House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
1. What steps the Government plan to take to increase the number of people registered to vote.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)
The House will know that on 10 June the Government launched online electoral registration, making registering to vote quicker and simpler than ever before. This is the biggest change to electoral registration in generations. Applying to go on the electoral register now takes as little as three minutes, and I can tell the House that it is proving to be a huge success. As of midnight last night, 93,000 applications have been made since 10 June, 93% have been made online, and 98% of those using the online service said that they were either satisfied or very satisfied with the experience.
Kate Green
The Minister will be aware of Mencap’s “Hear my voice” campaign, which is encouraging learning-disabled voters to engage with Members of Parliament in the run-up to the general election. He will also know that in 2001—the most recent election for which we have data—only one in three people with a learning disability exercised their vote. What more can the Government do to ensure both that this important group of voters are on the electoral register and that they exercise their voting right?
Greg Clark
I completely agree with the hon. Lady, who will know that Mencap has been funded specifically by the Government to carry out its important work in making sure that we correct that figure so that everyone takes up their right to vote, including those with learning difficulties.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
A disproportionate number of those not registered are among the 200,000 members of our armed services. Many of them are either not interested or are registered in places where they used to live or used to be based. What more can the Government do with the Ministry of Defence and our armed services to encourage our servicemen to register to vote and then, of course, actually to vote?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One of the great advantages of online registration is that it is available to our serving servicemen and women around the world. It is a huge step forward that they do not need to rely on the post.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
In the Sheffield city region, which, of course, includes Bassetlaw, students are particularly keen to vote at the next general election. What specific assistance are the Government giving to colleges and, in particular, further education colleges to ensure they can play their role in maximising the number of students who are able to vote?
Greg Clark
I am sure there are lots of people in Bassetlaw who are very keen to vote, but it is hard to say whether they will vote for or against the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right that, in times past, a smaller number of students have been registered to vote in other places. That is why under the funding formula more money now goes to every place where there is a substantial student population, including Sheffield: £47,000 has been allocated to Sheffield city council specifically to drive up electoral registration.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
Last time, I asked the Minister about the schools initiative advocated by Bite the Ballot. I welcome what he has told the House today about the early take-up of online registration, but does he agree that there is no need for an either/or option? May I press him again: can we not combine online registration with a duty on schools and FE colleges so that we ensure that we have a maximum number of young people on the new register?
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect, needs to update his brief. Online registration is now live. There is no point in going back to the system that prevailed in Northern Ireland when only paper-based voting was needed. The group most likely to take up the opportunity of electronic registration is young people. In fact, the latest figures show that 43% of those registering are under 30, so online is the way to go with young people.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
2. What recent assessment he has made of the integrity of the electoral register.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)
The introduction of individual electoral registration will help enhance the accuracy of the register, with applications being verified against Government records. The Electoral Commission is conducting a study of the accuracy and completeness of the final electoral registers before IER, which were published in February and March. They were compiled entirely under household registration and the commission plans to report its findings in July. It will then conduct a similar study of the electoral registers when the transitional arrangements for IER come to an end.
Nick de Bois
Is the Minister aware that if when a voter presents at a polling booth a presiding officer has doubts about their identity, there is no process to substantiate the identity of that member of the public? Is it not time to consider what many other countries have done, including Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom, which is to have presentation of voter identification?
Greg Clark
I understand the point my hon. Friend makes, but it is important to bear in mind the fact that there is a very low incidence of voting fraud in this country. I do not want that incidence, which is very small, to be used as a pretext to bring in a national form of identity cards, which would be a step backwards.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
The precise figure for the number of times that there have been successful prosecutions for electoral registration fraud is one: there has been one case since 1999, and that was in 2007. Since 2007, there have been no cases of voter electoral registration fraud. Does the Minister think that the Electoral Commission has gone overboard with its recommendation for photo ID for voters?
Greg Clark
I have said that I do not agree with that. It is perfectly proper for the Electoral Commission, as an independent body, to put forward proposals, but it is also important for them to be considered and debated in this House before they are in any sense approved. I have made my views known to the commission and to the House.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
3. What steps he plans to take to improve the functioning of the coalition Government.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
People said that the coalition would collapse within days, but we have proved them all wrong. As a Government, we have cut the deficit by a third and returned the economy to growth, cut tax for more than 26 million people, overseen more people in work than ever before, created 1.7 million apprenticeships, introduced a pupil premium to help the most disadvantaged schoolchildren—the list goes on. Bearing in mind the record of the previous Government, perhaps the question should instead be about how a single party could govern more effectively.
Kevin Brennan
Actually, I tabled the question out of genuine curiosity. As the right hon. Gentleman is the Minister responsible for the functioning of the coalition, I want to know how it is possible for a policy such as allowing unqualified teachers, which was not in the coalition agreement—he fundamentally and profoundly disagrees with it, as does his party—can become Government policy.
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the Liberal Democrats in the coalition feel that all teachers—in whatever classroom, and whatever the nature of the school or the nameplate of the school—should be qualified or seeking qualification, which is what most parents expect. The Department for Education took a decision that, in its executive capacity, it was entitled to take, but in my view it will not stand the test of time, because most parents want to know that their children—their sons and daughters—are taught by properly qualified teachers.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
In a spirit of fraternity with my right hon. Friend, would not the best way of improving our electoral chances, and indeed of improving the functioning of Government, be to end the coalition now and to let the Conservatives govern on our own?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman’s party did not win a majority last time; let us see whether it succeeds this time. I think that coalition Governments are likely to recur in future, just because of the volatility of British politics, and I remain enormously proud of what we have achieved in this Government.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those who do not particularly favour the coalition Government are taking industrial action on Thursday, including a large number of people on low wages who have been forced into acute hardship? Do I take it that the Deputy Prime Minister will condemn those people exercising their democratic rights, as his Tory colleagues will?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I point out to the hon. Gentleman, who is, as ever, livid in the delivery of his question, that the reason we have to make savings is the disastrous mismanagement of the economy by the Labour party. There is nothing fair or progressive about simply shrugging your shoulders, saying that no difficult decisions need to be taken on public sector pay and handing on this generation’s debts to the next generation. Government Members remain united, if not on all issues, on clearing up the unholy mess bequeathed to us by the people on the Labour Benches.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Local growth deals undoubtedly improve the functioning of the coalition Government. Would the Deputy Prime Minister care to explain why that is?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The local growth deals, which we announced yesterday—I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister who has been leading on this in Government—are one of the most significant transfers of money, decision-making authority and policy powers from Whitehall to localities around the country. I am delighted that, among the Government’s many other achievements, we have overseen the greatest wave of decentralisation for a generation.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
4. What recent discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues on the Government's policy on devolution and decentralisation.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)
I have had fruitful discussions with ministerial colleagues on the devolution of powers and funds to our cities, towns and counties, resulting in 39 growth deals, which I announced yesterday as part of our long-term economic plan. I am delighted that Blackpool features so strongly in the Lancashire growth deal, which takes £233 million from Whitehall and puts it into the hands of the business, civic, university and college leaders of Lancashire.
Paul Maynard
I welcome the £233 million that was announced yesterday, and I was pleased to be in Blackpool to do so. Will the Minister confirm that this is the beginning and not the end, not merely because I have a lengthy shopping list for my constituency but because we want all our great northern cities of Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds—and maybe even Sheffield—to form a real economic powerhouse to rival London?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is right, and there is no greater champion of the north-west and Blackpool than he. I can confirm that such has been the success of the growth deals—three and a half times oversubscribed, with projects that bring in a lot of private sector funding—that we will proceed immediately to negotiate further such deals, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will talk to the authorities in Blackpool to further their case.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
In his discussions, is the Minister reconsidering whether it would be wiser to have strategic, directly elected mayors in some of our regions so that we do not just give them the money, but have democratic accountability for areas greater than the current boundaries?
Greg Clark
The hon. Lady and I share an enthusiasm for directly elected mayors. If we look around the world and at the example of London, and now Liverpool and Bristol, we see that it makes a difference to have someone with a mandate who can speak for the whole city. That is not the current Government’s policy, but various members of the Government have made statements in recent days that might form part of a future Government’s plans.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
7. Is the Minister aware that the devolving of power, which has led to funding the smarter routes to employment project, the Woodside link road and the Leighton-Linslade engineering construction skills centre in my constituency, very much reflects the local priorities to improve skills, create more jobs and spread prosperity as widely as possible?
Greg Clark
I agree with my hon. Friend. He elucidates the principle of the deals. It makes no sense for people in Whitehall to claim to know what is needed in a very local sense across the country. It is far better to give local people and local businesses the opportunity to make those decisions and to bring in private investment. You get a bigger bang for your buck that way.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Will the Minister explain why there was no representative from Liverpool there when the Deputy Prime Minister announced the Northern Futures board on Friday? Will he or the Deputy Prime Minister work with local MPs to ensure that Liverpool’s voice is not lost?
Greg Clark
There has been no shortage of ministerial visits to Liverpool in recent days. I pay tribute to the mayor and the authorities across the north-west for the international festival of business in Liverpool, which has been a huge success and drawn people from around the world. We were delighted in the Liverpool growth deal to confirm that the second such festival will take place in two years.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
5. What plans he has to discuss constituency boundaries with the Boundary Commission; and if he will make a statement.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
Ministers do not generally meet the independent boundary commissioners to discuss the setting of parliamentary constituency boundaries, and I currently have no plans to meet them.
Mr Bellingham
I am grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister for that reply, but does he agree that there is a serious, pressing need for fewer MPs, sitting for constituencies with fairer, more equitable boundaries? Will he in future push for that reform as hard as possible?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the legislation on the statute book will lead to a further review in the next Parliament, ahead of the 2020 general election, and it sets out the basis on which those decisions are made. There is an interesting discussion, not least in the academic survey published recently— just last week, I think—about precisely how such a review will be conducted in future so that communities are not split up and the integrity of wards is maintained.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Will the Deputy Prime Minister commit to look again at further boundary revisions? If, at a time when individual voter registration is being introduced, it turns out—it might or might not—that there has been a substantial fall in registration, will he commit not to press ahead immediately with further revisions?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the hon. Lady knows, we are confident that we are doing everything we can—we are taking a belt-and-braces approach—to ensure that registration levels do not fall. We have learned from the experience of Northern Ireland and have worked on a consensual, cross-party basis to get this right, because all parties accept that we need to move to individual voter registration. I do not anticipate that the situation she predicts will arise.
Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)
Assuming that the next boundary review will be—we hope—on a UK basis, will the Deputy Prime Minister look at the unhappy experience of this Parliament and the exceptions that were granted for the Isle of Wight, and the northern and western isles? The manifest absence of any such willingness to appreciate the vast geography of the several constituencies of the highlands and islands of Scotland means that my constituency has one Westminster MP and no fewer than eight Members of the Scottish Parliament serving it. That cannot make sense.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend that, as the reviews occur in future, we shall need to be mindful, first, of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), ensuring that there is enough latitude in the rules so that boundary commissions are not forced to split up naturally formed communities; and, secondly, of the need not to create such unfeasibly large constituencies that it is almost impossible physically to represent them in this place.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
6. What steps the Government are taking to avoid a fall in the number of people registered to vote as a result of the introduction of individual voter registration.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)
As part of the transition to individual electoral registration, we are using data matching to confirm the majority of current electors on the existing register without their having to make a new application. The transition is being phased in over two years, which means that no one registered to vote at the last canvass will lose their right to vote at the general election in 2015. The Electoral Commission will have an awareness campaign; in addition, the introduction of online registration makes electoral registration much more accessible.
Nick Smith
I understand that two thirds of electoral registration officers have not data matched their records with Government databases. What action will the Minister take to ensure that they do so?
Greg Clark
No, the hon. Gentleman is out of date. Of the applications made since 10 June, more than 90% have been successfully confirmed with Government data, so it is going extremely well. The electoral registration community around the country is pretty pleased with the progress.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s good news about the take-up and about online registration. To go back to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), is the Minister aware that more than 250 local authorities have not confirmed whether they have data matched their registers with central Government databases, as they were supposed to do, and that almost 100 have failed to conduct a door-to-door canvass at least once in the past five years of those who are not on the register? Will he look into that and tell us what he is going to do about it?
Greg Clark
The right hon. Gentleman is getting ahead of himself. The new system started on 10 June. There is a big campaign in which every electoral registration officer will write to every household in the weeks ahead. They will then follow that up with the door-to-door canvass. After that is the time to see how they have performed. The right hon. Gentleman needs to reflect on the current rather than the past system.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
As Deputy Prime Minister, I support the Prime Minister on a full range of Government policy initiatives. Within Government, I take special responsibility for the Government’s programme of political and constitutional reform.
Lucy Powell
I support the Deputy Prime Minister’s policy to get some of the most disadvantaged two-year-olds into free child care. However, does he share my concern that nearly two thirds of councils recently reported that they have vulnerable two-year-olds in poor quality settings? What is more, the Sutton Trust says that that is likely to get worse in September as the scheme is expanded. What assurances can he give that no vulnerable two-year-old will be in a poor-quality child care setting?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am glad the hon. Lady takes such an interest, because providing that free pre-school support to two-year-olds from the most disadvantaged families is a progressive and significant policy. I believe she is referring to the data released on 26 June which, it is worth pointing out, were from a census carried out in January. We are obviously looking at the data very carefully. As it happens, there are now around 280,000 vacant child care places available around the country. As she will know, the offer to two-year-olds will be expanded to twice as many families, so we need to ensure that there is a funded place available to around 260,000. The demand and supply are there, but she makes a valid point that the care needs to be of a high quality and standard. I am keen to take on board any ideas she has about how we can ensure that happens.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
T3. May I take the opportunity to welcome the “devolution revolution” represented in the growth fund announcement yesterday? Specifically, the announcement about the Henbury line—after a lot of pestering it shows that pester power can work—is very welcome. For local residents, having a loop line soon is an absolute priority, before housing in north Bristol creates absolute gridlock. Will the Deputy Prime Minister work with the local enterprise partnership to ensure that the public’s priorities are represented in the LEP’s priorities?
The Deputy Prime Minister
First, I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for the phrase “devolution revolution”. We should have used that yesterday—it would, perhaps, have given us even more coverage. On the Henbury loop line, she is right to say that this has been warmly welcomed by the local community. I pay tribute to all the work she has done to make sure that that is the case. In terms of the plans the local enterprise partnership comes up with, the whole point of LEPs is precisely that they speak on behalf of the community and that they do not represent a top-down quango approach. My understanding is that as part of the growth deal with the west of England, we have agreed to co-invest in several jointly agreed priorities, including the MetroWest project, which reflect local needs and local wishes.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
With more people going to A and E, not least because of the difficulty of seeing their GP, the average time people spend in A and E has gone up, not down, despite what the Prime Minister tried to claim last week. Last year, nearly 1 million patients had to wait more than four hours in A and E—the worst year in a decade. Is the Deputy Prime Minister, like the Prime Minister, just going to deny this, or will he get his Government to do something about it?
The Deputy Prime Minister
What I find so curious about the right hon. and learned Lady’s line of questioning is that it comes from the party of Mid Staffs and the party that doubled the number of managers. This is the party that refused to commit to the £12.7 billion funding increase that this Government put into the NHS. Above all, it was her Government who entered into outrageous sweetheart deals with the private sector that meant that a quarter of a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money was handed over to private sector health providers without helping a single NHS patient.
Of course we need to work hard to support our A and E services. They are under greater pressure than ever before, but her party’s approach—cutting the budget, employing more managers and not more nurses, and handing out sweetheart deals to the private sector—is not the way to do it.
Ms Harman
Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that the terrible things that happened in Mid Staffs were representative of the situation in our fantastic NHS as a whole? Shame on him! People will see that there is no chance of the Government sorting out the problems in A and E when they are just intent on pretending there is no problem. It is the same old story when the Tories are in power: the NHS is undermined and people suffer. Does he realise that his plan to differentiate his party from the Tories is doomed to fail while he is supporting the Tories on the NHS every step of the way and smearing the NHS as well?
The Deputy Prime Minister
If the right hon. and learned Lady’s Government were not responsible for Mid Staffs, which Government were? They were in power at the time. The reports made it quite clear that it was because of the manic approach to targets that health professionals in Mid Staffs and elsewhere were taking such false decisions. Does she deny that her party still has not supported our budget increase for the NHS? Does she still deny that it was her Government who gave sweetheart deals to the private sector, and imposed botched privatisation and competition on the NHS? We do not need to take any lectures from her on the NHS.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
T5. I welcome the investment for Kent announced yesterday in the local growth fund proposals, but does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the Government and the South East local enterprise partnership should give further consideration to supporting the Folkestone seafront development, a scheme that could have a major impact on the further regeneration of the town?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I know how keen the hon. Gentleman and many of his constituents are on securing funding for the Folkestone seafront regeneration. I know that he is disappointed that it was not included in the growth deal announced yesterday, which was, of course, a significant one. It is worth £440 million between now and 2021, and in his area it is principally focused on some transport projects. I simply urge him to carry on making the case for the Folkestone seafront regeneration because the growth deals announced yesterday were not the final word; we want to continue with this approach and I very much hope that the Folkestone seafront regeneration project will finally be agreed.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
T2. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that if individual voter registration is to work, we are all, in part, responsible for making it work, including civic society? May I ask him, very politely and very nicely, if he will consider the Bite the Ballot schools initiative? I heard what was said about this earlier. The Deputy Prime Minister used to be a good democrat; will he actually come out in favour of it?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I have attended a session in a school in my constituency under the so-called Rock Enrol! programme organised by the Bite the Ballot team, an excellent team with whom I have worked over many years. They are brilliant people who organise motivational schemes for young people who, almost invariably, are much more interested in voting as a result. All of us, as constituency MPs, must play our part in working in partnership with the organisation in schools in our local areas.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
T6. The Government have repeatedly stressed the importance of rail connectivity to economic development, and did so again yesterday in the excellent announcements on local growth deals. May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to a proposal in a consultation document from the Department for Transport that suggests the ending of three services between Cleethorpes and Manchester, which could have a detrimental effect on the private sector investment that yesterday’s announcements were aimed to attract?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are currently considering options for services between Manchester and Cleethorpes in the new TransPennine Express and Northern franchises. So far the analysis of the journeys made by people has found that the majority of passengers from Cleethorpes are only travelling as far as Sheffield, or connecting at Doncaster or Sheffield for onward services. That is why we are considering the case for terminating the current direct services from Manchester at Doncaster, with a replacement service from Sheffield to Cleethorpes, but the consultation runs until August and I encourage him and anyone with an interest in this proposal to share their views through that process.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
T4. The Deputy Prime Minister has previously brought forward proposals for the reform of the House of Lords that would have increased the percentage of bishops, giving them 12 out of 300 seats. Given that the Church of England is not the established Church in all parts of the UK and has shown a much less than enthusiastic approach to adopting UK equality legislation, particularly on women and same-sex marriage, will he consider in any future proposals he brings forward either reducing the percentage of bishops or removing them altogether from the House of Lords?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The representation of the Church in the current or a reformed House of Lords must, like anything in this area, be subject to cross-party discussions. I have my own views; the hon. Lady has hers. Personally I would like a completely directly elected second Chamber. That is a normal approach but, as she knows, her party, for reasons that only she can explain to me, decided not to support a reform that the Labour party was supposed to have made for generations. I say, “Shame on the Labour party.”
