister can update us on the Government’s own assessment of the numbers and of those who have been responsible for these events. Is there not an argument for the United Kingdom to have in place a full-time special envoy to Sudan?
We have seen attacks on civilians by government forces, attacks on civilians by opposition forces, ethnic targeting by government forces, and widespread destruction and looting. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us what is being done to hold those responsible to account and particularly to tackle the recruitment and arming of children and young people into their militias. Can she also tell us whether she thinks that the commission of inquiry, which has been referred to, is sufficiently well resourced? Will it have unimpeded access to the affected areas? As well as bringing perpetrators to justice, does it have within its terms of reference the creation of mechanisms for settling grievances which might pre-empt future eruptions of violence, while fostering a climate in which reconciliation might occur? Reconciliation is not a soft issue—an add-on which might be nice to have—but a hard-edged security requirement.
Will the Minister say what child protection specialists are in the field and whether we have formally requested the UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict to travel to South Sudan and report to the Security Council, so that due weight can be attached to addressing the appalling plight of the children whose lives have been shattered by these events? Perhaps I may also ask whether the British Government will be bankrolling the elections next year. How can we possibly imagine that an accurate census can be taken when 1 million people are displaced? What genuine choices will be able to be made?
As I conclude, I should be grateful if the Government would tell us what intelligence they have on the role and influence of South Sudan’s neighbours in the conflict. The harsh reality is that events in South Sudan have enabled Khartoum to continue its systematic war of attrition against the people of South Kordofan and Blue Nile. The reality is that events in South Sudan have taken the spotlight off the 18 states affected by armed conflict in the north—not least in Darfur, where violence continues unabated and largely unreported.
Lord Luce (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, has done a great service in helping us once again to focus attention on South Sudan. I greatly admire the consistent work done by so many noble Lords—above all, my noble friend Lady Cox—who take an interest in Sudan and in South Sudan.
I first went to Juba in 1950, 64 years ago. I was only 14 and I had the privilege of travelling around Equatoria province with my father, who was then an administrator in the south, visiting schools, seeing what life was like and visiting the missions. Later, in the early 1970s, when I became a Member of Parliament, I flew south to Juba from Khartoum with the then Foreign Minister of Sudan to visit the south at a time when President Nimeiry had made a major gesture to the south. He went south and spent Christmas with the Christians. Here was a Muslim President going south to spend Christmas with the Christians. Alas, that gesture and spirit did not last.
I want to make just a few reflections. First, it is right that Britain, having had responsibility for Sudan for 60 years, should, as part of the troika and as part of the international effort, carry on its interest and concern for that country. Indeed, it is a British interest that we should do so; it is a British interest to see stability in east Africa and in South Sudan.
Since independence—we have heard much today about this—there has been at least 30 years of fighting: horrific bloodshed and the longest civil war that Africa has seen. We have heard the figures. Two million were dead and 4 million internally displaced before independence was ever reached. We have heard the figures today on what has happened in the past three months. Earlier, in the 1980s and 1990s, there was serious disagreement within the southern SPLA. There was rivalry for power among the different politicians, creating what today could be described only as a Dante’s Inferno. We have to ask ourselves: what can we, the international community—the east African nations, above all—and the African Union, supported by the international community, do that will help these wretched, poor people?
First, there is the question of survival. We must have, before anything else can happen, a ceasefire, the right amount of humanitarian aid and stability. Then, to my mind, follows reconciliation; the lessons can be learnt from South Africa and other countries. There is an investigation going on led by IGAD, but it is important that civil society, local communities, women and, above all, the church—which is widely respected in the south—should take the major lead in reconciliation. I was very impressed by the visit made to South Sudan by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury in early February, when he talked about the need to plant “a tree of reconciliation”, not trees of bitterness. He said:
“Politics is lived by habit; violent conflict has become the habit of politicians. It’s time to set a new habit”.
The church can play a major role in helping with reconciliation, led by people such as Archbishop Deng Bul and others.
I strongly endorse the comments made by my noble friend Lady Cox, but I think that we should see the area as a whole—not just the states of Jonglei, Upper Nile and Unity but South Kordofan, Abyei and Blue Nile. Then we have to consider security, where we and others have skills to help. There is a dire need to create cohesion among the security forces in South Sudan and to be quite clear as to what the role of UNMISS is, as well as that of the neighbouring states in their military co-operation. Beyond that, there need then to be plans for the longer-term development of South Sudan.