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
T7. May I press my right hon. Friend on ensuring that people who are in the military can be registered? May I make a practical suggestion, which is that responsibility be given to the adjutant on the base to make sure that all members of the military fill in the forms?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Online registration is making registering to vote quicker and more convenient than ever before. It helps those based overseas, such as military personnel. He may know that we have removed the requirement for applications from overseas voters to be attested, except where identity cannot be established against the public record. The Ministry of Defence conducts extensive information campaigns with the support of the Electoral Commission every year to encourage service personnel and their families to register to vote. I hope that that will continue to raise the levels of registration among those personnel.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
T8. I am not sure whether the Minister of State understood the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). Since 2008, it has been law that electoral registration officers must knock on the doors of householders who do not return their electoral registration forms. Since then, 98 EROs have broken the law, and West Devon has broken it five times. This breaking of the law has been tolerated by the Deputy Prime Minister’s Department and by the Electoral Commission. When is it going to stop?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and there is obviously no dispute either that the law must be applied or about the importance of door-to-door canvasses. Under the system, the Electoral Commission has formally to request the Government to issue a direction that EROs should act where this is not being done. We have not yet received that request from the Electoral Commission.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
T9. In May, the Deputy Prime Minister met Prime Minister Sharif of Pakistan. Did he raise with him the need to reform Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, which are often used to persecute and prosecute minority communities, including the Christian community? What was Mr Sharif’s response to such representations?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I did indeed raise a range of human rights concerns with Prime Minister Sharif during his recent visit. I know—I think this has been confirmed to the hon. Gentleman—that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed Pakistan’s blasphemy laws with Mr Sharif during the same visit. I want to pay tribute, as I am sure all Members will, to those brave people in Pakistan who are pushing for debate and reform. We will not shy away from raising this issue with the Pakistan Government or Prime Minister Sharif. After his visit, if not before, he is certainly clear of the seriousness with which we treat the issue that the hon. Gentleman has rightly raised.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
T11. Earlier this year, the Deputy Prime Minister said it was an exaggeration to suggest that rising food poverty was linked to the coalition’s welfare reforms, yet when the all-party inquiry into hunger and food poverty visited South Shields last week, we heard person after person say that benefit delays and sanctions had led them to rely on handouts. Does the Deputy Prime Minister think my constituents are exaggerating?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I think the hon. Lady is being extremely partial in her description of my views on this issue. Of course this is something that we need to take extremely seriously; no one wants to see people needlessly going hungry in our society. Rather than seeking to boil down the complex reasons for why people might go to food banks into a simple soundbite, she should recognise that under her Government, relative poverty was higher than it is now, unemployment was higher, youth unemployment was higher, more children were living in relative poverty—300,000 more than there are now—and more pensioners were living in relative poverty. Before she starts casting stones, she should look at her own party’s record in government.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
T12. As we approach the Scottish referendum, in which the Deputy Prime Minister wants to see a no vote, which polls suggest is likely, will he commit the Government finally to answering the West Lothian question?
The Deputy Prime Minister
“Finally” is the operative word for something that has bedevilled debate in Westminster for more than 100 years. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in January 2012 we set up the McKay commission to consider how the House of Commons should deal with legislation that affects only part of the United Kingdom. The commission’s report—an excellent one—was published in March, and the Government are now considering it in detail. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that if this question were so straightforward to sort out, I suspect someone would have done it a long time ago.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
T13. Under the Deputy Prime Minister’s flagship school meals programme, he pledged that every infant child would receive a hot, healthy school meal. How many children will be eating cold sandwiches in September because, once again, he cannot keep his word?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Even by the hon. Lady’s standards, it is a bit sour to try to undermine a policy that has not yet been implemented. It will be implemented in September and is a really progressive policy. All the evidence shows—as did the pilots conducted under the previous Government in Durham and parts of east London—that this will not only save families on low income a lot of money, but help to raise the educational performance of children from lower-income backgrounds and provide a powerful way of creating cohesion among young children as they share a meal together. We are working intensively with thousands of schools across the country at the moment, so I cannot give the hon. Lady a precise answer, but the overwhelming majority of those schools are already ready to provide this service. We are working with them over the summer to make sure that if there are any exceptions in the provision of those healthy school meals at lunch time in September, there will be only a very small number of them.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
My right hon. Friend recently visited Solihull college in my constituency, and saw for himself the brilliant work that it is doing with skills and apprenticeships. Will he join me in welcoming the Birmingham and Solihull LEP growth deal, which will, among many other things, make an aviation engineering training centre a reality, and help Birmingham international airport to become the go-to place for the world’s airlines when they need engineering, maintenance and repair work to be done?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I certainly join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to everyone who worked on the growth deal in her area. Over the next few years, growth deals collectively will represent a transfer of £12 billion of Government money away from Whitehall—out of Departments here in London—and into the hands of local communities and local enterprise partnerships. That is a really big, bold act of decentralisation, which I think will finally break the back of the excessive centralisation from which we have suffered for far too long.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
T14. The coalition agreement provided for a limit on the number of special advisers, but since 2010 the number has increased. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what he personally will do to place a limit on it?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the hon. Lady will know, special advisers play a very important role in all Governments. Of course they need to be held to account, and of course we need to be entirely transparent about how many are employed, what they are paid, and so on. We have taken unprecedented steps in publishing that information. Special advisers play a particularly important role in a coalition. We have two parties seeking to work—as we generally do—productively and co-operatively within the Government.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the growth deal for Coventry and Warwickshire will provide huge benefits through investment in advanced manufacturing at Ansty Park, which will complement the excellent work of the manufacturing technology centre which is already on the site?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am delighted that so many Members are as excited as I am about the fact that the growth deals mark such a dramatic break from the past. Now, finally, people can take their economic destiny into their own hands, rather than having everything dictated to them from Whitehall.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
T15. I represent a city that introduced free hot, healthy meals for all primary school pupils, which were then scrapped by an incoming Liberal Democrat council. Is it not the case that one in five infants will be in receipt of cold sandwiches from September onwards? Have we not seen enough of these half-baked promises from the Liberal Democrats? [Hon. Members: “Half-baked!”] The Deputy Prime Minister has got this wrong, and he needs to rethink it.
The Deputy Prime Minister
My head is swimming with the idea of a half-baked cold sandwich.
As the hon. Lady knows, the local Liberal Democrats objected to some of the plans of her local party because it was stealing from Peter to give to Paul. It was taking money away from low-income children in Hull to pay for that particular policy. We are giving schools far more time to deliver the free school meal commitment to children in the first three years of primary school than they were given by the pilot projects that were conducted by the hon. Lady’s party in government. We are providing an unprecedented amount of support. We have set aside a huge amount of money, and we are working intensively in schools. Instead of seeking to denigrate such a big, progressive policy, she should support it.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I welcome the emphasis on advanced manufacturing in Swindon and Wiltshire’s local growth deal, which was announced yesterday. That manufacturing extends well beyond Swindon, as I was able to show the Chief Secretary to the Treasury earlier this year. Does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise that we need to make investments to ensure that our local industry remains competitive if employers are not to go the same way as Dunlop, for example, in the automotive supply chain?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the vital principles of rebalancing the British economy is getting away from the over-reliance on one square mile, the City of London, and instead catering for thousands of square miles across the country. That means giving as much equality of esteem to manufacturing as has traditionally been given to financial services. Under Labour, manufacturing declined three times faster than it did under the Thatcher Government, but it is now finally rebounding in a healthier way than it has for many years.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
When is this coalition going to start breaking up? It is obvious that we have only nine months left for an election. At some point, the Deputy Prime Minister will have to make some announcement from that Box to say that it is breaking up.
I have an idea. There is a big march on Thursday, against pay levels, the wage freeze and everything else. Students will be on the march. The Deputy Prime Minister could join them. He could imagine that it is five years ago—he could take his little pledge card and promise them the moon. When is he going to do it?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I still marvel and admire the zeal and energy with which the hon. Gentleman delivers every question—well, they are not questions really; they are a sort of outpouring of bile. This Government will see the course through to the end of this Parliament. We have legislated for a fixed-term Parliament. That is an important constitutional innovation. As I said earlier, I personally think that coalition Governments of different compositions are more likely in future. That is why, among many other reasons, it is important that we do what we say and see through this Parliament from end to end until May 2015.
Mr Speaker
It is my ambition one day to be as youthful and dynamic as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner). Last but not least, I call Mr Peter Bone.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I understand that, to strengthen the coalition, there may be a reshuffle on Monday. How does that work? Does the Deputy Prime Minister have specific posts that he appoints, such as the post of Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills? Can he appoint only Liberal Democrats to those posts, or can he approach other Members? If so, does he have my mobile telephone number?
The Deputy Prime Minister
There is no better way to finish Deputy Prime Minister’s questions than with the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). I am afraid I do not have the mobile telephone number of the hon. Member for Wellingborough. I am not going to ask for it; I hope he does not take that too badly. He is a versatile politician, but I do not think in anyone’s wildest imaginings he could ever approximate a decent Liberal Democrat.
Mr Speaker
I have allowed this to run on because there are fewer questions to the Attorney-General, but to those questions we now come.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
1. What recent discussions he had with the Director of Public Prosecutions about tackling regional variations in conviction rates.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
5. What recent discussions he had with the Director of Public Prosecutions about tackling regional variations in conviction rates.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
The Crown Prosecution Service delivers a reliable and consistent service, achieving an overall conviction rate of 85% or above in each of the past four years. The CPS is introducing new casework quality standards and standard operating procedures to seek to ensure that a consistent approach to quality is adopted across each CPS area.
Kelvin Hopkins
I thank the Attorney-General for his answer, but prosecution and conviction rates for rape and other sexual crimes in particular vary widely across the country. What are the Government going to do to seek to ensure that all such crimes are prosecuted and convictions achieved, wherever the crimes occur?
The Attorney-General
There are indeed some regional variations, although overall when looked at in the round they are perhaps less significant than might be appreciated. However, the CPS has put a great deal of effort into prioritising cases of violence against women and girls, including rape. I am satisfied that, particularly when one looks at those areas that have had the lowest performances—London is a good example of this—the efforts that have been made recently, particularly by Baljit Ubhey, the new Chief Crown Prosecutor, should, with the reviews that have taken place, lead to significant improvements, and indeed they already have.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I am sure that the Attorney-General would like to join me in congratulating Durham CPS on achieving a conviction rate of almost 82%. What is he doing to support Durham in sharing that best practice, so that we can get an overall improvement in conviction rates, which is very much needed?
The Attorney-General
I seek to support Durham CPS in a number of ways. First, I go to visit Durham CPS; it has been a pleasure to visit its area offices. Secondly, I have a dialogue with the Director of Public Prosecutions on a monthly basis, and if necessary more frequently, when we keep the statistics under review. I have often said that statistics can sometimes become a bit misleading if one becomes obsessed with them, but they are a very good benchmark of quality. Linked to that is the feedback that we get. Equally, what I pick up through the unduly lenient sentence system enables me to evaluate whether the system is working properly in the case of court presentation.
For all those reasons, although I am certainly not complacent and I know that we constantly have to drive this agenda, I am satisfied that the CPS has performed outstandingly on overall conviction rates. On issues concerning rape and violence against women and girls, raised by the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), while I clearly have anxieties about areas where there may be lower rates, the performance overall seems, particularly in the hon. Lady’s area, to be very good indeed.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
On his visits around different CPS offices, will my right hon. and learned Friend try to get a handle on whether there are regional variations in how we prosecute people who assault vulnerable people, particularly those with dementia? He will be aware of a constituent case of mine, where the public interest test was cited as the reason for not taking forward a prosecution of an assault on someone with dementia. That has caused great concern. Will my right hon. and learned Friend look into this?
The Attorney-General
Yes, I am happy to look into it. I am aware of the case, but my hon. Friend will not be entirely surprised that in addition to that I do not think I can give him an answer about the statistics. If we can find some figures on that type of offence to see whether there are variations, I will provide him with that information.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
Not only conviction rates are important; referrals to the CPS also show huge variations. Cheshire tops the table, with 65% of rape allegations being passed to the CPS and 33% of domestic violence incidents being reported to the CPS, but in Warwickshire the figure is only 3.5%. Has my right hon. and learned Friend given any consideration to regional variations in reporting to the CPS?
The Attorney-General
The Government as a whole are giving a great deal of attention to regional variations in reporting. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have both made this a priority issue. Indeed, I am also aware that the Opposition have taken this issue very seriously, as we all should. There are reviews of why there might be inconsistencies in the reference rates. I wish to see those evened out. I also wish to see the agenda driven forward, as indeed I know does the Director of Public Prosecutions, and as did his predecessor.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
2. On how many occasions he has referred a criminal sentence to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient in the last 12 months.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
In the period from 1 July 2013 to 4 July 2014 the sentences of 105 offenders were referred as unduly lenient and have either been heard or are due to be heard by the Court of Appeal. My office releases annual statistics for unduly lenient sentence referrals from the previous calendar year, and my office will release the 2013 statistics in the near future.
Rehman Chishti
I am grateful to the Attorney-General for that answer. Can he clarify which type of offence has most often been referred to the Court of Appeal, and on how many occasions the Court of Appeal has increased the sentence? Will he confirm that his Department has received representations to review the sentence in the Rolf Harris case?
The Attorney-General
I can confirm that the Attorney-General’s office has received a request to review the sentence in the Rolf Harris case. I can give this clarification: for the same period, from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014, the type of offences most often referred to us are, indeed, sexual offences. That includes rape, indecent assault and assault by penetration and other offences. Thirty-one such cases were referred in that period, 25 of which have been heard, and all sentences have been increased. Six cases are yet to be heard.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I have referred cases from my own area to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s office when I have thought that the sentence was unduly lenient. Is that a common practice? Does he receive that kind of information from large numbers of Members of Parliament?
The Attorney-General
I get some references from Members of Parliament. I do not have the exact figures, but in a given year we receive somewhere between 350 and 400 references. They come from everywhere, including MPs, and I would like to emphasise that if a Member of Parliament feels a sentence is unduly lenient, they should feel free to make such a reference. Each reference will be treated with equal weight, and whether I receive 600 references or one on one particular case, they will be given due consideration.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
Of course, we all want fewer references and fewer referrals, and much clearer sentencing guidelines and sentences that are fit for purpose. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give me and the House an assurance that that will be the case when we get the much-heralded review of sentences for criminal driving?
The Attorney-General
If I may say, the evidence is overwhelming that we are moving to greater consistency in sentencing. The Sentencing Council and the progressive rolling out of sentencing guidelines is an immensely helpful tool to judges in ensuring consistency in sentencing. In addition, if the judge has not explained any inconsistency with the guidance, that usually provides a good basis for my making a reference in those cases which are referable. I think we are moving in the right direction, and that progress is totally supported by the judiciary. I therefore hope that, as we move to new areas in which guidance is provided, the need for me to make references will go down.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
4. What steps he plans to take to ensure that child abuse offences are prosecuted successfully.
The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)
The Crown Prosecution Service prosecutes child abuse cases robustly. In 2013-14, the number of such prosecutions rose by 440 to 7,998, with a conviction rate of 76.2%. Steps to prosecute the cases include piloting pre-recorded cross-examination of children, prioritising cases involving children aged 10 and under, and applying a new approach to child sexual abuse cases generally.
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful for that answer. The Director of Public Prosecutions recently announced a series of measures regarding cases of rape because of the decline in referrals from the police to the CPS. Will such measures be considered in cases of child sex abuse, given that there has been a decline in referrals of such cases from the police to the CPS since 2010-11?
The Solicitor-General
The emerging evidence is that the referrals are beginning to increase, which is good news. However, there are new guidelines, issued last October, for child sex abuse cases, which provide that there should be specialist prosecutors; a focus on the allegation, not the victim: early third-party material; and a challenging of myths and stereotypes.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Given that historic child abuse cases are being revisited because there is a chance of successful prosecution, can the Solicitor-General clarify the policy of his office and of the CPS on the destruction of documents, and what has been the policy over the years?
The Solicitor-General
As my right hon. Friend will know, the Home Secretary announced yesterday an inquiry that will look into the way in which paedophilia and institutions have operated. A separate inquiry, which he knows about, is looking into the documents and dossiers, including those of my former hon. Friend Geoffrey Dickens. A lot of work is being done to discover the history. As far as the present situation is concerned, the Government are for maximum security and care in looking after documents and want to see transparency in everything they do.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
May I press the Solicitor-General on that answer? He is aware that there is acute public concern at the suggestion that Government Departments, particularly the Home Office but also the Director of Public Prosecutions, failed to act on a series of child abuse allegations brought to their attention by the late Geoffrey Dickens MP. It has been reported that although documents outlined in those allegations were presented to the DPP in 1983, the CPS can no longer locate them. The Home Secretary has instigated an inquiry, but perhaps the Solicitor-General can clarify a couple of matters now.
What is CPS policy on document retention from the DPP’s office in the early 1980s, and does the apparent disappearance of the documents suggest that an exception was made to that policy, or was it breached? What explanation has the Solicitor-General received about the absence of the files? What steps has the CPS taken to try to recover the documents, and can he say what action, if any, was taken regarding the allegations by the DPP or the CPS in 1983 or at any time thereafter?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Lady does always have the alternative recourse of an application for an Adjournment debate.
Mr Speaker
Indeed, but this can be dealt with now. What I was gently, diplomatically, politely suggesting to the hon. Lady was that one question ordinarily suffices, and it is not necessary to have five in one go.
The Solicitor-General
I do not think I will be able to answer all those questions, but I will certainly write to the hon. Lady when I have reflected on all the detailed points she made.
I want to make the point that the sort of decisions made in 1970 or 1998 occurred under a very different approach from the courts. I think the hon. Lady would accept that since that time the maximum sentences for indecent assault have been increased; the way in which corroboration is dealt with by the courts has changed; and the ways in which character evidence and historical allegations are looked at have changed. For now, I would say that in the current situation the Crown Prosecution Service makes the prosecution of these cases a top priority, and there are new guidelines and all the sorts of approaches I have already mentioned. We are living in a very different world, but I will write to her on the detailed points.
Mr Speaker
If lawyers were paid by the word, they would be multi-millionaires by now. I would like to get through a bit more, preferably with the co-operation of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), in the form of an exceptionally pithy question.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
Will Law Officers take every available step to ensure that public servants and former public servants are not prevented, by terms of severance agreements or the Official Secrets Act, from providing information on which the inquiry is contingent?
The Solicitor-General
As the Home Secretary said yesterday, it is the Government’s intention to have a transparent inquiry, and the Attorney-General’s office stands ready to support that.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
6. What steps he is taking to ensure that offences against bribery laws are prosecuted successfully.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
The CPS is the principal prosecutor of domestic bribery, and the Serious Fraud Office has lead responsibility for enforcing the provisions of the Bribery Act 2010 in respect of overseas corruption. I hold regular meetings with the Director of Public Prosecutions and the director of the SFO to discuss issues affecting their respective organisations. I am satisfied that both organisations are well positioned to enforce bribery laws, as is well illustrated by the major investigations into cases of suspected foreign bribery that the SFO has commenced.
The Attorney-General
I do not think that the SFO does have to go cap in hand to the Treasury. The SFO can go to the Treasury for special funding. The difficulty has always been that some cases require a lot of funds, and if they are not being inquired into, the SFO is probably receiving more money in any given year than it needs. I accept that this is an issue, and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise it, but I am satisfied that the SFO has not been prevented by financing from investigating any cases it wishes. That is a good starting point.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
7. What recent estimate he has made of the total value of criminal assets subject to Serious Fraud Office confiscation orders that are hidden overseas.
The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)
The Serious Fraud Office estimates that, as at today, approximately £32.1 million of criminal assets subject to confiscation orders in SFO cases are hidden overseas. Sophisticated criminals often transfer their assets to other jurisdictions and misuse legal ownership structures to make recovery difficult, but since 2009 the SFO has managed to recover £76 million for victims of crime.
Cathy Jamieson
Given the amount of money criminals have hidden overseas that is owed to the SFO, will the Solicitor-General support Labour amendments to the Serious Crime Bill to increase the power of prosecutors and increase penalties for suspects who hide their assets overseas?
The Solicitor-General
As the hon. Lady knows, that Bill is part of the Government’s serious and organised crime strategy, and it includes measures to strengthen the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and enhance our enforcement powers during the fourth parliamentary Session. Of course the Government will always look at what amendments are and whether they improve the situation, and I am sure that will be case in this matter, as always.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
8. What the Crown Prosecution Service is doing to ensure that adequate support is given to vulnerable witnesses in cases of sexual abuse or domestic violence.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
May I welcome my hon. Friend to Law Officers questions?
The Crown Prosecution Service works closely with the police and voluntary sector to ensure that vulnerable victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence are well supported. Special measures include: intermediaries; screening at court; and use of the video live link to help victims give their best evidence, supported by independent sexual violence advisers and domestic advisers who can guide them through the criminal justice process.
Robert Jenrick
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that new measures such as pre-recording evidence with vulnerable witnesses before a trial go a long way towards helping victims? Will he join me in thanking local organisations such as the Newark Women’s Aid and refuge which have campaigned on this for several years?
The Attorney-General
Yes, I am delighted to do so. I am also delighted to tell my hon. Friend that the Crown Prosecution Service in the east midlands is due to commence a pilot in Nottinghamshire shortly, whereby victims of domestic violence will be offered the chance to give evidence by video live link. A number of other measures have been put in place by the CPS to try to improve victims’ experience of going to court to give evidence in those very difficult cases.
Points of Order
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The ministerial code of conduct makes it clear that Ministers must give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest possible opportunity.
On 11 June, I asked whether the Department for Work and Pensions’ business case for the implementation of universal credit had been approved by the Treasury. In her reply, the employment Minister, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) said:
“The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has approved the UC Strategic Outline Business Case plans for the remainder of this Parliament (2014-15) as per the ministerial announcement (5 December 2013, Official Report, column 65WS)”—[Official Report, 30 June 2014; Vol. 583, c. 434W.]
When asked yesterday whether the Treasury had signed off the business case for universal credit, Sir Bob Kerslake told the Public Accounts Committee:
“I think we should not beat about the bush. It has not been signed off.”
This morning, in response to a parliamentary question asking whether the Treasury had signed off the business case, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said:
“The Treasury have approved funding for the Universal Credit programme in 2013-14 and 2014-15.”——[Official Report, 7 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 124W.]
In other words, the straightforward answer to the question whether Has the Treasury approved the DWP’s business case for the implementation of universal credit is no. That is the reverse of what the employment Minister said.
Mr Speaker, will you explain to the House the process whereby a Minister can correct the record?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. Every Member of the House is responsible for the veracity of what he or she says in it. As she will be aware, and other Members will know, there is a procedure available to Ministers if they need to correct the record. It is open to them to do so by coming to the House and setting the record straight if they judge that appropriate. In so far as issues appertaining to the ministerial code are concerned, the House will be aware that I am not responsible for compliance with the code. That responsibility rests elsewhere. I think it is best to leave it there for now, and I am happy to see whether there is any development that causes the matter to be brought before the House again.
Mr Speaker
That is subject to the appropriateness of hearing a point of order from the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, Mrs Margaret Hodge.
Margaret Hodge
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you advise us on the rights of Back-Bench Members of Parliament in this regard? Evidence was given to my Committee yesterday by Sir Jeremy Heywood, Sir Nicholas Macpherson and Sir Bob Kerslake. When I asked whether the policy was on track, Sir Jeremy replied:
“In its current form, I believe it is.”
When I asked Sir Nicholas whether he had signed off the business case, he replied:
“I believe that at each key milestone of the reset programme there is a Treasury decision to take.”
Finally, after about six or seven questions, it was Sir Bob Kerslake who said:
“I think we should not beat about the bush. It has not been signed off.”
The important thing for Back-Bench Members is that we need to know who is telling the truth—the head of the civil service or the Minister. We need to have a mechanism that enables us to assess that. Smoke and mirrors have been used. Hundreds of millions of pounds are at stake, and millions of benefit claimants will have their future at risk. We, as Back Benchers, need to know the truth.
Mr Speaker
There are two responses to the right hon. Lady. First, by long-standing convention—and I think that it is a wise convention—the Speaker does not comment on proceedings in Committee until the report of a Committee has been published, so I will refrain from commenting on any of the exchanges to which the right hon. Lady helpfully drew my attention. Secondly, if there is a lingering uncertainty or confusion about a factual state of affairs, there are means by which these matters that are judged to be highly topical can be brought to the attention of the House. I do not think that I need to elaborate on what I have said. It will be well known to Members that there are mechanisms available to them, and it is up to them to decide whether to seek to use those mechanisms and for me to decide whether it is appropriate that they should. For today, we should leave it there. I hope that that is helpful to the House.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, I raised a point of order about a ministerial visit to my constituency of which I was not given prior notice. The hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) was also at the visit without informing me in advance. The hon. Gentleman said in the House last night that his role
“was to drop off my hon. Friend the Minister”.—[Official Report, 7 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 63.]
It now appears in the local media that his role was more than that of a chauffeur, as the photographs suggest that he was an integral part of the visit. Have you received any indication from the hon. Gentleman that he wants to put the record straight and apologise to the House?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I have received no such indication, although the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) is in his place and if he wishes to say something, it is open to him to do so. He is stirring from his seat.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I stand by what I said yesterday. My role was to drop off the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), who was visiting Hitachi, that great investment that this Government have brought to the north-east, creating thousands of jobs and bringing in millions of pounds. I did not stay throughout the full visit. I dropped him off, spoke briefly to the media, got a quick photograph and left before the visit was complete. My role was to drop the Minister off, Mr Speaker. How may I most accurately put on the record my honest and well-meant suggestion to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) that rather than continually making points of order of this type in this place, which of course he is entitled to do, he would perhaps be better served asking Hitachi why they did not invite him to attend?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have listened to his explanation and I do think that we should operate in a fashion informed by common sense. My colleague in the Chair at the time that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) raised his original point of order about this matter said that
“we are all grown-up enough to know what the conventions imply about visiting another Member’s constituency.” —[Official Report, 7 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 63.]
I have no intention of having a lengthy debate on the matter, but suffice it to say that the question of how long a Member was present on a particular visit is pretty immaterial. I do not doubt that the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) is a first-class driver. I have not benefited from his skills in that regard over the years, but I have no reason to question that he would be a very satisfactory chauffeur. If in fact he took part in the visit, I think he must know the logic of that. I appeal to Members, particularly in this sensitive time in the run-up to a general election, to take care to observe not merely the letter but the spirit of the convention about prior notification. I do not want to go beyond that, so let us leave the matter there. Let us try to ensure that we behave in a way that is seemly and the public would think is seemly. Let us leave it there.
Modern Slavery Bill
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
In few other crimes are human beings used as commodities for the personal gain of others as they are in the appalling crime of modern slavery. Men, women and children, British and foreign nationals of all ages are forced, tricked and coerced into a horrendous life of servitude and abuse: women forced into prostitution, raped repeatedly, and denied their liberty; children groomed and sexually exploited for profit; vulnerable men conned into brutal and inhumane work in fields, in factories and on fishing vessels; people forced into a life of crime; and some people even made to work as servants in people’s homes. Throughout, there are accounts of sexual violence, beatings, humiliation, hunger and mental torture.
This crime is taking place, hidden from view, across Britain today. That it is taking place is an affront not just to those it affects, but to the collective human dignity of all of us. Modern slavery has no place in Britain, and like many people in this House and beyond, I want to see it consigned to history. But if we are to stamp it out, we must ensure that the police and the courts have the powers they need to bring the perpetrators to justice. More arrests and more prosecutions will mean more traffickers and slave drivers behind bars, but importantly, it will also mean more victims released from slavery and more prevented from ever entering it in the first place.
The Bill, the first of its kind in Europe, will ensure that we can effectively prosecute perpetrators, properly punish offenders and help prevent more crimes from taking place. Most crucially, it will enhance protection and support for the victims of these dreadful crimes. Tackling modern slavery will require more than legislation alone. I have always been clear that it will take a determined and focused law enforcement response, greater awareness among front-line professionals, co-ordinated police action internationally, close working with business and support from communities, charities and all faiths. But by passing a Modern Slavery Bill in this Parliament, we can take an important step along this road.
I will turn shortly to the specifics of the Bill, but in introducing it I want to pay tribute to all those who have campaigned tirelessly to bring this largely hidden crime out into the light. I want to thank the Centre for Social Justice, whose authoritative report “It Happens Here”, laid bare the plight of modern slavery victims in the UK. Members of Parliament on both sides of the House have helped bring forward evidence to support action, whether through the all-party parliamentary group or the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee or by asking questions in the House. I am enormously grateful for their valuable contribution. In particular, I thank the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) for his unsparing dedication to the issue.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
I am 100% behind the right hon. Lady. We talk about preventing the exploitation of workers, and the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, which I brought in through a private Member’s Bill, has done an excellent job and proved itself. Does she have any intention of extending the GLA to other sectors of industry?
Mrs May
The Gangmasters Licensing Authority has indeed done a very good job and I want to see how we can build on the work that it has done. As a first step, we have brought the GLA from the auspices of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs into the Home Office to work alongside those who are working on the issue of modern slavery. We will be looking at a number of aspects of enforcement which relate to modern slavery, and looking at the GLA will be part of the work that we are doing.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Of course, I support the Bill, but I want to ask the Home Secretary about a specific instance, which over the past 20 or 30 years has provided some of the worst cases of slavery in this country—namely, people who have come to this country as a domestic employee with an international employer. That is why we introduced the domestic workers visa, which the Government have abolished. Will the right hon. Lady reconsider? That gave a tiny chink of freedom—an opportunity for people to get out of slavery and go to work for another employer.
Mrs May
I recognise the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. It is a point that has come up in some of the deliberations of the Committee that has been looking into the matter, and it is a point that I have looked at seriously. There is a judgment to be made here. By definition, if somebody is in slavery, the chance of their being able to get out of slavery to go to work for another employer is pretty limited, if not non-existent. In changing the way that the visa operated, one of the things we did was to try to ensure that there was a proper contract between the employer and the individual who was being employed, but I recognise that this is an issue. I suspect that it will be subject to greater debate and discussion as the Bill goes through the various stages in this House and another place.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
As the Home Secretary knows, we strongly support the legislation, but on that point, I understand that in its research the charity Kalayaan found that since the visas were changed, 60% of those on the new domestic workers visa were paid no salary at all, compared with 14% on the original visa. That is a worrying increase since the visa change. Has the right hon. Lady looked at that research?
Mrs May
Yes, we have been looking in detail at the research that has been undertaken. We have taken the issue and the points that have been made seriously. I suspect that this aspect will be subject to further, more detailed discussion as the Bill goes through its various stages in this House and another place. The number of people who were identified by the charity—which, by definition, can only look at those who come to it—is fairly small. We need measures that will protect those who are being brought in as overseas workers and will not open up some other avenue for people to be brought in. We need to enable people to work properly for an employer, not effectively be placed in modern slavery.
We all have the same aim. The question is which regulatory track makes most sense. I continue to believe that the current arrangement is the right one. I am sure that it will be subject to considerable discussion as the Bill goes through its various stages.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill. I am sure that the right hon. Lady knows as well as I do that between 2,000 and 5,000 people a year are trafficked into this country. I understand that the Home Office is doing a review. Can she guarantee that the review will be published and acted upon?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman mentions some figures. The difficulty in all this is that we do not know the figure. The work that was done by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and others suggested that it might be 10,000. Fewer than 2,000 have been referred to the national referral mechanism, which is the only firm statistical measure, but we are all pretty clear that the figure is larger than that. I am reviewing the national referral mechanism, and the work of that review will be taken into account when I publish the Government’s strategy later this year. As I have said, this is not just about legislation. Other actions that do not form part of a Bill need to be taken to help the victims and pursue the perpetrators.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary assure the House that the review of the NRM will be published before the Committee stage of the Bill?
Mrs May
The current intention is that an interim report will be published, which should be available before the Committee stage is completed, but the final review will be published in the autumn alongside the Government’s strategy.
We have listened carefully to the findings of the pre-legislative Committee and, where practicable, we have addressed its key concerns. We can all play a part in tackling this scourge. As Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said at the modern slavery conference at the Vatican in April:
“We need to make combating human trafficking part of everyone’s consciousness. As with our fight against terrorism, prevention is better than cure. … Much misery and distress can be prevented if more of us pay attention to something that does not look or feel right, then care enough to do something about it.”
The Modern Slavery Bill will help ensure that we can tackle slavery in its modern form. With cross-party support, we have an opportunity to make a real difference to the lives of today’s victims.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has published a Bill that goes in the right direction, but she appears to have ignored the fact that slavery that we benefit from happens outwith this country. In the supply chains of the goods that we buy, people are enslaved on a daily basis. We know about some of those people because of disasters that have occurred, but the slavery still goes on. The Secretary of State appears to have ignored those people, so she has cut off the greatest power that the Bill could have to reach out and stop them being enslaved on our behalf.
Mrs May
I am sorry about the tone in which the hon. Gentleman puts his question. The issue of supply chains has been raised by many people. We have not ignored the issue. I and other Ministers, including my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State have had a round table meeting with businesses and business—
Mrs May
I am answering the hon. Gentleman’s question, if he would like to listen to my answer. Not everything that we think we can do to tackle modern slavery will be in the legislation. Legislation is not the answer to everything, but we recognise the issue of supply chains. We have been working with businesses. Many big businesses already take this responsibility seriously and make every effort to ensure that they do not see slavery in their supply chains.
I was asked about supply chains in Home Office questions yesterday, and I made the point that companies have a social responsibility. Companies should consider their reputation as well as potential victims of slavery. We have held a round table with business. We are talking to businesses about the action that they can take to address the issue.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
As we know, the Home Secretary wants measures on supply chains in the Bill, but No. 10 opposes them. Might she wish luck to those of us who intend to table amendments in this place and the other place so that on this occasion at least her will should prevail?
Mrs May
That is the sort of intervention that I had probably best pass over. We have already legislated to recognise the social responsibility of companies in relation to human rights in supply chains, even though this Bill does not contain a specific reference to supply chains.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary share my hope that the Bill will help Governments around the world to do something to tackle modern slavery in their own countries? As Opposition Members have said, this is a global business and if Britain can lead the way and help other countries to deal with it, that would be worth while.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is right. One of the things that pleased me about the conference at the Vatican was that I could meet people from other countries—both those countries that are more naturally destination countries and those that are source countries—to talk about the work that can be done to deal with this problem. We have to deal with it internationally. That is why I am pleased that at the conference we set up the Santa Marta group, an international group of senior law enforcement officers who will meet again towards the end of this year in London, to share best practice to ensure that we do all we can to deal with this issue.
Michael Connarty
Has the Home Secretary received, as I have, a copy of the letter from the Ethical Trading Initiative, to which we spoke just before the last mini recess? It says that it wishes to have legislation on supply chains. That is a major change in attitude since I introduced my private Member’s Bill. It wants to see all the good companies supported by legislation so that the poor companies do not get away with undermining them.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
The right hon. Lady is generous with her time. Just a few weeks ago, a lady in Northern Ireland discovered a cry for help letter sewn into a pair of trousers, which were made in China, from a leading high street chain. The letter detailed the atrocious working conditions in the prison where the garment was made. With longer and more complex supply chains, does the Secretary of State agree that the Bill needs to ensure greater transparency and accountability so that the products of slavery and forced labour do not find themselves on our high street shelves?
Mrs May
Across the House, we all share the same intention and desire to stamp out modern slavery, wherever it occurs. We all recognise that companies have a responsibility to look at what is happening in their supply chains. The hon. Lady talks about the increasing length and complexity of supply chains, which is one of the precise difficulties faced by companies today when it comes to any responsibility they have for looking at every aspect of their supply chain and ensuring that it is not involved in modern slavery. That is why we are sitting down with business to talk about the issue and how we can best address it. There is not a blanket approach of saying, “The only way to do this is X.” We are saying, “Let’s sit down with companies and talk to them about the issues that they are facing.”
In answer to the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), of course we need to work internationally to address modern slavery. This House, and this Parliament, will take an important step by passing this Bill in the United Kingdom. The Bill will be an important sign, but the work will go on, and sadly I suspect that the work will have to go on for some years, to ensure that we stamp out modern slavery. That work is wide-ranging and is not just limited to what we may say or do in this House.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
In the wake of the recent controversies, particularly the reports about the Thai fishing industry, the Prime Minister’s official spokesperson said that it is up to consumers whether they buy goods associated with slavery. That is clearly not good enough because consumers are not in a position to know that. Surely the Government need to go further. Will the Home Secretary dissociate herself from those remarks?
Mrs May
A wide range of actions need to be taken if we are to deal with modern slavery, but the hon. Lady should not underestimate the power of the consumer in some of these matters. The consumer’s approach to fair trade, for example, has sent an important message to companies about how they deal with certain issues. The consumer can certainly play a part in addressing such things.
I have taken a number of interventions, and I will now turn to the specifics of the Bill. Part 1 addresses offences, sentences, reparation and maritime powers. Traffickers and slave drivers must know that their crimes will not be tolerated and that they will not get away with them. They must know that they will be caught and sent to prison for a very long time. The Bill provides law enforcement with the powers it needs to take robust action. First, the Bill consolidates existing slavery and human trafficking offences, which are currently held in three different Acts of Parliament. That will make it easier for prosecutors and the police to understand the available modern slavery offences when investigating such crimes.
We will have two clear and distinct offences: one for slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour; and one that covers all types of human trafficking. Those are focused offences that build on tried and tested concepts that the police and prosecutors understand. Part 1 of the Bill is not simply a consolidation, however; it contains specific action to improve existing offences by making it clearer that the slavery, servitude and forced labour offence can be effectively prosecuted where the victim is vulnerable, for example a child. Part 1 also includes wording based on international definitions of trafficking, such as the Palermo Protocol, thus ensuring that it reflects internationally defined best practice.
Punishments will now fit the crime. Offences committed in connection with modern slavery are some of the most serious that can be committed, so the Bill extends the maximum available sentence to life imprisonment. That will ensure that the worst perpetrators can receive the lengthy custodial sentences that they deserve. Tough sentences will also act as a powerful deterrent to others.
Criminals and organised groups who trade in human beings do so for profit, and we were reminded of that only last week, when the gang leader of a criminal outfit was jailed along with his accomplices for trafficking more than 100 women to London. While he lived a luxury lifestyle, the women who were lured here on false promises of employment were forced into prostitution, held against their will and subjected to horrific treatment. Wherever possible, we must ensure that the illicit gains made from trading in human misery are seized. Both the Modern Slavery Bill and the Serious Crime Bill will strengthen our powers to recover assets. The Modern Slavery Bill makes both slavery and trafficking offences criminal lifestyle offences for the purposes of criminal confiscation under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which means that convicted slavers and traffickers will be subjected to the toughest confiscation regime possible.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Will the Home Secretary assure me that, through reparation from the proceeds of such crime, there will be long-term support for the profound and enduring health consequences experienced by women subject to such exploitation, abuse and degradation?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend must be psychic. I was about to say that the treatment meted out to victims by traffickers and slave drivers is inhumane, degrading and often disturbing, and there can be no better use of the assets seized from a perpetrator than to provide reparation to their victims. Courts currently have the power to order convicted traffickers to pay compensation to their victims and can use money collected under a confiscation order to ensure that such compensation is paid in full. It is therefore unacceptable that in the past 11 years there have been only three such cases in which a criminal convicted of a principal offence of human trafficking has been ordered to pay compensation in that way. The Bill seeks to remedy that by creating a bespoke order for modern slavery offences so that, where a perpetrator has assets available, the court must consider making an order to provide reparation to the victim and give reasons if it does not do so.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
The Home Secretary will be aware that successful prosecutions of cases involving children are very low. One of the reasons for that is encapsulated in a problem with the Bill, which is the omission of a specific definition of child trafficking. As she will know, children cannot consent to their own exploitation. I draw her attention to clause 39, which states:
“A person is not guilty of an offence if…the person is compelled to do that act.”
Children cannot consent to their own exploitation, and therefore that defence is no use to children. That is why I hope she will join me and many other Members on both sides of the House in supporting the inclusion of a specific definition of children trafficking in the Bill.
Mrs May
We have looked at that issue, which was one of the issues raised in the various discussions, including in the Joint Committee. We have not included a specific child trafficking offence because of the difficulties that that could lead to in a prosecution, such as arguments about whether an individual should be prosecuted for the specific child offence or for the more general offence. That is why we have taken a different approach. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady shakes her head, but she should let me finish my response. That is why we have left it with a general offence, but we make it absolutely clear—this specifically addresses the point that she raises—that the slavery, servitude and forced labour offence can be effectively prosecuted where the victim is vulnerable, for example a child. We are aware of the issues that she raises about whether it could be argued that a child is not able to give consent, and therefore whether they are able not to give consent, but that is explicitly covered in the arrangements in the Bill. There are very good arguments why there would be considerable difficulties in dealing with a specific child offence. Another issue that would be raised is that an individual’s age often cannot be proved. If we did not have a general offence, it would make a prosecution more difficult.
Mr Frank Field
Is there not a case, therefore, for inserting the age of 18 into the Bill? Where there is a dispute in court about someone’s age, for the purpose of prosecution they are assumed to be a young person. Would it not give us an even harder cutting edge if, at a later stage, the Home Secretary accepted “18” to go alongside the definition of “young person”?