I want to stress two final points, which have been made during this debate. First, only after stability has been created can we begin to recreate the framework for democratic participation, both at a local and a national level, to suit South Sudan’s own traditions, culture and history. I should like to know what the Minister’s view on this is, because you cannot achieve proper democracy of the kind that will suit Sudan without establishing the right values—those of freedom of expression, the rule of law, an independent judiciary, systems of accountability, tolerance and mutual respect. That takes a long time—we all know that.
Secondly, to achieve all these things, somebody has to hold the ring to avoid this unending cycle of violence. My own view is that it would be best to explore the idea of a trusteeship, created by the African Union and IGAD and supported by the UN and the troika. An interim Government could be established, participated in by all willing politicians and, above all, President Kiir, supported by leaders of civic society and the church—women, too, who have a vital role to play—and advised by many international experts.
I do not believe that any of this can be achieved without the basic security and stability of that country. The international community, because it is contributing money, resources, expertise and advice, is entitled to have a strong say in how that stable framework can be devised. For the sake of these wonderful people, the long suffering people of South Sudan, let us help them to have a future.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, I join those who have thanked the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, for introducing this debate at a critical time for the future of South Sudan. There is clearly huge frustration at the lack of sustainable progress in the peace talks between the opposing groups in South Sudan. It is also extremely alarming to see human rights violations, particularly those recently in Bor, continuing to be committed on both sides, targeting innocent civilians along ethnic lines and resulting in the massive humanitarian crisis that so many of your Lordships have spoken about this evening.
At a time when so much has been achieved economically and politically in sub-Saharan Africa, it is a tragic state of affairs that the world’s youngest nation, which had such high expectations on achieving independence in 2011, has failed to end the current crisis.
I entirely agree with the recent statement by the head of the United Nations peacekeeping operations in the region, who said:
“The security and humanitarian situation in South Sudan will continue to deteriorate until the parties fully engage in the political talks, respect the cessation of hostilities and allow freedom of movement for the United Nations and its partners”.
Despite the rhetoric of President Salva Kiir and Riek Machar, I question the commitment of both sides to ending this conflict. With the diplomatic initiatives in Ethiopia stalling, there is clearly growing support by several western backers to impose targeted sanctions in an attempt to break the deadlock.
The tragedy for South Sudan is that with its vast oil reserves and untapped additional natural resources, the country has huge potential to attract foreign direct investment. However, with the continued political uncertainty this investment is unlikely to be forthcoming. In the recently published Global Peace Index, South Sudan ranked 143rd out of the 162 countries analysed, making it one of the most risky countries for foreign direct investment. There is growing concern that the unrest within South Sudan could spill over its borders and destabilise the volatile region.
My noble friend Lady Cox’s account of continued genocide attacks in Sudan is extremely concerning. However, while Sudan could have taken advantage of the disarray in South Sudan to strengthen its hand on outstanding disputes between the two countries, President Omar al-Bashir so far appears to have supported IGAD in its efforts to mediate a sustainable settlement. Both the Sudanese and South Sudanese Governments have requested the international community to assist in the debt relief of both countries. This should be another lever by the international community to incentivise a sustainable resolution to the challenges facing the region.
In conclusion, can the Minister outline what is being done to assist with humanitarian relief, particularly more air drops, to those regions with poor infrastructure? I would also like to hear what can be done to include civil society in the protracted negotiations. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Luce when he calls for women to have a more vital role in the future of the region.
This is a time for urgent compromise, strong leadership and an inclusive Government if there is any chance of a sustainable future for this fledgling nation.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, for his introduction and for securing this debate. South Sudan is in a terrible mess. After gaining independence from Sudan, as the noble Lord, Lord St John, suggested, there were great hopes for South Sudan, the newest nation on earth. The overwhelming support of the South Sudanese for independence has not, however, resolved the problems that have plagued the country. Fighting between government troops and rebel factions has erupted, killing thousands and forcing more than 800,000 to leave their homes. After more than three months of negotiation, the only achievement of the peace process has been a ceasefire that has been repeatedly violated since January.