Lisa Nandy
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way, and I do not want to take up other people’s time, but this point is incredibly important. I worked with child trafficking victims for nearly a decade before I came to this place, so I know, and the Home Secretary knows, that children go through a gruelling process. They are often told by their trafficker to say certain things. They say things in interviews because they have been told what to say, or they say what they think the interviewer wants to hear. They often cannot cope with the processes that they are put through, so having a specific child trafficking offence in the Bill would ensure that those children are seen and recognised as what they are, which is children. They are not trafficking victims, immigrants or children who have been moved for the purposes of exploitation; they are children who have been abused. Including such an offence would send a powerful message that we need to get those processes right.
Mrs May
I absolutely appreciate the passion with which the hon. Lady makes that point, and the experience on which she draws in doing so, but we have taken evidence from a number of areas and heard a number of people point out quite forcefully the difficulty of a child-specific offence where age is uncertain. For example, in evidence to the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, Riel Karmy-Jones, a barrister who deals with trafficking offences, said that
“problems arise over separate offences that pertain specifically to children—for example, when the age of the child is not easily determined and you end up relying on age assessments, which I have done in some of the Nigerian trafficking cases.”
In those circumstances, if we did not know the age of the child, we would end up in court arguing about whether the specific offence was right, rather than being able to rely on the general offence.
Similarly, Detective Inspector Roberts, when asked whether a child-specific offence would help, replied:
“Not as a separate offence. The legislation perfectly encompasses it, but I would share Mr Sumner’s view—
another police officer—
“about the sentencing guidelines certainly around children and it being an aggravated offence… I think wholly different legislation would be unnecessary and complicated.”
We want to ensure that prosecutors and the police can deal with this as sensibly and easily as possible so that we get more prosecutions, but the evidence indicates that trying to introduce a child-specific offence might complicate prosecutions rather than make them easier.
Ian Murray
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for her response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), but will she consider giving herself the flexibility in the Bill to be able to bring forward regulations introducing a child-specific offence at a later date, rather than having to go through the process of introducing another piece of primary legislation?
Mrs May
That is a legislative device—I do not use the term in a negative sense—that we are using elsewhere in the Bill, but I say to hon. Members who have raised the matter that this is not just a belligerent point from the Government. We genuinely believe from the evidence we have seen, having talked with lawyers, prosecutors and the police, that the general offence will lead to more prosecutions, with the caveat I mentioned earlier about accepting when a victim is vulnerable—for example a child, as it is recognised that they might not have been in a position to have actively given consent and therefore should not be assumed to have given that consent—and that is being dealt with.
I will now attempt to make some progress on other points. The Bill also closes a gap in existing legislation whereby law enforcement officers are not always able to stop boats around the UK and on the high seas when they suspect that individuals are being trafficked or forced to work. There have been seven such occasions over the past two years. The Bill will provide law enforcement officers with clear powers to stop boats and arrest those responsible.
Tough sentences, seizing assets and closing loopholes are only part of the answer. The police and other law enforcement agencies must ensure the effective and relentless targeting and disruption of the organised crime groups that lie behind the vast majority of the modern-day slave trade. I have made tackling modern slavery a priority for the National Crime Agency, and work is under way to ensure that the law enforcement response at the local, regional and national level, and at our borders, is strong, effective and collaborative.
We are developing our capabilities to detect, investigate and prosecute modern slavery through better intelligence, better sharing of intelligence and more work upstream. For example, specialist safeguarding and trafficking teams are being rolled out at all major ports so that trained officers can help identify victims being trafficked across our borders, disrupt organised criminal groups, collect intelligence and provide a point of expertise and guidance for front-line officers.
We must ensure that law enforcement agencies have a range of effective policing tools, so I propose to take further action in the Bill. Part 2 introduces vital new tools, modelled on existing powers to stop sexual harm, to prevent modern slavery offences. Slavery and trafficking prevention orders will target convicted traffickers and slave drivers and can be used to prevent further modern slavery offences taking place—for example, by stopping an offender working with children, acting as a gangmaster or travelling to specific countries. Slavery and trafficking risk orders will restrict the activity of individuals suspected of being complicit in modern slavery offences. For example, they could be used to stop activity where there is insufficient evidence to bring a successful prosecution now but there is clear evidence of the risk of future trafficking or slavery offences being commissioned.
Modern slavery is a complex and multifaceted crime. To tackle it effectively, we need not only new legal powers but effective co-operation across law enforcement, borders and immigration, and local services. In the past, the number of prosecutions and convictions for those specific offences has not reflected the scale and seriousness of the problem. In 2013, for example, there were only 68 convictions. That is not good enough. We need a senior figure dedicated to the UK’s fight against modern slavery to strengthen law enforcement efforts in the UK and ensure that victims are identified and get effective support. That is why the Bill includes an anti-slavery commissioner to encourage good practice in the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of modern slavery cases. The Bill extends the role outlined in the draft Bill published in December so that the commissioner can work internationally to encourage co-operation against modern slavery and oversee the identification of victims.
Sir Tony Cunningham
I appreciate the Home Secretary’s generosity. It is essential that we have a cross-Government approach to tackling human trafficking, so will she explain why the anti-slavery commissioner will not be independent, as the children’s commissioner is, and will be situated in the Home Office?
Mrs May
The question of which physical office the commissioner will be situated in is still to be determined, but their role will be set out in a way that is similar to that of other commissioners. They will be independent and their annual reports will be laid before Parliament.
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the Home Secretary, but the House might find it helpful to know that the independent commissioners in Finland and the Netherlands report to one Government Department, because ultimately they need a departmental head to argue their case for funding with their Treasuries, even though they roam across Government.
Mrs May
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that clarification. Some people say that the way the commissioner will be appointed means that they cannot be independent, but if they look at the people we have in other roles who are appointed in a similar way, such as the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration and the chief inspector of constabulary, they will see that they are fiercely independent, regardless of the method of their appointment.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
The Home Secretary is being extraordinarily generous in giving way. Moving away from the independence of the anti-slavery commissioner and looking instead at their focus, she mentioned the problem of securing prosecutions, and one of the reasons for that must be the extraordinary vulnerability of trafficking victims. I wonder whether one of the core focuses of the commissioner in their first months might be to look at how we could better protect those witnesses when they go into our adversarial courts system.
Mrs May
If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I will comment on the protection of victims later in my speech. I think that it is important that the anti-slavery commissioner encourages good practice in the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of modern slavery cases as well as any work that is done to protect victims.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
If the commissioner is to help increase prosecutions, they need to help to provide witnesses, who are the evidence givers in those prosecutions. I therefore support the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) in her plea to give the commissioner some responsibility for victims, which will assist the Home Secretary greatly in her ambition to increase the number of prosecutions.
Mrs May
The hon. Lady and I have discussed this important matter before, and I will talk about what we can do to protect victims. The strategy that the Government will publish as the Bill progresses through Parliament will be important, because not everything is about legislation; many issues relating to the protection of victims are about some of the other ways we can ensure that support is provided. Yes, of course we need victims to be willing to come forward in order to prosecute, but one of the areas that I do not think has been given sufficient attention in the past is the question of law enforcement, prosecution and the need to ensure that the police and prosecutors are sufficiently aware of these crimes and have a sensible legislative framework and offences framework that means they will be more likely to bring perpetrators to justice. The more perpetrators who are brought to justice, the fewer victims there will be in future.
Michael Connarty
As a vice-chair of the all-party group I am very happy to play a supportive role to the group’s chair. The question raised by subsections (3), (4) and (5) of clause 35 is about the Home Secretary’s ability to call for the commissioner to omit from the report anything the Home Secretary does not agree with. Given that people will base decisions on what she says in this House, can she give us a categorical assurance that, even if the commissioner criticises the Government’s performance, there will be no question of the Home Secretary being able to ask for anything to be omitted from her or his reports?
Mrs May
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reread the Bill. The intention is not that the Home Secretary will be able to prevent the printing of something with which they do not agree, but that nothing that is published could be a national security concern or jeopardise ongoing criminal investigations. I would have hoped that every Member accepts the importance of that. There may be circumstances in which it would not be appropriate to publish certain information because of the impact it would have on an individual. Those are matters that will be discussed with the anti-slavery commissioner in their reports, but certainly we should ensure that their reports do not jeopardise criminal investigations, because we should all want to see more perpetrators being brought to justice.
Modern slavery is a crime that inflicts immense suffering and misery. At the heart of the Bill and all our work is the desire to ensure that victims receive the protection and support they deserve, as well as help to recover from their traumatic ordeal. We must also ensure that victims, who have already suffered so much, do not suffer again through the criminal justice system.
Victims of modern slavery are sometimes forced by organised criminals to commit crimes such as cannabis cultivation. Fear of prosecution can deter victims from coming forward to help the police with investigations and from acting as witnesses in court. It is vital that we give them the confidence to come forward without the fear of prosecution. The Crown Prosecution Service already has guidance in place to prevent the prosecution of victims who have been forced to commit crime, but I think we can, and should, go further.
That is why the Bill includes a statutory defence for victims. The defence includes substantial safeguards against abuse and it will not apply to a number of serious offences—mainly violent and sexual offences—which are set out in the Bill. However, even in cases where the defence does not apply, prosecutors will still need to look carefully at all the circumstances to see whether it is in the public interest to prosecute victims.
Helping more victims to testify in court is crucial in our fight against the perpetrators. We need to give victims—who can face threats and intimidation—greater assurance that they can access special measures, such as giving evidence by video link or behind a screen. The Bill therefore extends to all modern slavery victims existing provisions that help trafficking victims gain access to special measures.
Whether victims appear in court or not, we need to identify them so that they can receive help and support. As I said in response to earlier interventions, I have set in motion a review of the national referral mechanism, to ensure that the care and support provided is effective and that all agencies work together in the best interests of victims. The review will issue its final report in the autumn. In addition, the Bill includes a provision for statutory guidance for the identification and support of victims, to ensure a consistent and effective approach.
Modern slavery crushes lives and causes immeasurable damage to victims of all ages. One of the most heinous aspects of this crime is the exploitation and enslavement of children—robbing them of their childhood and casting a long shadow over their future. Child trafficking victims are exceptionally vulnerable and require specialist support and care. We are therefore putting in place trial schemes of child trafficking advocates, who will ensure that the child victims’ voices are heard and that they receive the support and assistance they need in relation to the social care, immigration and criminal justice systems. The Bill includes a power to place these advocates on a statutory footing, once the trials have established how we can best give trafficked children the support they need.
The Bill also ensures that where the age of a trafficking victim is uncertain and there are reasons to believe that they are a child, public authorities will presume that victim to be a child for the purposes of providing assistance and support.
Finally, we need to ensure that law enforcement has good data on this largely hidden crime, so that we can develop an effective, strategic response. We are therefore placing a legal duty on public bodies to report suspected victims of slavery or human trafficking to the National Crime Agency. Safeguards will be put in place to ensure there is no adverse effect on victims. Adult victims will remain anonymous unless they consent to having their personal details shared. Non-governmental organisations will not be part of the statutory duty.
Modern slavery is an evil against which this Government are determined to take a stand. This Bill provides a comprehensive range of measures to punish effectively the criminals and organised gangs behind this appalling crime, to ensure victims receive the protection and support that they deserve, and to help prevent other vulnerable people from becoming victims.
As I indicated earlier, however, I am under no illusion about the scale of the task ahead. Stamping out modern slavery will not happen overnight. I have made tackling this crime a priority for the National Crime Agency, and, as I also said earlier, we are working with international law enforcement agencies to target organised criminal gangs. The Santa Marta group is being led by the United Kingdom, and that will strengthen our response to modern slavery globally. This autumn I will publish a comprehensive strategy that will include cross-Government and law enforcement action to tackle modern slavery and set out how we will continue to support and protect victims.
Today I urge Members on both sides of the House to work together so that we can pass the Modern Slavery Bill in this short Session. We have a rare moment of consensus on the principle that action needs to be taken. We must not—for any reason—repeat the mistakes of those Parliaments that were asked to tackle the historic evil of slavery but found reasons to put off the issue. It took William Wilberforce almost 18 years to pass his Bill to abolish the slave trade, and another 26 years passed before Parliament agreed to abolish all slavery in the British empire.
We must not delay. Let us act now—together—and send a powerful message to all traffickers and slave drivers that they will not get away with their crimes: we will track them down, prosecute, and lock them up, and ensure that the victims of their appalling crimes are returned to freedom. I commend this Bill to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill and make clear the support of not only this side but both sides of the House for taking action against the horrific crime of modern day slavery and for the Bill’s passage through the House.
Last year, a 20-year-old woman was kidnapped from her rural home in Slovakia. She was trafficked out of the country and brought to the UK, to Bradford. She was kept captive for several weeks before being sold into a sham marriage. In her marriage, she was not allowed to leave her home and was raped repeatedly and beaten by five men, all of whom lived in the house. The barrister who prosecuted the case described her experience as like
“something from a 19th century novel by Dickens”,
and said that the victim
“was handled round the continent and this country like a commodity, a human slave.”
She was raped, beaten and enslaved and robbed of her most basic freedoms not in 19th-century Britain but in 21st-century Britain, which is why we need to act and why the Bill has such strong cross-party support and will be on the statute book soon.
I pay tribute, as the Home Secretary has done, to the members of the cross-party Joint Committee, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) and the right hon. Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall), for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) and for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell), who have worked so hard. I also pay tribute to the former Member for Totnes, Anthony Steen, who is the chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation and has done so much work in this field.
The Bill builds on work carried out under the previous Government, including criminalising trafficking in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004; the introduction in 2009 of the offence of forced labour, slavery or servitude, which recognised that slavery is not just about international forced travel; the national referral mechanism, which we introduced in 2009; and, of course, the creation of the UK Human Trafficking Centre.
Andrew Selous
The shadow Home Secretary is absolutely right to mention the horrific case from Slovakia, but does she recognise that many British citizens are being trafficked around the UK and, indeed, from the UK to other countries, and that we must capture that element of this horrific crime as well?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In fact, I was just mentioning the original introduction of the offence of forced labour in 2009, because it was introduced exactly for the purpose of recognising that the issue is not just about people trafficked across international borders, but about the appalling abuse and enslavement of British citizens or of people within their countries. That is rightly covered by part 1 of the Bill.
I commend the Home Secretary for her work, which has built on many years of cross-party work and support for action against the horrors of modern slavery. Because there is such strong support for the Bill and for action against slavery, I believe that there is strong support for going further. As the Home Secretary heard in hon. Members’ many points and questions, there is consensus on going further than the measures in the Bill. We want to debate such points and to point out areas where amendments could be tabled as the Bill goes through this House and the other place.
Let me begin with the measures in the Bill which we support. The Home Secretary has made a powerful case for consolidating and strengthening the law to make it easier to prosecute those committing this vile crime, as she is rightly doing in part 1. Many hon. Members will remember the shocking case of Craig Kinsella, who was held captive by a family in Sheffield and forced to work from 7.30 am to midnight for no pay. He slept in a garage and was starved, and he was beaten with a spade, a crowbar and a pickaxe. As the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) has mentioned, such a victim was not trafficked into the country; he was a British national. He had even moved in voluntarily with the family who enslaved him, but he was still in slavery.
That is why it is vital that UK legislation should recognise the different forms of human trafficking and slavery, and should make it possible to prosecute those who enslave, abuse and exploit. It should not only cover those who have been moved across international borders, but recognise that consent can be complex. In complicated cases, the offence should not rely on a simple lack of consent, because people can be deeply vulnerable and slavery is complex in such circumstances.
The Home Secretary is right that the law should be strengthened and that penalties should be increased. We strongly welcome clause 5, which will give trafficking offences the maximum of a life sentence. Traffickers steal people’s lives and their humanity. It is the very worst abuse, so it should carry the most severe sentences. We also welcome the work on asset seizures and reparation orders, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) has called.
I commend the Home Office’s work to prevent enslavement and trafficking, including the work on prevention and risk orders. When there is evidence that someone is likely to commit an offence, we should be able to intervene in advance for the sake of the victims, rather than waiting until it is too late. We support the introduction of an anti-slavery commissioner to keep the pressure and focus on this dreadful crime. We welcome the statutory defence for victims, the concessions made so far by the Government on child guardians, and the duty to notify the National Crime Agency.
Measures on the presumption of age are extremely important, because we know of harrowing cases in which children end up being caught without the support they need simply because there is a dispute about their age. It is vital for the authorities to show some humanity in how they approach children in those cases. The Home Secretary is right that the Bill alone is not enough. It will of course need to be supported by much wider action in terms of training, co-ordinated action and leadership, and we support her determination to make sure that that happens.
I now want to set out the areas in which we hope the Home Secretary will go further. I know that she listened during the considerations of the Joint Committee, and I hope that she will now listen to the areas where we want to table amendments and to urge her to go further and take stronger action.
We want a stronger focus on victims. If we do not support the victims of human trafficking, we are leaving people to be abused and enslaved, and to be forced to work or forced into prostitution. Those who have been abused once by evil traffickers are at risk of being abused and betrayed again by authorities who either do not understand their experiences or simply ignore the abuse that they have experienced. That is why we need more work by border staff, the police, the criminal justice system, councils and voluntary organisations to identify the victims.
As part of that, the Bill should strengthen the national referral mechanism. In 2012, the UK Human Trafficking Centre identified 2,255 human trafficking victims, but the national referral mechanism identified only just over 1,000. At the moment, the national referral mechanism is an internal process of the Home Office—there is no transparency, and no appeal—but this is an opportunity to place it on a statutory footing to give it a greater ability and authority to support victims at the time they need it most.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
On strengthening the national referral mechanism and the whole question of the speed with which we must move to protect victims, particularly young victims, does my right hon. Friend think we should look again at the idea of a pilot joint immigration and family court to address such matters at a very early stage?
Yvette Cooper
I am very interested in looking further at that idea. My hon. Friend is right that the most complicated and difficult cases are sometimes hard for the legal system to address. It is obviously important to have clear frameworks of family law and of immigration law, but he is right that complex cases sometimes end up falling between the two systems and not getting the kind of recognition that they deserve.
We want the anti-slavery commissioner’s work to have more emphasis on supporting victims. The Bill talks of the anti-slavery commissioner’s obligation to identify victims, not of the need to support victims or to make recommendations to all Departments, not just the Home Office, on victim support, which would be helpful.
Michael Connarty
A matter that has puzzled me since I went to the launch of the Scottish report is a point made by the Justice Secretary there: when the Border Force changes people’s status from victim to criminal, those people very soon leave Scotland and end up in Yarl’s Wood, which is outwith Scotland’s jurisdiction. He told me that the problem is the Border Force, or what was called the UK Border Agency. How can we give some comfort to people in the devolved parts of the UK that they will be allowed to decide whether they are dealing with a victim or a criminal, and that they will not be overruled by the Bill and what is basically a UK authority, not a devolved authority?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which goes wider than devolution. Wherever across the United Kingdom trafficking victims are identified, we must make sure that they are properly supported as victims of trafficking throughout the system, and that they are not simply identified by one agency as needing support as victims because they have been abused and enslaved, but end up being treated by another agency as criminals or illegal migrants, with the abuse effectively being multiplied because their vulnerability and experiences are simply not identified within the system. Such a purpose is vital. The Home Secretary is right that this is not simply about legislation, but about the way in which organisations operate, the training given to staff and how staff respond. My hon. Friend’s point is therefore extremely important.
That is particularly important for children, about whom many hon. Members intervened on the Home Secretary to raise concerns. Trafficking is an evil trade, but it can exploit weak systems of child protection. Of the 2,000 potential victims of human trafficking identified in 2012, 550 were children, but that is likely to be the tip of the iceberg. Some 65% of those cases were not recorded on the national system, which would have increased the protection of those children. Too often, they are treated as immigration cases, not as trafficking victims. Several of my hon. Friends made important points about the way in which such children can, in practice, be abused, including by being told what to say by their traffickers.
Most appalling of all is the figure that shows that almost two thirds of rescued children go missing again. They have been found, rescued by the authorities, put into care and they simply disappear again, presumably picked up by the same or other trafficking gangs. Already abused, they are let down by a system that is supposed to keep them safe.
Lisa Nandy
As my right hon. Friend knows, many trafficked children also believe that the trafficker is their friend, their uncle or their boyfriend. It is not just that they have been frightened into saying that; they genuinely believe it. I therefore hope that she will press the Home Secretary on her call, which I support, for a statutory system of guardians, because somebody has to be able to instruct the lawyer in a case where a child believes that they have not been exploited to ensure that the relevant person is brought to justice.
Yvette Cooper
I will do that and I agree with my hon. Friend. We would like the law and the Bill to be strengthened on child guardians and child offences. Let me make a few points about that.
My hon. Friend is right that the situation for children can be complex, and often the adult who is abusing them is the only adult they know: the only adult with whom they have contact and who speaks their language, if they have been trafficked across borders.
Charities describe finding children who do not even know which country they are in. Some are sexually exploited in brothels or tend cannabis factories, like Deng, who was trafficked from Vietnam to work as a gardener in a cannabis factory. When police raided the house, Deng was arrested and spent almost a year in prison. On release, he fell back into the hands of traffickers, who regularly beat him so badly that he was hospitalised. Passed from local authority to local authority, his case was eventually assessed and an independent age assessment concluded that he was only 16 or 17. He had already experienced years of abuse, including a year of imprisonment at the hands of the British authorities. Children like Deng have their childhood taken by the traffickers. By 17, they have often been held by the traffickers for several years, moved through several countries and forced to grow up very fast, but they are still children in desperate need of care.
If those children know no other life and nothing of the UK, they can often return voluntarily to their traffickers because they feel that they have no choice. There is a real problem with the idea that a child could ever consent to their exploitation. That is why we believe that we should pursue a separate offence of child exploitation. I listened carefully to the Home Secretary’s points and, clearly, we do not want to make it more difficult to prosecute. I think that we have the same objectives, but I did not find her answers very convincing or clear on why creating such an offence would make it harder to prosecute. Of course, there will be cases where the age may be difficult to identify at the margins, but surely it is possible to draw up the law in a way that allows the prosecutor to decide whether the case is clear cut and can be prosecuted as a child offence or whether it is not clear cut and therefore should be prosecuted under the wider legislation on the basis that somebody is vulnerable.
If the Home Secretary has any overwhelming objections to that, she needs to explain them much more clearly. The Opposition simply cannot see why we should not pursue the Joint Committee’s proposals for a separate offence of child exploitation and why that would not help us all in our objective of tackling slavery, particularly the awful and extreme abuse of children.
We would also like a system of independent guardians to be introduced. They are a requirement of the EU directive that the Government eventually signed up to, and the system has been implemented elsewhere in Europe and shown to work well. After three years of campaigning, we welcome the Government’s pilots for child advocates and the enabling provisions, but we do not believe that they go far enough. The position is unclear, but the advocates do not appear to be the same as the child guardians for which a huge coalition of charities, including Barnardo’s, UNICEF and the Children’s Society, have called. During the Bill’s passage, we will seek to strengthen the powers given to child advocates, thereby establishing guardians who can act independently of local authorities and in the best interests of the child.
I raised those who are in domestic work conditions and are particularly at risk in an intervention on the Home Secretary. I urge her to look again at the domestic worker visa and the risks to those forced into domestic slavery, unable to escape. Earlier, I cited the evidence from the charity Kalayaan. The Home Secretary knows that when the tied visa was introduced, many, including Kalayaan, warned her that it would increase the risk of servitude and domestic abuse.
In addition to the figures that I cited earlier, Kalayaan also found that 92% of those on the new visa were unable to leave the House unaccompanied. That is slavery. The Home Secretary seemed to suggest that that was just a small number of people, but that is not the point. One of the examples that Kalayaan gave was the case of Rupa, who arrived in the UK with her employers. She had worked for them in India and had little choice about coming to the UK. Once here, she worked long hours and got no proper breaks. Looking after a baby, she was on call all the time. Like 85% of those interviewed by Kalayaan, Rupa did not have her own room, so she slept on the floor, next to the cot. For all that, she was paid just £26 a week and had her passport confiscated. Eventually, Rupa ran away and a stranger helped her find her way to Kalayaan.
However, because of the changes that the Home Secretary introduced to the visas, Kalayaan could do nothing. Under the old system, the charity would have contacted the police, had Rupa’s passport returned to her and helped her find other work. Now Rupa’s options were limited: to return to her employer or be deported. With a sick family to support in India, Rupa decided to return to her employer and a life of servitude. That is slavery. It is what the Bill should abolish. The Opposition will table amendments on the matter, but I hope that, if the Home Secretary has an alternative remedy, she will come forward with it during the Bill’s passage. We cannot have a situation whereby all the work that the House is trying to do to tackle modern slavery is undermined by visa changes elsewhere in the system.
We also need more action in the world of work. The Home Secretary talked about the importance of tackling the supply chain, and we agree, but again, we would like to go further. The Bill provides a great opportunity to build on the work of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. We would like to consider how that can be extended to cover exploitation in hospitality, care and construction, and also how the law on exploitation in the workplace can be strengthened.
Slavery in the UK is only a small part of the problem. The Joint Committee was clear in its recommendations for stronger action on supply chains. Other countries are legislating on that, and there is a growing consensus that legislation that requires large companies to report on their actions to eradicate slavery in their supply chains will make a difference.
In the past few months, all hon. Members will have been shocked by, for example, the details of the investigation by The Guardian into the fishing industry. There were stories of men trafficked from Burma and Cambodia, forced to work 20 hours a day for no pay fishing for prawns for shops in the US and Europe, and also for British supermarkets. One rescued worker, Vuthy, a former Cambodian monk, said:
“I thought I was going to die. They kept me chained up, they didn’t care about me or give me any food… They sold us like animals, but we are not animals—we are human beings.”
Another said that he had seen as many as 20 fellow slaves killed in front of him, one of whom was tied limb by limb to the bows of four boats and pulled apart at sea. All Members will be horrified by such stories, but it is even more horrifying if that slavery, abuse and murder could be linked in any way with the goods that end up on shelves in our supermarkets. That is why we believe that the Bill should go further.
According to polls, 82% of the UK public want legislation on the matter. The charity sector is equally clear and the Joint Committee supported action. So, too, did the businesses that gave evidence to the Committee. Marks and Spencer said that legislation could play an important role. Amazon, IKEA, Primark, Tesco and Sainsbury all gave evidence and said that they could support legislation. Many businesses have said that they do not want to be undercut by unscrupulous employers.
That is why the idea of a voluntary agreement simply does not go far enough. The Ethical Trading Initiative and its 80 corporate members that are campaigning for legislative measures in the Bill are right to do so. Perhaps the Home Secretary will let the Prime Minister know that the Opposition will table amendments on that. I hope she can persuade him that the House should be able to support that action, which so many businesses support. It will allow them and all of us to be ethical, and to recognise how far the problem stretches—it stretches not just across this country, but across the world.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
There will be support from Government Members for the supply chain proposal. Those of us who defend a free market do not want the competitive distortion of those who are undercutting legitimate businesses through the abuse of their employees.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman is exactly right on that. That is why so many businesses and major retailers are supporting that proposal. They recognise not only that it is morally right, but that it is very hard for them to identify abuse among their competitors, and to identify when they are being undercut by something that is so immoral and criminal throughout the world.
I believe we can build a consensus in the country and in Parliament. We have rarely seen a Bill that has such overwhelming support from Members on both sides of the House. Let us be clear that we will work with the Government to ensure that the Bill passes within the limited parliamentary time available, but we will also push for it to go further, so that we can make a real difference in wiping out the horrendous practice of trafficking and enslaving men, women and children in this country.
Almost 230 years ago, a milkmaid from Bristol, Ann Yearsley, had her poem on slavery published. It tells of the anguish and woe of a woman taken away from her home country and sold into slavery. It talks of debasement and degradation. Parliament was slow to respond, and it was another 45 years after Ann’s poem was published before Parliament introduced the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. The Home Secretary rightly spoke of the rare moment of consensus. We need to seize that. We have legislation before us, and we need to build on it. We need to seize the moment with the legislation and make it go as far as we possibly can. Let us push to get those further improvements and safeguards, because we know that, in the end, it is about stopping evil people committing terrible crimes; ending the enslavement, abuse and degradation of modern-day slavery; and giving everybody the liberty and freedom that they should have a right to.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I am pleased to take part in this important debate on the Modern Slavery Bill, particularly as it has such cross-party support. The House will lead the way in Europe. I hope that many other countries follow our legislation.
Last Friday, I attended the launch of Derby’s United Nations bid to end human trafficking, which the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Derby, Dr Redfern, very kindly hosted. On the previous Monday, he hosted a summit at which 80 mainly local organisations were in attendance. He explained that human trafficking was the second most profitable crime in the world. The crime of modern-day slavery is growing, and there is therefore a need to legislate against it. People are being treated as objects and commodities, and there is a need to respond.
In fact, Derby will be only the second UK city to be part of the United Nations global cities compact, if we decide to go down that route. I was not surprised to hear that large-scale human trafficking operations and widespread sexual and economic exploitation were taking place in Derby and Derbyshire. One of the most shocking examples of sexual slavery given at the talk were the findings of Operation Retriever, which happened some time ago. The operation unearthed a network of 13 men in Derby who would cruise the city streets in the hope of picking up, grooming and raping teenage girls, who were often vulnerable. Some of the girls were even imprisoned in the flats of their abusers, and subjected to acts of gang rape that were on occasion filmed. Although it is undeniable that the Derbyshire constabulary did a fantastic job in unearthing that terrible conspiracy, more should be done to assist care givers and Government agency staff in spotting the signs of sexual exploitation.
In Operation Retriever, the victims were internally trafficked. However, the later Operation Kern discovered that young women were being brought over from Latvia to work as prostitutes in Ripley. I welcome the preventive measures that the Bill will introduce, namely the police’s ability to stop and search aeroplanes, trucks and other vehicles they believe to be involved with trafficking, but there remains a huge disincentive—the risk of deportation —for trafficked foreign nationals to contact the police to alert them to their situation. In line with that, one thing that the Bishop of Derby has called for is a 24-hour hotline not run by the police that victims can call if they are being exploited. Although I am aware that such schemes exist, I believe that the Government should provide the organisations running them with more revenue to advertise their services, to prevent prolonged abuse at the hands of traffickers.
Although 79% of human trafficking involves some form of sexual exploitation, it can take many forms. In 2013, seven people were arrested for human trafficking offences and money laundering in Derby as part of Operation Atwood. Eleven Slovakian men were detained in several homes across the city in deplorable conditions, and had their identities used for fraudulent claims by their captors. Once again, the failure to recognise the signs of human trafficking led to the abuse of those vulnerable adults. It is shocking that no one identified it sooner.
The bar to fighting human trafficking and modern slavery is the identification of victims. Derbyshire constabulary has told me that one of its biggest problems is that the majority of trafficking victims it deals with are foreign nationals, many of whom do not trust the police in their own countries. The constabulary has trained its officers to gear their approach towards compassionate victim support, meaning that those vulnerable individuals will not feel intimidated to speak out for fear of reprisals or deportation. Many victims of modern slavery could be forced to commit crimes by their captors and are frightened to come forward for that reason. I believe that the Bill’s creation of modern slavery as a defence in such cases will encourage many more exploited people to tell the authorities about the abuse that they have faced without the fear of criminal prosecution.
An associated issue that Derbyshire constabulary has raised is that many victims cannot identify that they are being exploited, owing to the disparity between conditions here and conditions in their home nations. I was very pleased to hear that, in order to remedy that, the Derbyshire constabulary has started to produce leaflets in a variety of languages advising potential victims of their rights. I am also very pleased that the Derbyshire force has taken steps to work with partner agencies, and has started a poster campaign to notify them of the appropriate contacts should they suspect that an individual is the subject of some form of exploitation.
I am hopeful that the reforms to the law in the Bill will positively affect the lives of many thousands of particularly vulnerable people in this country. The new civil penalties against those convicted of modern slavery will ensure that their victims can survive financially after their ordeal, and the defence of modern slavery will encourage those vulnerable people to come forward without fear of reprisals.
The Bill does a great deal to help exploited people, but it must be supported by good policing and community engagement, as has been exemplified in Derbyshire constabulary’s excellent work in that regard. That is why I believe that the Home Office should do all it can to encourage in the form of media campaigns awareness of the signs of exploitation, and to encourage the appropriate training of the police force to incentivise victims to come forward.
Finally, I offer my appreciation to the Lord Bishop of Derby, Dr Redfern, for his thoughtful and thorough work in Derbyshire and the other place on modern slavery and trafficking, and for bringing this important issue to the attention of the wider community in Derbyshire.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
Getting elected as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on human trafficking and modern slavery last July, with 332 votes to my opponent’s 196 votes, was a proud moment. I stood because I care passionately about this issue. Freedom from slavery is a fundamental human right protected by article 4 of the European convention on human rights. Up until that time, I had been excluded from contributing effectively to the main parliamentary vehicle for pursuing change to protect victims of a crime which, only a few years ago, we did not even believe was still being committed.
The founder of the all-party group was Anthony Steen. He deserves our praise for that work and for continuing his work, since leaving Parliament, through the Human Trafficking Foundation. It is thanks to its work and the efforts of many voluntary community organisations—not just the Centre for Social Justice, which the Home Secretary referred to—and campaigning groups, such as Croydon Community Against Human Trafficking and Justice for Domestic Workers, shelters run by the Medaille Trust and the Poppy Project, and research bodies such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the UK Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group, that people are becoming aware that we did not abolish slavery when we outlawed the transatlantic slave trade two centuries ago. The difference, as the Home Secretary said, is that instead of being in the public eye, slavery is now hidden.
The Bill should help to change that ignorance. I commend the Home Secretary for inviting a study of the issue, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), and allowing robust pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. I was glad to join that scrutiny. I am, however, disappointed that not enough notice has been taken of our unanimous recommendations. There is an international commitment to tackle modern slavery through three Ps: prevention, prosecution and protection. The Bill has mistaken those Ps and instead focused on another P—punishment—and felt that that will deliver the other three. Let me explain why it will not.
Part 1 of the Bill describes the offences. I recommend that Members read it. The language is intensely jargonish, which can and does confuse. How do I know that? These offences are exactly the same as offences currently on the statute book. Admittedly, they are in a number of different Acts at present—the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Clients, etc.) Act 2004, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the Coroners and Justice Act 2009—but, frankly, just bringing these offences together in one law and adding harbouring and receiving to transporting in the trafficking offence will not achieve the end we all want: to expand the number of cases covered. Everything else in the Bill is already explicitly in legislation or in case law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) asked, on 24 June, how many successful prosecutions for trafficking offences there have been. The figures are rather disappointing. In 2008, 61 offenders were proceeded against, with 24 found guilty. The following year the figures were 47 and 25. In every year since, fewer have been found guilty: in 2010, only 16; in 2011, eight; in 2012, 12; and in 2013, 19. Were other laws being used? An additional offence was added in the Coroners and Justice Act, which came into force in 2010. That offence is translated in part 1, clause 1 of this Bill. That has not resulted in many prosecutions either. According to a question in the other place on 25 June, there were 15 prosecutions in 2011, 20 in 2012 and 18 last year.
In 2010, I secured a clause in the Police and Crime Act 2009, which criminalised men who pay for sexual service where the person they pay is subject to exploitative conduct. In the first year, only 49 people were proceeded against. I consoled myself with the fact that it was a new offence and only a part year, but in the next year only 17 people were proceeded against. In the next year, the figure was only nine. Police told me that they wanted to pursue the exploiters, but the other figures I quoted show that they are failing to failing to do that.
The Home Secretary has said that the reason she is pursuing the Bill is to lead the world. That can happen only if the architecture of the Bill works so that any police officer knows what these offences are. The plain fact is that they do not, and that is one reason why there have been so few prosecutions. However much we trumpet the Bill, it is unlikely to deliver more prosecutions. Although it claims to consolidate legislation, it actually just jams existing and often poorly drafted laws into one place. The Government claim that there are more prosecutions, but on the whole they are for rape and kidnapping, not slavery or trafficking. There is a reason for that, and it is not just the length of the sentences that the different offences attract: it is that every police officer knows what those offences look like.
The problem with the Bill is that the offences are not well constructed and that will make them relatively hard to prosecute. It is not because there are few such crimes. The tiny number of prosecutions happened at a time when 1,355 people were identified as trafficking victims by first responders and referred to the national referral mechanism, and 444 were confirmed as such by the NRM. We know that the NRM underestimates—that is one of the reasons why the Home Secretary has announced a welcome review. It concludes that 76% of UK nationals, 29% of EU nationals and only 12% of non-EU nationals referred to it are trafficked: just one hint that the system is more obsessed with immigration control than justice.
My biggest fear is that the failure to outline in simple language what slavery and trafficking is, will mean we still fail to prosecute a huge majority of cases. The Bill introduces a maximum life sentence akin to murder, but in Britain 80% of murderers are prosecuted. We should expect the same proportion for this heinous crime, but that will not happen unless we change the Bill.
In addition to the failure to describe the offences in a simple and straightforward way, one other reason why the Bill will not live up to the high hopes of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee to increase the number of successful prosecutions is that it fails to protect victims sufficiently. This is not rocket science. The annual report of the US Secretary of State into human trafficking around the world made a series of recommendations for the UK:
“Ensure that law enforcement priorities to combat organized crime are effectively balanced with a victim-centered response to protect trafficking victims; ensure that a greater number of victims of trafficking are identified and provided access to necessary services, regardless of their immigration status; consider introducing a ‘pre-reasonable grounds’ decision period in which potential victims can access services before having to engage with police and immigration officers; ensure that appropriate government officials interview all incoming domestic workers in private so they are familiar with their rights and protections in the UK;”—
that theoretically happens at the moment, but in practice it does not—
“develop secure and safe accommodations for child victims and establish a system of guardianship for unaccompanied foreign children; effectively engage with multiple agencies to ensure child victims’ needs are assessed and met; ensure child age assessments are completed”.
We have to read two thirds of the recommendations to get to measures that are in the Bill.
Good quality victim services are necessary so that witnesses to this horrible crime, who are overwhelmingly its victims, are available to help prosecutions. Present arrangements, which give them 45 days housing and then too often forget and abandon them, usually with no access to counselling or other support, means that many victims run away rather than give evidence. They do not trust the police and they are frightened that their exploiter will wreak revenge on their families.
We need to do more to improve the protection of victims. The Bill includes a welcome statutory defence for people forced to commit criminal acts while they are enslaved, but that has been Government and Crown Prosecution Service policy for a long time. That has had to be put into legislation only because the policy was not being put into practice. The Equality and Human Rights Commission concludes that
“As currently drafted, the effect of the Bill is that a victim’s failure to object to their exploitation by means of threat, force, coercion etc would be relevant to any decision as to whether they had been trafficked. This would erode the protection for victims seeking redress by opening debate about the nature and degree of the threats, force, coercion etc. to which they were subjected. It is not clear whether this omission is an oversight or intention”.
Protection for victims is what is most urgently needed. They need security, knowing that they will not be turfed out of a shelter on to the street where, under new regulations, they face quizzing from landlords about their immigration status and, if they are EU nationals, they will not have access to housing benefit. They need help to find employment other than prostitution or whatever other degrading acts they have been forced into. They need psychological help to deal with the trauma they have experienced and, above all, children need a guardian who can be there for them, protect them and ensure that we stop losing them. The Home Affairs Committee concluded that nearly two thirds of trafficked children go missing from care and that almost two thirds of those children are never found. Why? Because their trafficker is the person they know and have been groomed by. The Government are not yet providing a tough enough alternative in the Bill.
The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has been explicit about the responsibilities that Governments have to provide guardians for unaccompanied and separated migrant children. This approach to guardianship is reflected in a number of European countries, most notably Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. They have led us; we are not leading them. Children who have been protected and nurtured are more likely to give evidence. They will not be terrorised out of it through threats to their families. The failure to protect victims will add to the poor design of the offences and mean that more traffickers get away with it.
If the Home Office had followed the advice of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, there would have been clear offences based on the concept of exploitation; there would be strong advocates with the power of guardianship for children; there would be a separate child offence, because children cannot consent to their own exploitation; and the Anti-Slavery Commissioner would have a duty towards victims. These are areas where the weakness of the Bill will mean that, in future, we fail to catch and convict some of the perpetrators of this crime.