Last week, the United States special envoy to South Sudan, Donald Booth, issued a warning on behalf of Britain and other international diplomats when he said that,
“there will be consequences for those who obstruct progress”.
However, last Friday we heard that the second round of South Sudan peace talks had been delayed over the issue of who could participate. South Sudan’s Government have made it clear that they do not want to take part in the peace process if a group of former high-ranking political leaders whom they oppose join in the talks as a third party. I hear what noble Lords have said in terms of the undesirability and unsavoury characteristics of some of these people, but one cannot start to negotiate until all the relevant parties are round the table. That is unacceptable behaviour.
Therefore, following the warning prior to the meeting, what are the consequences now? If the international community fails to follow through, we will lose credibility. Will there be, as was threatened by the European Union representative, targeted restrictive measures against individuals who are obstructing the political process? At some point, all groups will need to get back round the table to deal with key issues.
Other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, have focused on the severe humanitarian crisis in the country. When you read the horrific statistics, you imagine what it must be like, but I cannot imagine some of the suffering that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has witnessed over the years.
Efforts will also be need to be made to address two crucial issues. Oil is both a blessing and a curse for the country. Despite the significant resources in oil wealth, there is a desperate scarcity of infrastructure, and instability is holding back the opportunity to exploit oil. Oil production has fallen drastically. Sudan is now dependent on South Sudan for oil, but Sudan has the refineries and the pipeline to the Red Sea. Significant progress will need to be made on the issue of oil between Sudan and South Sudan before peace can be made permanent.
Border disputes in Sudan continue to strain ties. The main row is over the border region of Abyei, where a referendum for residents to decide whether to join South Sudan or Sudan has been delayed over voter eligibility. The conflict is rooted in a dispute over land between farmers of the pro-South Sudan Ngok Dinka people and the cattle-herding Misseriya Arab tribesmen.
Another border conflict zone to which other noble Lords referred is the Nuba mountain region of South Sudan’s Kordofan state, where violence continues between the largely Christian, pro-SPLA Nuba people and the northern government forces. Again, those issues need to be resolved before there is a lasting peace.
There has been a regional escalation to the situation. Uganda, Sudan’s main regional foe, is openly supporting the South Sudan Government in protecting the oil state of Unity. That has created the real fear that Sudan will go on the offensive, with its calls for Uganda to withdraw being ignored and its oil supply being threatened. Ethiopia has largely tried to arbitrate in the conflict. However, reports of Eritrea—Ethiopia’s old rival—becoming involved by funnelling weapons from Sudan to the South Sudanese rebels significantly increase the chances of it becoming involved. There is a real fear that all the old regional scores will be settled in South Sudan. As one Western diplomat observed: “You’ve got Uganda fighting Sudan inside South Sudan, with Eritrea fighting Ethiopia inside South Sudan and a complete law and order vacuum”.
A sustainable solution must include a resolute determination to address the people’s grievances, and the wider community must be involved in the negotiations. I was delighted to see that the Japanese Government have contributed $1 million to ensure that civilian members will be involved in the monitoring and verification mechanisms. It is worth taking note of the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, about the need for devolution within the country. There also needs to be an opportunity within the commission of inquiry to enable reconciliation, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, in addition to identification of the perpetrators of human rights abuses. Can the Minister explain whether and how the Government intend to pursue that with the commission of inquiry?
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Chidgey for tabling today’s debate, and to noble Lords for allowing me to adjourn the House for a short period to allow as many speakers as possible to take part. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part for their contributions. I also take this opportunity to commend the continued work of the All-Party Group on Sudan and South Sudan, of which I know that my noble friend is a member, as are other noble Lords here tonight. Their work ensures that parliamentarians of all parties are kept informed as the tragedy in the region continues to unfold and helps to raise awareness of the dire humanitarian situation facing millions.
This House’s continuing interest in both countries is evident from the past six months, in which we have had two debates, three Oral Questions and over 50 Written Parliamentary Questions. Since I updated your Lordships on 7 January, the picture has got no better. Huge efforts by IGAD, the African Union and the UK and its partners were put into getting the two sides to sign a cessation of hostilities agreement, which happened on 23 January. Not only have both sides blatantly disregarded it but they are showing no sense of urgency in political talks. The Government, in particular, have resorted to unacceptable rhetoric against UNMISS.
Through our Ministers and our special envoy we continue to work closely with the IGAD countries, the troika and the EU to try to move entrenched mindsets. We are providing both financial support and technical expertise to the IGAD process. In the Security Council we are making it clear that UNMISS should prioritise the protection of civilians, the facilitation of humanitarian assistance and the investigation of human rights.
The African Union has now established its commission of inquiry into alleged human rights violations. We fully support that commission and look forward to its findings. In the mean time, a report from UNMISS has made clear the depth and scale of human rights atrocities by both sides. These include extrajudicial killings, targeting of civilians, torture, recruitment of children and sexual violence.
My noble friend Lord Chidgey spoke about the commission of inquiry. We recognise the capacity limitations that the African Union faces and are encouraging it to liaise closely with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and UNMISS, and we welcome the efforts UNMISS, Human Rights Watch and others have already made to report these atrocities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and other noble Lords referred to the dire humanitarian situation. It is getting worse. More than 900,000 people have been forced from their homes. Around 75,000 are still sheltering in UN compounds in appalling conditions. The UN has declared a level 3 emergency—the highest level of humanitarian crisis. In response to my noble friend Lord Avebury and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I can confirm that there is a very real risk of famine. We have responded by committing an extra £39.5 million for emergency assistance. This is helping to provide food, shelter, water, sanitation and tents, which afford some privacy to women, girls and young children. We are pressing all sides to ensure that unhindered access is given to humanitarian agencies.
We are, however, reviewing with the UN humanitarian country team and other donors how best to reach displaced populations that are on the move because of the security situation. This was a priority issue for the UN emergency directors’ visit to South Sudan last week, and we expect to announce a further package of support very soon. The UK is currently the second largest contributor, after the US, to the crisis response plan. We are lobbying other donors to contribute more, most recently through the working party on humanitarian aid and food aid in Brussels.
The South Sudanese population deserve better than this from their leaders. Beyond an immediate cessation of hostilities, they need to see a truly inclusive settlement which brings in not only politicians but—as the noble Lord, Lord Luce, said—a full cross-section of civil society, including church groups, women’s representatives and minority groups. Those politicians currently standing trial in Juba must receive a fair and transparent trial. There needs to be a comprehensive national reconciliation process which properly addresses the deep-rooted political and social grievances that existed even before the current conflict. There must be a full inquiry into alleged human rights violations, and proper accountability for those found guilty. Access must be granted for humanitarian agencies needing to deliver and pre-position urgent aid before the rains. Humanitarian assets should be protected, and staff safety guaranteed.
My noble friend Lord Avebury asked about the other challenges to aid, and about what guarantees rebels have given in relation to aid. We have a real problem in relation to looting, commandeering and destruction of humanitarian assets. This is constraining the response and risks fuelling the conflict. The UK and our humanitarian partners are taking measures to reduce the risk of looting of humanitarian supplies during the conflict. We have called on all parties to respect the independence, impartiality and neutrality of humanitarian personnel.
My noble friend Lord Chidgey drew attention in the Question to the role of Sudan, and he expanded on that in his speech. We should recognise the fact that the Government in Khartoum, in their role as a member of IGAD, have chosen to put their full support behind the peace process and are resisting any temptation to intervene militarily. We acknowledge that Sudan has played a constructive role in that capacity. The two Governments have remained on good terms, with President Bashir’s visit to Juba in January being followed by a number of mutual exchanges, including most recently a visit by the South Sudanese Defence Minister to Khartoum last week. Our envoy Tim Morris was in Khartoum last week and held constructive talks with senior government Ministers. The Minister for Africa, Mark Simmonds, also discussed the situation in South Sudan during his visit to Khartoum in mid-January.
As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, said, it is important that all regional leaders play a constructive role in the ongoing discussions and negotiations. However, we should also highlight our deep concern at the turn of events within Sudan in recent weeks, in which the upsurge of violence in Darfur has led to the displacement of about 120,000 people. The Minister for Africa issued a Statement condemning this on 6 March.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, also referred to other regional players such as Uganda. The presence of Ugandan troops in South Sudan is at the invitation of President Kiir. However, we have been clear to all South Sudan’s neighbours that their actions should not contribute in any way to escalating the violence. We welcome Uganda’s stated intention to withdraw its troops once a regional force has been established and we have been in regular contact with the Ugandan Government about this.