As well as protecting victims and prosecuting offenders, there is a responsibility to prevent the crime. Opportunities to do that have been lost too. The orders in this Bill are one strategy, but they will not have a broad effect. We know—and recommended in the pre legislative scrutiny Committee—measures that will have a broad effect. One is effective protection for migrant domestic workers. When they had a fair visa, which allowed them to change employers if they were exploited, most were at least paid. Now, Kalayaan, the wonderful organisation that assists them, reports that nearly two thirds do not get any pay. They have their passports taken away, they sleep on the floor and they cannot leave the house. In the tragic case referred to by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, someone returned to a situation of domestic servitude because, under the present immigration rules, she had no escape.
Other forms of enslavement at work could also have been prevented by widening the scope of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, and by requiring companies to ensure that their supply chain is free of exploitation. I moved a ten-minute rule Bill on this subject in 2012, and it is great to see the approach winning all-party support. But the Home Office needs to know that a measure that is supported by M&S, Sainsbury's and Tesco, because they do not want to have slavery in their supply chain and because they do not want to compete with companies that drive down prices by using slave labour, is a pro-business move. That is why California took action and why we should now.
The USA report sets out quite simply what we need to do in the UK. It also reminds us that the victims of slavery across the world are, overwhelmingly, women and children. They are more vulnerable and also easier to be turned into commodities, which is the essence of this crime. So whether it is children forced to cultivate cannabis or to beg, or women forced to have sex with men, it is about the exploitation of one human being by another.
I am glad that we have a Bill, but sad that after all of the thoughtful and non-partisan study of it, the Home Office has rejected so much of the advice it received and left us with a Bill that is too weak.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
I rise strongly in support of the Bill. At the outset, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. There is much of her, it appears to me, in this Bill in terms of her determination to see that this Parliament and our country is at the vanguard of tackling this iniquitous series of crimes.
I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) on chairing the cross-party Committee and on the very thoughtful report that it produced. I also recognise some of those outside of this House—some of whom have been referred to—not least Anthony Steen. He is one of my forebears in the sense that he was the MP for Totnes and part of my seat encompasses part of what was his seat then. He has acted with great determination, veracity and integrity in the pursuit of this very important matter. The Centre for Social Justice has been mentioned and it is worth thanking also Philippa Stroud for her contribution to the issue.
Modern slavery is a very complex and difficult issue, in that it has many different forms. I welcome the fact that we have the term “modern slavery” and that we have got away from focusing simply on human trafficking, the term used prior to the Bill. We see that in so many guises, and across different international boundaries. We see everything from boys from Thailand in forced labour tending cannabis plants on farms, to Nigerian women forced into involuntary domestic servitude, to eastern European women forced into prostitution. We see a wide variety of forms of this dreadful series of crimes. If we turn the clock back more than 200 years and look at what William Wilberforce had to face, we see that he had, as has been said already, a much easier target. The injustice that he was addressing was at that time legal and very visible. One of the great challenges with modern slavery is its invisibility, which is why it is important to provide the kind of transparency about which many MPs have spoken.
Another worrying aspect of modern slavery is not just its amorphous form but its sheer scope. The United Nations has made clear that, depending on how the figures are calculated, modern slavery as an international global business is valued either second or third behind the illicit drugs trade or the illicit arms trade. We know from the EU figures that there are perhaps as many as 880,000 people within the EU involved in and caught up by modern slavery.
There is one aspect of the Bill on which I would like to focus briefly, which is addressing modern slavery within the business supply chain. This has been raised by a number of Members already. I speak as someone who is a dyed-in-the-wool pro-business Conservative. I have set up businesses both here and in the United States and I am the first person to stand up and rail against unnecessary red tape and those actions of Government that get in the way of entrepreneurship, wealth creation and all the good things that follow from that. However, the essential tension between having a statutorily underpinned approach, requiring businesses to tackle the issue, or relying solely on a voluntary code is between the red tape on the one hand and how effective the measures will be on the other.
As was argued cogently within the Committee report, there is one compelling argument that dictates that we should seriously look at statutory underpinning. If we have a voluntary code and a number of businesses within a particular marketplace, there is a huge disincentive for any one of them to put their head above the parapet and to start looking seriously at this problem. The disincentive is obvious, as one of the first movers in that situation might quickly end up damaging their reputation, allowing others in the marketplace to capitalise.
Any statutory underpinning must, however, be proportionate. The hon. Member for Slough mentioned the 2010 Californian legislation, which we should look at closely, because it contains the element of proportionality. There could be a grace period of perhaps a couple of years, as suggested with cross-party support, before any such measures were brought into effect. The California Act applies only to very large businesses with turnovers in excess of $100. [Interruption.] I meant $100 million, and I am grateful for the correction. I would not want to get down into micro-businesses; only those at a higher level. The requirements within the California Act are not too onerous: it envisages the appointment of an individual to a board of a very large company, which is therefore required to have a focus on the issue; and it requires that the company’s efforts to track down and deal with modern slavery be made transparent and public, for instance on its website. Much in the Act could be looked at in detail with a view to its providing the basis for some action.
Will the Minister clarify the extent to which the Government are considering such action? What are the Government’s initial thoughts, and to what extent are they considering, outside the legislative forum, co-operation with the Commonwealth, for example, and other countries, leveraging our relationships to ensure that we maximise our efforts to deal with the problems of modern slavery?
We—the House, the Government and the Opposition—have an opportunity to put this Parliament and this country firmly in the vanguard of dealing with the iniquity of modern slavery. I wish the Bill every speed in getting on to the statute book.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
In common with the hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), I welcome the debate and commend the Government for allowing the draft Bill to be tested through pre-legislative scrutiny. Evidence was received from many groups who have direct experience of, and insight into, issues of modern slavery, not just through being witnesses to the crimes and their effects, but through providing protection and support for victims.
I commend the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and all who were involved in the Joint Committee for their work in proofing the Bill at its pre-legislative stage. I wish, however, that their efforts had received a more positive reflection from the Government than is suggested by the Bill before us today. The Joint Committee did very good work, highlighting the need for greater clarity about the offences. It provided a good service, helping to tidy up and improve the complicated, sometimes turgid language of the Bill, drawing from the existing legislation that it seeks to consolidate, by providing a clearer suite of offences. Each specific offence must be clear and the different facets of the overall crime and evil with which we are trying to deal should be made clearer. That would lead to more competent and more cogent legislation in respect of the message it communicates and the problems it seeks to recognise and address.
I am not convinced by the Government’s arguments that it is only necessary to have a consolidation of existing legislation with a few minor add-ons, as identified by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), rather than a more cogent programme as suggested by the Joint Committee. We also need to ask on Second Reading whether the Bill does enough to address the causes of the problem, or enough to protect the victims? Does it really justify the claim, which has been made, of its being world-leading legislation? We have heard from some hon. Members that in some major respects the Bill simply catches up with what is happening elsewhere, while in other respects it falls far short of that. It does not match the true working standards of legislation in other countries or indeed the structures and systems in place in other countries for achieving the role envisaged in the Bill for the anti-slavery commissioner.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman will, like me, be aware of other legislation pursued and brought forward in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I believe a Second Reading has taken place and that a Bill is before the Assembly for ratification. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the Government should also take note of the Northern Ireland legislation, which covers trafficking and the sale of women for sex? Does he feel that that should be part of what the Government are considering today?
Mark Durkan
I think that that Bill has been subject to a number of different viewpoints in the Assembly, particularly in respect of the workability of its detail. Indeed, many of the campaigning organisations that have highlighted the shortcomings of the Modern Slavery Bill have also indicated their reservations about some of the language in the Assembly Bill, which they want to see improved, modified or qualified. Now that there are moves to legislate in a number of these areas, we want to make sure that the legislation is as competent and effective as possible.
Some of the provisions of this Bill are clearly UK-wide—for example, both the slavery and trafficking prevention orders and the slavery and trafficking risk orders are UK-wide, yet many other functions apply to England and Wales, making it an England and Wales Bill. The orders are rightly UK-wide and they can even have international or extra-territorial effects.
There is a case for saying that we need more joined-up legislation in this area, and I know that the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, for instance, has already engaged in a consultation exercise and seems ready to take forward legislation that has a similar remit to this Bill. I imagine, however, that if a Bill in this form went before the Northern Ireland Assembly, it might be subject to amendments and could be successfully amended in some of the respects raised by hon. Members here that the Government are resisting. We could reach the odd situation whereby subsequent legislation in Northern Ireland that appears to mirror this Bill could be more than just a karaoke Bill, along the lines that we are used to in the Assembly whereby a Bill is simply replicated. The Assembly Bill could go further and embrace some of the suggested amendments that the Government have resisted here.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one important element that needs to be UK-wide is the ability to seize assets of criminal gangs to recompense the victims of the crime? Does he agree that that should apply regardless of which part of the United Kingdom the gangs operate from and regardless of which part of the United Kingdom their assets are held in? Their assets must be subject to seizure and then redistributed among the victims.
Mark Durkan
Yes, I do believe and recognise that. In case the hon. Gentleman is thinking that there is some kind of blur into issues surrounding the National Crime Agency, we have always been of the opinion that whatever arrangements are in place in respect of the pursuit and recovery of assets and ill-gotten gains should apply UK-wide. We want no weakening in that regard. The burden of our concern about difficulties involving the NCA did not arise from that, and does not centre on it, as I think both Home Office Ministers and the NCA itself are aware.
I accept that, in focusing on some of the Bill’s shortcomings, we may not be doing justice to some of the strengths that other Members have rightly welcomed, but I think that at this stage in its passage we need to urge the Government to think further and think better, given some of the answers that they have provided in respect of not just the offences issue, but the role of the anti-slavery commissioner. I am not persuaded by the Home Secretary’s presentation. I am not convinced that the commissioner, as described in the Bill, will be as robust and independent, in terms of drive and impact, as she has implied. Again, I think that we should look to arrangements that exist elsewhere, not least in Finland. We should be demanding an anti-slavery commissioner with similar scope, status and standing.
I appreciate that, as a Government Member observed earlier, we cannot create a body, or post, that is so independent that no Department or Secretary of State relates to it, in the context of, for instance, pursuing legislative proposals or being a channel for budget bids. Those of us who are calling for something more independent do not want a commissioner who would be so detached, and such a political and governmental orphan, that he would not have the necessary standing and leverage. We want that standing and leverage, in budgetary and legislative terms. However, we also want people to know that that status is entirely within the commissioner’s own independent right, is based on the authority of the role, and is not qualified by sensibilities or sensitivities on the part of a certain Minister in a certain Department. In particular, we do not want the suspicion to arise that those sensitivities are actually on behalf of a Minister in another Department or agency.
We should consider some of the grounds for qualification. In my experience, the issue of national security has been used to cover a very wide and loose variety of concerns. We do not want the work and the role of the commissioner—not just in terms of reports—to be limited or curtailed to that degree, and we hope that, as the Bill progresses, the upgrading of that work and role will go a great deal further.
Other Members have raised the issue of guardianship. I think that that is one of the issues that go to the heart of the question of whether the Bill does enough in regard to protection, although it is not the only such issue that is still outstanding. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead and the other members of the Joint Committee clearly identified the gap that continues to exist when they were considering the draft Bill. While it purported to do more in respect of prosecution and seemed to be trying do more in respect of prevention, it did not offer much in respect of protection and support. I think that the Bill in its present form is still short in that respect, and one of the most notable ways in which it is short relates to the glaring issue of child guardianships.
If child guardianships are not included in the Bill and we allow it to be passed without them, we, as a House, we will be saying “We think it will be all right on the night. We think it will somehow be okay.” When it comes to the treatment of children, we have been confronted by many derelictions, false assurances and false assumptions. It is claimed that children are being protected and their interests are being properly safeguarded, but we know that, in this respect, they are not. Other Members, including the shadow Home Secretary, have already referred to statistics showing how many children have gone missing for this reason, and have been brought back into the woodwork of exploitation, abuse and manipulated rights. If we are serious about the way in which the Bill regards children, we must ensure that guardianship is at the forefront and central to its provisions.
I ask Ministers to consider again the very logical arguments that have been advanced about the question of surer definitions relating to children. I do not think that there should be an either/or when it comes to whether we have a general defence or a particular offence. We know that, in plenty of other contexts, we can have both. If we are to entrust various other matters and means to the judgment, recommendation and guidance of the commissioner—and to law officers and others who are engaged with such matters—I do not see why we cannot trust people to cope with particular offences relating to someone’s status as a child, as well as with a general offence.
Let me make one final point about children and protection. We need to be absolutely clear that defence clauses such as clause 39 can extend to non-prosecution. We need to be certain that people can have the protection of not being prosecuted in the first place, rather than becoming part of the feeding line for potential case law through having to activate and use a defence. I believe that the House would want to offer those people a greater protection: a guarantee that the relevant legal officers could choose the option of non-prosecution, in full recognition of the conditions and circumstances with which they were dealing.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
Over the weekend, I read the online comment that “only leftwing feministas care” about the Modern Slavery Bill. I can tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it would be considered unparliamentary to repeat the first response that sprang to the mind of this right winger, but the second was that the person concerned clearly had no idea of the scale of the problem, what it involved, and the fact that it was fairly prevalent across the country and was probably happening within a mile of his own home—and I have no doubt that it was a he. I was pretty furious at that point, and the comment made me absolutely determined to try to speak in the debate.
The third point that sprang to mind, almost instantly, was this: what if Twitter, or some other form of social media, had existed when William Wilberforce, who was certainly not left wing or, I suspect, a feminist, was pushing for the abolition of the slave trade? I am sure that the opposition and abuse that he received from certain parts of society would be just the same today, albeit within the 140-character limit; but I also wonder, given the power of social media nowadays—quite often as a force for good— whether his Bill would have been passed far more quickly than it was.
Wilberforce is a hero of mine, and I think that he should be a hero for most politicians, not necessarily just because he abolished a heinous trade but because he did so in the face of opposition and sustained attack over the course of half a century. It is embarrassing and shameful that, more than 200 years on, we are here, forced to discuss yet again a trade, a crime and often an industry that exploits vulnerable people on our home soil. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment, and the Home Secretary’s determination, to introduce a Bill to tackle modern-day slavery. They have been extremely well served by many Members on both sides of the House, and by the former Member of Parliament Anthony Steen, who has campaigned on the issue in the House and outside since 2006. His expertise is incredible, and I have no doubt that his hard work on the issue across the world has helped to produce the Bill.
I think it right for us to keep the Bill as simple as possible. While I sympathise with some of the points that have been made about supply chain transparency, I am not yet convinced that the Bill is the right vehicle for decisions about that. For a start, it currently covers only England and Wales, and tackling slavery across the world via corporate statements might distract people from the problems that we face here at this very moment. If separate legislation were introduced—if, indeed, legislation were required at all—I would consider supporting it. However, I am not yet sure whether putting such measures into the Bill would slow its passage through Parliament—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride).
The Bill needs to deal with the real problem we have in the UK. No one knows the exact number of people who are forced into slavery—it remains unseen and undetected. What we do know is that 50% of the victims found in the UK are in the south-east.
I have discussed the issue with Kent police, who, working in partnership with local authorities across the county, have made some good progress in tackling trafficking and other forms of exploitation, which they calculate as being second only to the drugs trade as income generation for criminals. However, it is welcome that the Bill strengthens their enforcement capability. Kent police made the point to me in a briefing note about some of their recent operations. They found men who worked at night catching chickens in large industrial sheds, doing 16-hour shifts and sleeping in mini-buses by day. The men had no access to health services and no safety equipment was made available. Current legislation made it difficult for the CPS to be completely satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to charge. Therefore, Kent police very much welcome the fact that the Bill will simplify that and that they might be able to press ahead with charges.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Lady highlights the difficulty with prosecutions, but given the fact that the Bill merely includes the offences in the current legislation why is she convinced that it will be more successful than existing legislation?
Tracey Crouch
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention because I think that one thing the Bill will do is place a positive obligation on law enforcement agencies to carry out not only enforcement but preventive work. Bringing all the provisions together will simplify the position enormously. It has been welcomed by enforcement organisations such as Kent police, who deal with the issue regularly because the county is the gateway to the rest of the UK. That is hugely important.
I will come on to some other aspects of the Bill, but I want to mention a few more examples that Kent police have tackled in recent months. They build on the examples that Members have already mentioned. One operation found vulnerable Nigerian female children were being trafficked into the UK. They were subject to “juju rituals” that were carried out to control and instil terror into the three victims, one of whom was aged 14. The offender was caught and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment. It is clear that the sex industry is the reason people are being trafficked into the UK.
Kent police gave another example. They worked with an eastern European country on one operation. They found victims who were being forced to have “crystal meths” in order to allow them to be placed into prostitution and subjected to horrific sexual assaults. They managed to escape at the point of sale; they were to be sold to another crime gang, also based in Kent. What we are doing today will enable agencies such as Kent police to conduct their work: they have been doing that as much as they can already, but they will feel that they are being supported in the long term.
I want to say at the outset that I think this is a really good Bill, but I share the view that improving law enforcement and piracy legislation is not enough. I would like to make a few comments on strengthening the Bill to make it world class. I fear that the measures protecting victims are not enough. One of the reasons we do not know the scale of modern-day slavery is that victims are often too frightened to come forward. The measures in the Bill to provide protection for child victims are welcome, but almost every briefing paper that Members have received says that the provision of child advocates does not go far enough. Many call for a system of independent, legal guardianship that can support and protect children and is more in line with best practice elsewhere. I agree with those views. At the moment local authorities are ill equipped to support victims no matter how hard they try, and often victims will go missing from care. Although advocates will play an important role, the simple truth is that unless they have the right legal powers they will remain powerless truly to protect the child.
Child victims should be a priority but we must not forget the adult victims of slavery and exploitation. They also need protection, and I agree with the view that extending the period of reflection from 45 days to 90 might help with that. Furthermore, I agree with Anthony Steen that often the protection could be offered in their home country better than in the UK, which would not only help the victim, often non-English speaking, but be more cost-effective to the taxpayer. A financial bond could be offered, the cost of which would be significantly lower than the cost of providing housing, benefits, welfare, health care and, with some victims, police protection. I hope that that will be considered.
My other main concern about the Bill as it stands—it is the main concern of others, too—is in regard to the commissioner. The appointment of an anti-slavery commissioner is welcome but they should be independent of the Home Office and have a wider remit. At present the terms of the commissioner are significantly narrower than those of others in parts of Europe with much better practices. The autonomy of those in Holland and Finland should be considered best practice and converted into ensuring that the powers of the commissioner here include statutory powers to collect and request data, monitor trends and assess the impact, and then report directly to Parliament. More important, the commissioner should not be limited to looking at law enforcement; the role should also include monitoring and supporting victims and the prevention of slavery. Again, I hope that the Minister is taking these points not as a criticism of the Bill but as ways of strengthening it.
With that in mind, I want to mention the issue of freezing assets. The measures on freezing assets are fantastic in principle but I worry that they might not work in practice. At present, the time between arrest and issuing an order to freeze assets is too long and could therefore be too late. The UK should look at Italian practices where assets are frozen within 24 hours, meaning that suspected criminal organisations cannot move or protect their assets; they are frozen immediately, with compensation available if they are released without charge. We should look at that, too.
My final point is not a criticism but merely a query that requires clarification. It is probably born from my misreading of the Bill. It relates to the clauses on the prevention and risk orders on prohibiting foreign travel. We know that many of the nationals who are involved in trafficking, either as perpetrators or victims, are from eastern European countries. Therefore, will the Minister clarify whether these measures comply with wider free movement principles of the European Union? I approve entirely of the principle behind the orders but it would be disastrous if they were unenforceable and not only hindered enforcement but put victims at risk.
This is a good Bill but it is not a world-class Bill. With Wilberforce’s legacy in mind, we as a nation should be taking the lead across Europe and the rest of the world. If the Bill is just about enforcement and piracy, we are making a small step forward, not the giant leap that we could. I hope that the Minister, who I know has worked extremely hard on this issue, will listen to those concerns, and see them not as a criticism of her endeavours but as a means of Parliament enabling her to strengthen the Bill. Outside the Chamber, we have the statues of Wilberforce, Pitt, Fox, Grenville and many others, who are honoured for the work they did over many years to abolish slavery. I urge the Minister to be bold and brave and to make the Bill to abolish modern-day slavery something the people whose statues are dotted around these hallowed corridors would be proud of.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I want to talk about what is not in the Bill, rather than what is in it, because what is in it is, on the whole, a real step forward. Hon. Members have rightly highlighted problems with the Bill, but we should not lose sight of the fact that it represents a huge step forward, and it is one that I did not think would be taken during the eight years that I worked with vulnerable children and young people, including many children who were caught up in trafficking and exploited horribly. We see a Home Secretary pushing forward measures that will help to protect and support those young people and to bring to justice the people who perpetrate these awful crimes against them; and we see a shadow Home Secretary urging her to go further. That is a good day for the House. I wanted to start by saying that, and I hope that the Minister takes my comments in the constructive way in which they are intended.