My noble friend Lord Chidgey spoke about Abyei and the withdrawal of police forces. We have repeatedly made it clear to both Governments through the UN Security Council and through our embassies that they should comply fully with the Abyei interim agreement of May 2011 and with UN Resolution 2046, including by withdrawing all their forces from Abyei. We have been clear that lack of progress in implementing agreements will only invite further unilateral action, increase tensions and raise the risk of conflict. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, also asked about our support for Abyei. We are very supportive of the role which the United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei is playing in trying to keep the peace. Beyond UNISFA, all our support for the people of Abyei goes through UN agencies. I can certainly write to the noble Baroness with a full breakdown of that support.
The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, asked about debt relief. We are committed in principle to seeing debt relief for all heavily indebted poor countries, including Sudan, where we are confident that it will lead to poverty reduction. We continue to make it clear to the Government of Sudan that they will need to meet the requirements of the internationally agreed HIPC initiative before the UK will provide debt relief as part of a multilateral Paris Club agreement. The Minister for Africa, Mark Simmonds, made this position clear to the Sudanese Government when he visited Khartoum in mid-January of this year. The noble Lord also referred to UN targeted sanctions. We have made it clear, as have the EU and the US, that we stand ready to consider targeted measures against individuals obstructing the political process in support of the African Union and the IGAD effort.
My noble friend Lord Chidgey referred to peace talks and civil society, as did the noble Lord, Lord Luce. We welcome the civil society forum, which was held in Addis last week, and its subsequent declaration as an important step towards ensuring that civil society views are heard and properly engaged. My noble friend also asked about the UNMISS mandate, which we believe must reflect the changed environment in South Sudan so that it can focus on protecting civilians, enabling humanitarian assistance and investigating human rights abuses and violations. We are encouraging the UN Security Council to bring forward the renewal of the UNMISS mandate so that it is better able to respond to these priorities. In the medium term this is bound to entail less of a role on state-building, which I think was also referred to during the debate.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred to the staffing in the Sudan unit. We have no plans to reduce staffing in that unit. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, also asked about this. We have a UK envoy, Tim Morris, who was appointed in January especially to cover the South Sudan talks. He has been travelling extensively in the region in support of those talks; in fact, I think that he may be there today. A new special representative for Sudan and South Sudan will take a post in the summer.
My noble friend Lord Sheikh asked about what representations the UK had received from the African Union and what support it would like the UK to supply. We have not received a direct request for assistance, for example with the commission of inquiry, but we are encouraging it to work closely with the UN and would be happy to consider any request. We are providing financial and technical support to IGAD—I think around $1million—which is mediating the wider talks.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, spoke about the attempted coup, as he described it. There are conflicting accounts of the precise circumstances that led to the conflict. We have not seen any evidence of a coup attempt, but we are urging leaders on all sides to restrain their followers and to work actively to prevent the situation deepening divisions along ethnic lines. While there have been deeply disturbing occurrences of ethnically targeted killings, it is clear that the crisis began initially as a political one.
My noble friend Lord Avebury asked about discussions between the UN and IGAD, and the role specifically of the Ugandan forces. Our envoy Tim Morris is, as I said earlier, in Addis Ababa today. He is discussing with IGAD, the troika and the EU envoys, the nature of any popular deterrent force. We believe it is essential that any such force comes under the UNMISS hat, albeit drawing on regional forces. It will be for IGAD countries to agree on whether that should include Ugandan forces.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, spoke about child soldiers. We are concerned about the number of child soldiers that have been recruited. It is vital that the commission of inquiry looks into this thoroughly during its investigations.
The noble Lord, Lord Luce, spoke about civil society, but I think I have already addressed that earlier.
In conclusion, bringing lasting peace and development to South Sudan is a huge and complex challenge which will require time, patience and unceasing attention from the regional and international community. For the good of the South Sudanese people, who have suffered for far too long, the UK will remain centrally involved for as long as is necessary. I know from the interest in your Lordships’ House that we will continue to keep this matter on an important and priority agenda.