I do not think it will come as a surprise that I want to focus my remarks on children. I make no apology for doing so, because this is really about children; it is not about criminality, crime, trafficking or immigration. Too often what I have seen when working with children caught up in these systems is that every bit of their identity becomes taken over by something else, and we forget that in the middle of all this is a child who is alleging abuse. It would be inconceivable in any other situation that we would treat a child who is alleging abuse in the way that we treat many of these children when they come into contact with our systems.
I want to explain why, as I raised with the Home Secretary earlier, it is essential that there is a separate offence of child trafficking. I took her point that a small number of people hold a different view, but a vast range of agencies and individuals with a wealth of experience in this area are pushing, pressing, begging and pleading with her and her Minister to listen to why such an offence matters.
Children are different. They are different because they cannot consent to their exploitation by virtue of their age and maturity. That is a principle that has been established internationally for decades, and we should not seek to water it down in a Bill that is supposed to protect them. They are different, too, because they cannot cope with the sorts of systems that they end up in at the moment.
A separate offence of child trafficking would send a strong signal that these children need to be treated as children first and foremost—that they are vulnerable because of their age. It would also set in train a process that would be different. In the years that I worked with child migrants, watching them giving interviews to the Home Office and going through all the processes such as the national referral mechanism, which was established just before I came into this place, I was struck by the fact that children often make unreliable witnesses. They often do not have the information about what happened to them so they cannot answer basic questions about how they got here, who sent them, what their father did for a living. These are all questions that are routinely thrown at children who are coming through the immigration, trafficking and child protection systems, and they genuinely do not know the answers to them. They often also do not tell stories in chronological order, which can be extremely confusing for people interviewing them, and that is often then used by the Home Office to undermine their credibility—I have seen that on countless occasions. They tell stories as they remember them rather than in chronological order, as adults would do. They are coached by traffickers to say certain things as well, and they are deliberately targeted by traffickers because their age makes them vulnerable. They also have a tendency to say what they think is expected of them and what the adult wants to hear.
All these things mean that the process children go through has to be different. We have to make sure that we treat these children who are alleging abuses in the way that we would treat any other child. That is why a separate offence with a lower threshold for child trafficking, recognising the very particular circumstances around children, is essential.
This Bill refers to taking someone’s vulnerability into account, and it states:
“For example, regard may be had to any of the person’s personal circumstances (such as their age, family relationships, and any mental or physical illness) which may make the person more vulnerable than other persons.”
That is so weak as to be almost ineffective before it has even been passed into law. It says regard “may” be had, but regard must be had to those things, and it says age “may” make a person more vulnerable, but age always does. A child cannot consent to their exploitation and that is not at all clear in the Bill. If anything, this Bill makes the situation worse because it makes it incredibly confusing. Without this being changed, we are not going to get the truth from these children and we are not going to get the prosecutions that I am sure the Home Secretary genuinely wants.
With regard to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), this measure needs to go alongside a definition of what constitutes a child, because the Bill contains references to age in clause 1 and to being young in clause 3, so it is inconsistent and confusing. We have always been clear that for the purposes of the law, unless there are exceptions—and there are some exceptions—a child is somebody who is under the age of 18, and I do not see any reason why we would not make that clear in the Bill. It is confusing otherwise.
I take on board the Home Secretary’s point about the difficult issue of age assessments. That has been troubling Home Secretaries and Home Office Ministers and children’s Ministers since I was born. Certainly I know that there were debates in 1983—some Members might even remember them, but I will not name them—about whether it was appropriate or possible to determine children’s ages by X-ray, which is one of those awful debates that seems to resurface with alarming regularity every decade before it is rightly killed off because it is immoral and inaccurate.
There are two ways to solve the problem of age assessments. One is to have the presumption that unless there is good evidence to the contrary, that young person is a child, and I strongly welcome the measure that seeks to do that and congratulate Ministers on introducing it. The second way to do that is to do something the Immigration Law Practitioners Association spent several years working on in its report, “When is a child not a child?”, and that is to set up a series of regional age assessment centres that are capable of determining the age of the child, taking it out of the hands of immigration officers and local authorities—both of whom have an interest in the outcome because if the person turns out to be a child, local authorities have to support them, and if they turn out to be an adult, the Home Office has to support them—and putting it into the hands of children’s experts. That is the way to do it and I am very sorry that progress on that seems to have completely stalled. The Government would do well to look at it again if they really want to get the measures right for children.
There is no way of separating out what is happening to children who have been trafficked, and the trafficking systems and child protection systems that have been put in place, from what is happening in the immigration system. Not all of these children come through the immigration system, but, by God, an astonishing number of them do. When I worked for the Children’s Society with refugee and migrant children, we looked at the children in our projects who had been trafficked. We found that on average they had been in contact with eight or nine separate agencies or organisations before they came to us and we discovered that they had been trafficked. I say that not to claim that we were better than those other agencies, but because it made me wonder how many young people we were letting through the net—how many were going on to other agencies before this fact was discovered, and how many were never discovered to have been trafficked.
The immigration service is one of the key institutions that such children come into contact with, and the way they are treated in it has an enormous bearing on whether we ever end up identifying them as trafficked in the first place. My experience of children going through that process is that it is dehumanising, challenging and adversarial, and it works against people who are genuinely in fear of their lives, who have suffered exploitation and who have been trafficked.
Many years ago I did some training for the UK Border Agency and its staff in what to look for in terms of child protection and how to support vulnerable children who were coming into its systems. My findings surprised me. We had been pushing for a long time for better protection in law for those children. What quite often happens is that these children are seen as immigrants first and children second, and are therefore not treated properly and their concerns are not acted on. We managed to persuade the Government to extend measures in the Children Act 2004 to that group of children—and congratulations to them for doing that—so that the UK Border Agency also had a duty to promote and safeguard the welfare of children. That was a big step forward for those children. What I found when I went to do this training for the UK Border Agency was that there were staff there who were desperate to do more to keep children safe. They knew they were not getting it right. They knew that they did not have the tools, the skills and the knowledge at their disposal to be able to do that. I do not know how much that has changed, but I certainly saw it start to change before I came into this place. However, for as long as there are really tough immigration tipping-point targets that are used to refuse people entry to and to remove them from this country, and for as long as these children are part of those targets and statistics, I am not sure that those staff will ever have the space, time and confidence they need to offer a challenge when they see a child being treated badly.
This issue is relevant to this debate, because if we identify a child as having been trafficked and accept not just that they have been horribly abused, exploited and mistreated, but that they would probably be so again on their return, the right thing to do is of course to grant them status and leave to remain in this country, so that they do not have to go back and face the same situation all over again, which too many children do. That has an impact on the immigration statistics, and we are not going to solve this problem unless we take this group of children out of those statistics and targets altogether.
Having watched children go through the entire immigration process, I know that an adversarial process is not at all appropriate for those who are alleging abuse, yet that is what children who are claiming asylum and who have been trafficked are having to experience. It is absolutely horrendous to have everything about you—your background, your identity, your credibility—threatened, challenged and undermined, and it is simply not appropriate. The process is handled much better in other countries. Instead of an adversarial system, there is an inquisitorial system through which the claims the child makes are looked into, and supporting evidence is gathered and a decision is reached.
The national referral mechanism is a really important part of the process. However, I do not think that it works. I have to say that I have not worked closely with the NRM for three or four years, or had any such cases in my constituency, but I have had regular contact with those who do. There are real problems with the way in which children of particular nationalities are treated. I welcome the interim review, but I am concerned by the answer the Home Secretary gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). She said that the review would come before the conclusion of the Committee stage. It is really important that the Committee have the opportunity to consider and debate the outcome of the review, because I suspect that it will highlight that there are problems with putting children through an adversarial system that is located in the Home Office and is immigration-focused, rather than child-focused.
As I have said before, it would be absolutely inconceivable to try to construct a system for children who are alleging abuse in which they can be challenged on every single aspect of their identity, and have to fight to prove their claims against people who have an interest in not granting them the help and support they need. That is one reason why the emphasis on guardians is so important. I welcome the progress that has been made in that regard. The Bill includes something on guardians, and Ministers, the shadow Home Secretary and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), should be congratulated on pushing for this.
However, if guardians are to have any influence whatsoever, they must have a statutory basis. The Government have commissioned a pilot, which will determine whether guardianship should be rolled out, without granting statutory powers to those involved in the pilot. I worked closely for many years with the excellent Refugee Council’s children’s panel, and I saw how difficult and frustrating it was to be unable to make people do the things they ought to be doing for children because it had no statutory remit. The panel did amazing things through persuasion and persistence, but the welfare of children should not rely on the persuasion and persistence of a handful of committed but underfunded individuals in one charity. We need a proper system that works for those children, and such people should be appointed at the point at which any concerns have been raised. The truth is that it is not possible to get through the NRM without that support, which is needed from the moment somebody has raised a concern; that is when the guardian must be appointed.
I want to press the Minister on an important point that I have raised many times with her colleagues and my own party when we were in government. At the moment, children who are recognised, first, as children and secondly, as potential trafficking victims, go into the care of the local authority, but nobody has parental responsibility for them. As a result, there is nobody to instruct their lawyer. Let me give the Minister a personal example. While working in this field, I came across the case of an eight-year-old child who had been brought to the UK for, we think, organ harvesting. He thought that his trafficker was his daddy. That is what he said and what he believed, and he would not be told otherwise by anybody.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) talked compellingly about the many reasons why such situations occur. As she is aware, sometimes such children cannot acknowledge to themselves that they have been trafficked and exploited in that way because it is simply too earth-shattering to even begin to comprehend. Therefore, once they get it into their head that this person is their boyfriend, uncle, daddy or auntie, it can be incredibly difficult to get them to think otherwise. That eight-year-old child had a lawyer. He told the lawyer that the trafficker was his daddy and was looking after him, so the lawyer made that case in court because they were duty-bound to act on the child’s instructions. That cannot be allowed to carry on. That is why guardians have to have a statutory basis, so that there is someone with the expertise, knowledge and skills to act in the best interests of the child when they are incapable of acting in their own best interests, which, because of their age and vulnerability, they often are.
I have listened to the arguments made concerning the commissioner, and it is important that they are seen to be independent of the Home Office. The commissioner has to command the confidence of children who are going through this process and are struggling to come to terms with the fact that somebody has done this to them, and that they have perhaps gone along with this willingly and feel complicit in their own abuse. Such situations are harrowing, awful, and hard. These children are in a strange country, often do not speak the language and do not know whom they can trust. They need to look to the commissioner as a figure they can trust, and who is separate from the Home Office, which holds the balance of power over their lives. In many ways, it holds the keys to their future, because it can determine whether they are allowed to remain here with support until they have come to terms with their situation and can make a decision for themselves, or whether they will be sent back into the awful situation they faced before. If the commissioner does not have that independence, their role will be undermined from the outset.
Let me give the Minister an example of a lesson learned. The last Government established a series of children’s commissioners for the separate nations of the United Kingdom. The Children’s Commissioner for England was established as part of the Department for Education and Skills, as it then was. All the staff who worked for the children’s commissioner were originally based in Sanctuary Buildings and had DFES e-mail addresses. That immediately undermined their credibility and standing with the children, and the people who work for, advocate for and support them. Lessons were quickly learned from that. The then Children’s Commissioner, Al Aynsley-Green, was a good champion of that process, saying that we needed to be out of that building, have different e-mail addresses and be seen to be independent.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The hon. Lady is making a very good point. The contrast between the situation of the Children’s Commissioner for Wales and the Children’s Commissioner for England was very instructive. In fact, at the time, consideration was given to not allowing the Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England to join the European circle of children’s commissioners, specifically because of that lack of perceived independence.
Lisa Nandy
Absolutely. I do not want to labour the point, but we did learn the lessons from that approach, and it would be a tragedy if we did not apply them to this most important of areas.
I absolutely support the Home Secretary in what she is trying to do, but these children are invisible—that is a feature of how this crime works, but it is also a feature of many of the systems they are put through when they come to this country. Children who are going through the immigration process are often not seen as children first, but as immigrants, trafficking victims, criminals or perpetrators. I have come across many children who were picked up in cannabis factories, one of whom was then prosecuted for the most unbelievable offence of circumventing electricity—I did not even know that was a crime. That tells us how far we have to go; it was recognised that this young man was a child, yet he was still going through a court process when I and Chris Beddoe, a fantastic champion for children, who was at ECPAT UK at that time, came across him. Children are so invisible through this process and I say to the Minister that this Bill compounds that, not on purpose, but by accident, for all the reasons I have outlined.
As someone who has worked in this field for such a long time, I know that there have been many missed opportunities to get this right for children. I am concerned that there are children who have not yet been trafficked but who will be, because this is the sort of crime that continues day after day, year after year. There are children somewhere in the world to whom this is about to happen. If we get this Bill right, these perpetrators will be brought to justice, but if we get it wrong perhaps they never will be. Everyone in this House needs to think about that when we scrutinise the Bill. When I say to the Minister that a series of things are fundamentally wrong with the Bill, I say it in that spirit: we have a golden opportunity now to get it right for some of those brave, brave children who are going through this at the moment or who will go through this in the future. I know they will survive it and come out of it, because I have seen so many of them come through it, fight it and change their lives and those of so many others because of their bravery. But if we do not get this right for children, what an opportunity we will have missed.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) speaks with both experience and passion, and highlights a number of harrowing cases involving children. I welcome this Bill because it consolidates the legislation, addressing a number of the cases she mentions. But it does more than that: it sends a powerful signal from the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister of the importance of this issue to the Government, and today’s debate shows the importance that Parliament attaches to it on a cross -party basis. May I take the opportunity to join other Members in paying tribute to the work of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who chaired the Joint Committee, and of others on that Committee? They produced a good report, and I hope that the passage of the Bill will provide an opportunity for some of its recommendations, particularly those relating to the supply chain, to be given further consideration.
I wish to pick up on a point highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) about the remit of the anti-slavery commissioner. The appointment will be a welcome one, and one understands the logic behind the narrow focus given to the post. I believe the Minister said that the Government were hoping that the appointment would put a rocket up the role of the law enforcement agencies. In part 3 of the Bill, clauses 35 and 36, the remit of the anti-slavery commissioner is defined quite narrowly when it comes to working with law enforcement agencies and I wish to highlight a number of practical areas where that remit might impose restrictions that I doubt would be the will of the House.
Housing legislation often requires private prosecutions to be brought against a landlord. It is well known that those who are trafficked are often trafficked into squalid accommodation—often houses in multiple occupation. It is beyond reason to expect the victims of trafficking, who often do not speak English, do not have financial means and do not understand the English court process, to initiate private prosecutions against their landlord. Instead, we need to have a vehicle whereby referrals can be made by the police to a statutory body in order to take forward those prosecutions on behalf of the victims. It strikes me that the commissioner would be well placed to be the repository for such referrals, so that if you become aware of victims in squalid housing in your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker, the anti-slavery commissioner has a remit to take up those cases, which would often currently fall outside the express powers of law enforcement agencies.
There is a second area where there are gaps in the existing powers of law enforcement agencies and where the commissioner would be working with them. Although a new commissioner will redefine the role—I am sure that if the commissioner were someone of the calibre of Baroness Butler-Sloss, they would redefine it more broadly —we must remember that bodies such as the Gangmasters Licensing Authority are resource restrained and do not have many of the powers they should have. In Westminster Hall debates in June 2012 and 2013, I highlighted the fact that the GLA has no powers to issue civil fines—civil penalties. I was particularly pleased that the Migration Advisory Committee report earlier this year stated that there are insufficient resources devoted to key regulatory bodies such as the GLA. So this issue has been around for some time and it remains unclear, within the narrow definition in clauses 35 and 36, the extent to which the commissioner will proactively be able to champion the addressing of some of those deficiencies, which have been known to Ministers for some time but have still not been fixed.
Clause 37 allows the commissioner to
“request a specified public authority to co-operate”.
That is a very welcome addition to the Bill, but it is silent on the interaction between the commissioner and companies. Let me give just a few examples. I am reliably informed that in my constituency there are agencies where multiple payments to workers are paid into the same bank account. That would be a relatively easy issue for a bank to address, as it could easily conduct checks that would pick up such payments, but at the moment no such pilots are doing so. I would expect the commissioner to be proactive in that space, working with the banks.
Likewise, letting agencies will often let multiple properties to the same individual. The commissioner should be collecting data on that from letting agencies and should have the power to compel letting agencies to collect such data. Yet letting agencies are clearly not public authorities and so public authorities will not have those data, which should alert law enforcement agencies to where the HMOs are and where the high-risk houses are. We also know that many vulnerable people are paid in cash, and so existing minimum wage legislation is not being complied with because automatic deductions are made at source. Again, the commissioner’s role in ensuring that, across government, other Departments are enforcing legislation extends beyond the narrow remit set out in clauses 35 and 36.
All that speaks to a wider point. Although I am sure it is the Government’s intention for the commissioner to have a wider remit in terms of other Departments, at the moment there is a gap in knowledge. Let me give an example from my local schools. When a child is absent from school and the school becomes aware of difficulties, its natural first response is to go to social services, and that puts pressure on the parents. The first response of schools is not to think that the parents have been trafficked and need support, or that that those children are in a HMO. They do not think about the need to address the trafficking as opposed to addressing the fact that the parents are failing. Likewise general practitioners have access to information that should be alerting the law enforcement authorities, but many GPs are not trained to recognise the warning signs they should be picking up when it comes to getting those data and sharing them with the police.
Let me provide an example from my constituency. Cambridgeshire police had great difficulty getting any information on people with injuries as a result of violence from accident and emergency in King’s Lynn. Such information could have alerted them to problems in areas such as Wisbech, but issues of data protection and patient confidentiality were quoted at them. It became difficult for them to act on behalf of victims because of the silos in which the Government were operating. The commissioner’s role in looking at that data and at working with the Department for Education and the Department of Health is extremely important.
We should also extend our consideration to the practice in our courts. A number of Members have focused on how we support victims once they have been identified. At the moment a gap exists from the end of the 40 days in which people are protected through the national referral mechanism and the date of the trial. During that gap period people often find that they face intimidation, which puts the trials at risk. They are also subject to the risk of further exploitation. I am keen to hear what we can do, in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice, to fast-track the trials so that we reduce the risk of the trial being prejudiced. There will be those who will naturally be fearful of giving evidence, fearful of the language difficulties and fearful of the different court system. We must consider how we speed up the process to reduce the risk of the prosecution being thwarted.
Finally, the international remit of the ombudsman is flagged up in the very good report from the Joint Committee. Let me explain why that international remit matters. People come to the Cambridgeshire fens to work in the agricultural sector and they are often promised jobs that simply do not exist. We can go on the internet and see adverts for jobs with recruitment agencies that have already been closed down. The Gangmasters Licensing Authority closed down those recruitment agencies and removed their licences, but jobs with those firms are still being advertised in countries such as Latvia. That is creating a pipeline of victims who are being brought into the country on false promises of a job that does not exist and of good accommodation that turns out to be squalid. They then quickly get into debt, which triggers the exploitation. The international remit of the commissioner is particularly important in addressing these fake adverts, which is why I hope that that recommendation will be taken forward.
This is an excellent Bill. It shows the Government’s commitment to tackling the problems of the most vulnerable in our society. I hope that, with the help of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, some of the recommendations from the report will be taken on board as the Bill progresses through the House.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Like other Members, I commend both the Home Secretary on prioritising and championing this legislation, and the Government on providing the House with the opportunity to grapple with a problem that transcends any single Department. I share the comments made by the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) about the need for joined-up action across Government.
The question before us today is how best to legislate in order to achieve the outcome that we all want to see. We need to look honestly at the Bill and address its weaknesses. Without such action, we will fail to meet the challenge set by the hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) when he said that he wanted this legislation to put us in the vanguard of fighting modern slavery.
Many hon. Members have said that victims must be at the centre of our response to modern slavery, and that is clearly right because they are at the centre of the crime. But experts in the field are clear that any effective response must address what my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) called the three Ps—to prevent such action being exacted against another human being, to protect victims and provide remedy and restitution to those who have been harmed, and to prosecute those who have committed such acts. We need to be clear that without all three, any attempt to solve the problem will fall short. The weakness of the legislation is that the Home Secretary has apparently thought long and hard about the third pillar, which is prosecution, but has given insufficient attention to the first and second pillars, prevention and protection, on which this Bill has too little to say.
A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Slough, have talked strongly and passionately about the protections and assistance that victims require, and that is right, but I want to focus my remarks on the first of the three fronts on which modern day slavery must be fought, and that is prevention.
Prevention is included in this Bill only where a crime has already been committed, or a person is suspected of having committed a crime of slavery or human trafficking. The proposed slavery and trafficking prevention orders and slavery and trafficking risk orders in clauses 15 and 23 will enable the courts to place restrictions on the activities of those who have been convicted, or those who have been involved in an offence, but not convicted. I acknowledge that those are positive measures, but surely they are too late to count as true prevention because, by definition, prevention stops an act from happening at all.
It is widely recognised that prevention requires a strong labour inspection system as a first line of defence against exploitation in the employment market. Experts in this area, including Focus on Labour Exploitation, of which I am a board member, are clear that effective monitoring and enforcement of labour standards is key to preventing acts of trafficking for labour exploitation. Indeed, many cases of labour exploitation have been uncovered in high-risk sectors such as agriculture and food processing by the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. For example, in the case of DJ Houghton Ltd, 29 Lithuanian men were found to have been treated like slaves. They were used to catch free range chickens for one of the UK’s largest processers of eggs and chickens. I am talking not about small players, but major companies.
Following its UK country visit in September 2012, the Council of Europe group of experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings advised the UK Government to
“step up their efforts to discourage demand for the services of trafficked persons...through strengthening the role of labour inspections.”
I welcome the fact that just last month, the UK Government voted in favour of a new protocol and recommendation to the Forced Labour Convention at the International Labour Congress that called for improved labour inspections. The Government themselves were acknowledging that that was an essential prerequisite. They also called for an enforcement of labour law as a key prevention measure. This is the elephant in the room with regard to the Government’s approach to modern slavery, because the same Government who are seeking to tackle this issue have launched a comprehensive attack on labour inspectorates; limited labour inspections; and, in their eagerness to slash red tape, removed vital protections for workers.
In a report published only today, the Government’s own Migration Advisory Committee has highlighted this issue as a major problem. It has said that, because of the resources that are available to pursue this essential work, employers can expect a minimum wage compliance visit once every 250 years, and, at the current rate, face prosecution once every million years. That is the Government’s own committee.
The Health and Safety Executive has had its funding reduced by 35% and has reduced its proactive inspections by one third since 2011. Cases opened by the national minimum wage inspectorate have fallen from a peak of 4,773 in 2007-08 to 1,615 in 2012-13 and, as we know, there are very few criminal prosecutions for failure to pay the minimum wage—only one in 2010-11 and one in 2012-13.
Mr Frank Field
Does what my hon. Friend said earlier about the actual prosecution rate not give a new meaning to “a millennium goal”?
Paul Blomfield
I could not have put it better myself, and I thank my right hon. Friend for his timely intervention and for all his work on this issue, for which he has won respect from those on both sides of the House.
It is all well and good for the Government to announce increases in fines for non-payment of the national wage, but without enforcement those increased fines exist only on paper. Instead of reforming the employment agency standards inspectorate, the Government effectively disbanded it in all but name in July 2013.
Modern-day slavery thrives in the UK, feeding off victims’ vulnerability, dependency and marginalisation. Victims are coerced through physical means, including violence, and more commonly through psychological means, including the abuse of power, deception and threats, as many Members have highlighted. Exploiters use vague employment relationships and arrangements as well as hidden costs, fees and debts owed by workers to trap people in precarious situations, preying on the vulnerability that pervades high-risk employment sectors.
Let me give another example. As we know, increasing numbers of construction workers in this country face the problem of false self-employment. Although the number of the construction work force has been falling, the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians reports that the number of self-employed workers in construction rose by 37,000 between 2009-10 and 2011-12. It estimates that about half of those are falsely self-employed. That precarious employment status leaves construction workers extremely vulnerable to abuse, as employers are absolved of responsibility for their employment rights and entitlements. Despite recognising that false self-employment is a problem, the Government have reduced safety protections for two thirds of all self-employed workers.
I urge the Home Secretary to consider extending the remit of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority into industries such as construction. Hospitality, care and cleaning are vital sectors, as they are industries where there is a high risk of forced labour and exploitation that particularly affects women.
As I said earlier, the Home Secretary deserves credit for pushing the issue of modern-day slavery to the front of the political agenda, but political decisions taken elsewhere in Government will determine whether she is successful. However well meaning her intentions, the good work in the Bill risks being undermined by the Government’s consistent attack on employee rights and protections. It is disingenuous of the Government to say that they are combating modern slavery with one hand while the other hand is actively promoting the conditions under which that slavery can take root.
Worker protections have been sacrificed through measures introduced by the Government such as reduced health and safety reporting requirements, limits on health and safety protections for self-employed workers and the introduction of fees for employment tribunals. The enforcement of GLA licence violations has been undermined by the light sentences awarded in many labour exploitation cases. Offenders receive only small fines, convictions without punishment or suspended sentences and too often victims receive no remedies.
The prevention of modern-day slavery means ensuring that the cracks in our labour protection framework that permit widespread abuse against global workers are closed. To do that, we need an effective labour inspectorate that engages with workers to gather vital intelligence about those who exploit their vulnerabilities. We need a strengthened and adequately resourced GLA, acting as an intelligence gathering and enforcement agency with a remit extended to high-risk sectors such as construction, hospitality, care and cleaning. We need a GLA that can enforce unpaid wages and other payments due to workers to ensure employment law is effective in practice. Finally, we need a GLA that sits within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, not the Home Office, with employment law enforcement rather than border control as its key priority.
I hope that the Home Secretary will work with Members on both sides of the House and organisations external to the House that want to strengthen the Bill in that regard. However, the debate in which the Home Secretary needs to engage most pertinently is not the one taking place in this Chamber but the one with her Cabinet colleagues whose agenda on labour market reform and red-tape cutting has directly undermined her attempts to address modern slavery with this Bill.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), particularly given his early remarks about the preventive work that needs to take place not just through this Bill but beyond it. Once reporting mechanisms are in place, perhaps we will have an opportunity to return to the issue in the House. Once we have taken the golden opportunity we have now to get the law right and make it effective, we should ensure that we continue the drive to eradicate modern slavery in this country and across all shores.
Like the whole House, I welcome this landmark Bill. As has been said, it follows in the footsteps of William Wilberforce, Thomas Clarkson, Thomas Buxton, Hannah More and others. It is a pleasure to be part of a Government who are leading the way in this and I commend the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary for that.
It is also pertinent to recognise that this landmark Bill follows cases that have taken place over the years, not least one that occurred in my constituency. On 20 May 2011, four victims of trafficking won a landmark human rights case when the judge ruled that the Metropolitan Police Service had breached human rights by failing to investigate their claims that they had been subjected to domestic slavery. The girls were aged 15 and under and were illegally trafficked to Britain from Nigeria. The traffickers had brought the girls into the country between 1997 and 2002 and told their parents that they would simply be helping them with their studies. When they came to the United Kingdom, they were put to work looking after children of African families in north London and my constituency. Some of them were forbidden to say anything about what they were doing and were prevented from leaving their home, whereas others were spied on by their so-called guardians. They were physically and emotionally abused.
From 2004 onwards, those girls tried unsuccessfully to get support from Enfield social services and from police officers. One said:
“It took all the courage I had to walk into Southgate police station and Enfield Social Services to ask for help in 2004 but they sent me back to my abusers and...blamed me.”
The case finally received court attention and the landmark ruling on the failure to investigate led to their receiving £20,000 in compensation. That is also something that we need to address seriously.
In September 2007—this issue has been picked up by others, showing the wide-reaching concern in this regard—Judge Herbert considered the initial immigration decision to deport those children, against which a successful appeal was granted, and found breaches of articles 2, 3, 4 and 8 of the European convention. Even though that is an historical case, it is relevant as we need to ensure that, in enacting this Bill, we learn the lessons from the past. His judgment said:
“At present we deport far more victims of trafficking and abuse than we prosecute traffickers. In this climate victims will simply not come forward.”
It also said:
“The cycle of deception and abuse will continue and we as a society will fail those children and undermine our immigration system as a whole.”
He went on to say:
“There would appear to be many children that remain in slavery in London, and in abusive conditions who are simply unaccounted for by any agency voluntary or otherwise.”
That was in December 2007 and there was no investigation by the time of the final landmark judgment in December 2008. We need to hear those words clearly and ensure that we are not letting down those children. We must not fail them. Such cases continue in Enfield, in London and more widely in our constituencies. We need to provide for accountability, enforcement and protection of victims.
I recognise that progress has been made. Since 2009 there has been the national referral mechanism, which has gone a long way towards identifying and protecting victims. In that regard I particularly welcome clause 44, which contains the important duty to notify the National Crime Agency about suspected victims of slavery and human trafficking. We should look carefully at the interim reports to see what further progress is needed to ensure that what happened in Southgate in north London, and in other constituencies, cannot happen again.
Sadly, we do not need to rely on historical cases to appreciate the scale and depth of modern slavery, and the scale and depth of depravity. Last week, in the case to which the Home Secretary referred, Vishal Chaudhary was sentenced to 31 years for trafficking more than 100 women to Britain. The victims came from Hungary and had answered job advertisements online for administrative, cleaning and babysitting work. Women were picked up from Stansted airport and delivered to brothels in north London, including in the borough of Enfield in my constituency. They were forced to have sex with up to 20 men a day and were raped repeatedly for profit. There was a call centre operating from Hendon. Women were treated as no more than a commodity. They were used, abused, punished and discarded. The business generated hundreds of thousands of pounds and a luxury lifestyle which led, thankfully, to rightful conviction—31 years in prison for the perpetrator—and a compensation order.
People such as the perpetrator in that case are vermin and we must bear down on them. They live a life of luxury, whether in this country or abroad, and we need to hunt them down wherever they are. We can do that through financial and other means. That is why I particularly welcome the provision in the Bill to ensure that we do that and that the proceeds of crime go directly to the victims. That reparation needs to be real and long lasting in order to recognise the physical and psychological impact of such abuse, particularly on women, although there are male victims as well.
The health impact is profound and enduring. Most trafficked women—eight out of 10—have been physically assaulted. Victims have been kicked while pregnant, burned with cigarettes, had their heads slammed against the floor or the walls, hit with bats or other objects, dragged across rooms by their hair, punched in the face, and more besides. In addition, they have suffered sexual violence and threats to themselves and their family. It is hardly surprising that 70% of women who have been trafficked in that way have mental health problems that go on and on, beyond the reach of statutory and voluntary services. They have multiple psychological issues that affect them probably for life. We must ensure that reparation goes to the heart of these concerns—to health impacts that continue year in, year out. I pay tribute to the many charities engaged in working with those victims across our constituencies.
Clearly, there are individual stories behind the statistics, but it should be recognised that the number of children in the UK identified as having been trafficked for sexual abuse has more than doubled in the past year. With children as young as three being trafficked into the United Kingdom for sexual exploitation, it is obvious that we need to do more to drive out the traffickers and support victims.
I commend the Bill and the work that has been done, and will continue to be done, beyond legislation by organisations such as the Salvation Army, Stop the Traffik and Hope for Justice, which yesterday reminded me of its work in partnership with the police. Such partnership work has improved over the years and helps to bring about successful prosecutions, such as the case I mentioned. A recent case in which Hope for Justice was involved was that of a gang that was forcing men and women into labour. They hung those people in front of a crowd, treating human beings like pieces of meat and telling them that if they escaped, they would be killed. The gang had no regard for human life. The victims worked 20 hours a day, seven days a week, they were beaten, their food was withheld, and they lived with 15 or so people crammed into a room. We must do all we can for such victims.
That is why it is right that a key aim of the Bill is to increase successful prosecutions. More needs to happen in relation to modern slavery, but crucially we as legislators can ensure that the law is effective. Hope for Justice said that successful prosecutions, of which there have not been enough, will make it clear that modern slavery is not tolerated in this country. Law enforcement is a crucial tool through which police investigations and prosecutions can effectively prevent modern slavery. There is no better place for prevention than in the courtroom. Ensuring that that happens effectively enforces the law and, crucially, gives protection for the most vulnerable in its reach.
There is clear evidence of that internationally. I commend International Justice Mission for its work across many countries. It cites the example of the Philippines, where the partnership work between the police, prosecution authorities, local law enforcement agencies and local organisations in strengthening victim aftercare and representation, ensuring cases are properly heard, has led to a dramatic reduction of 79% in trafficking.
The United Kingdom can take a lead, as the Home Secretary said, in tackling modern slavery globally. That means cross-Government work involving the Department for International Development and building capacity in justice systems worldwide. When laws are enforced, it is clear across countries that trafficking is reduced. Increased commitment in the justice system leads to an increase in victim services, shelter, counselling and the wrap-around care that is needed. Effective prosecution must be part of that integrated plan to combat modern slavery.
As has been mentioned, preventive measures, the rescue of victims in which many charities are involved, the prosecution of perpetrators and the care of victims must all come together. The Bill does not seek to do that. It seeks to hold to account the perpetrators and to bring together the disparate laws to make prosecution effective. We will no doubt debate that in Committee.
I am not convinced of the need for a specific child trafficking offence. There is existing legislation that can be properly enforced. Although the Bill goes a stage further with revision, it recognises the relevance and the aggravating factor of age. We must ensure that there are no unintended consequences, as I know from my own experience—I declare an interest as a criminal defence solicitor. We need to avoid problems for both the defence and the prosecution. We should be razor sharp in ensuring that this is an effective piece of legislation.
We all talk about sending messages through the legislation that we pass. We must avoid the trap of this becoming a Christmas tree Bill that sends different messages to groups, non-governmental organisations and others. We must respect their lobbying and their concerns, but we must also be sure that the Bill gets the law effective and right, and that when cases come to court, the prosecutions can go through to protect the victims.
I welcome part 3 of the Bill on the anti-slavery commissioner and its focus on best practice in law enforcement, extending the remit to identification of victims and, crucially, co-operation and working closely with national and international partners. I shall wish to explore, perhaps in Committee, the value of greater independence and accountability. For example, ECPAT has said of the Finnish national rapporteur that
“Independence, autonomy and transparency are vital requirements for discharging the Rapporteur’s duties.”
Of the Dutch national rapporteur ECPAT again said:
“A precondition to the success of the role … has been its independence.”
Part 4 of the Bill is also very welcome. I congratulate the Joint Committee on its work, which has led to part 4. I welcome the introduction of child trafficking advocates and look forward to seeing the progress of the pilot led by Barnardo’s. I know that clause 41 is an enabling clause. I will be looking for a firmer commitment to the principle of child advocacy, which should not be contingent on the success of Barnardo’s. Members across the House wish to see that principle enshrined as a statutory principle. I will be looking at “may” becoming “shall” in clause 41. A guarantee of real, crucial independence of advocacy has been found to work well and to be best practice. We must break the cycle of repetitive victimisation, abuse and exploitation of children supposedly in the care of authorities.
I look forward to the enactment of the Bill next year —2015. It is an appropriate year, 800 years after the signing of the Magna Carta, as we celebrate the rule of law as a foundation of our democracy. We want to see the Bill ensure that the victims of modern slavery benefit from the rule of law. If the rule of law is effective, it protects citizens from being enslaved. That is a crucial principle at the heart of the Bill. Let us unite across the House in the remainder of the Parliament to ensure that the law is as effective as it possibly can be for victims. Let us also take heed of what is written in the Bible, which is what we want to follow—let us see the captive set free.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
It has been a pleasure to sit here listening to the debate, not just for the quality of the speeches, though one would expect the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) to give a commanding performance. The real pleasure for me has been looking at the Government Whip, who has had to take refuge, quite understandably. As the debate has gone on, the Government Whip has become greyer and greyer. I thought that, while we would put up a good fight in this House to amend and strengthen the Bill, the main changes would happen in the other place. After listening to the unprompted interventions and speeches, it has become clear that the Government will be hard pressed to hold the line they have drawn in the Bill that they have submitted for Second Reading. There will be a clear choice for the Home Secretary to make. Does she wish the Bill to remain her Bill, or will it become a Bill that the House begins to fashion in its own likeness? I will come back to that.
I see a Whip leaving the Chamber now. I hope that she is off to one of the places where this message needs to go—No. 10. It will be hard pressed to resist the changes the Home Secretary wants the House to make to the Bill before it leaves us and goes to the other place. I wish her well taking that message. I know that, in her own style, she will make the case we are making here.
Like others, I want to put on record the basis for my interest in this topic. It is the person who is sitting in the Box below the Gallery, Anthony Steen. I would not have been committed—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We should not mention people in the Box, as much as we are tempted, and as great as the man that he mentioned may be.
Mr Field
I accept that I cannot mention the great man in the Box, at whom we are now all looking. Convention prevents me from drawing attention to his presence there or even to the fact that elsewhere, outside the Box, he is known as Anthony Steen. For it is he who ignited my interest in this area. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), made that point very effectively. In many ways, when he left this House he took out to the wider world the candle that he lit in this Chamber. To all intents and purposes, it is his Bill that we are debating today: no Anthony Steen, no Bill.
However, Anthony Steen is not the only person who ought to be thanked on the record. The hon. Member for Central Devon drew attention to how quickly the debate has progressed here. It has done so because of three women, the first of whom is Philippa Stroud. I can mention her because she is not in the Box, Mr Deputy Speaker. When she was at the Centre for Social Justice she decided that this topic ought to be investigated and initiated the inquiry that led to the report “It Happens Here”. She is a parent of the Bill. She convinced Fiona Cunningham, who was then the Home Secretary’s political adviser, that this was an important topic in its own right and one for which the Home Secretary ought to win time from her colleagues for a new Bill. Anybody who knows how Parliaments progress knows that, as a Parliament reaches its conclusion, parliamentary time becomes not easier but more difficult to command. We therefore naturally applaud the Home Secretary’s decision —for she is of course the third person. Philippa’s work, Fiona’s work, the work of the all-party group and the work of the person we cannot mention in this Chamber would have come to naught had the Home Secretary not made the crucial decision that there should be a Modern Slavery Bill. Although she has had to go to other meetings, she will take great heart from the fact that in two areas on which she has not been totally happy with the Bill as introduced—I think it is reasonable to say that—she will probably get her way.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in saying a word of thanks and gratitude to all the volunteers, whether they be church groups, individuals or community associations across this great kingdom, who have supported and pushed the Bill, giving it unstoppable momentum?
Mr Field
Indeed. The Bill is extraordinary because, when I first came to the House, I would have thought that if anyone was going to push, mould and lead public opinion and galvanise the numbers who have come to lobby us, it would be the trade unions. I remember a day quite early in my parliamentary career when the Churches had their first lobby on overseas aid. I went down St Stephen’s steps with a new Conservative Member, and before us was a mass of people who not only filled the area in front of St Stephen’s entrance but went along the road, over Lambeth bridge and back towards the hospital. I saw that younger Conservative Member thinking, “Wow! If the Churches can turn out in these numbers, they are clearly able to fight and punch way beyond the weight of Sunday attendance.” I willingly pay tribute to the role the Churches have played in helping to push this issue up the political agenda.
There are two issues on which I thought we would have to wait for decisive action in the other place, but I now think that we might get that action in this House. I am sure the Whips have taken back the message that the membership of the Committee now has to be even more controlled than normal; otherwise, the Government will lose control of the Bill in Committee. We might be able to take action on Report, when the results of the Committee’s deliberations come back to the Floor of the House.
Two areas of concern have been expressed. On children, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) did not say it, but when push comes to shove it is clear where his vote will be on this golden opportunity we are being offered to make not a really good Bill but a world -leading Bill—his colleagues might be with him on that. Similarly, the hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Central Devon mentioned supply chains, which is the second issue. Of course we will be clever and not rub the Prime Minister’s nose in it. We want merely to make a small addition to the Companies Act 2006, under which companies have to report on human rights. Would it not clarify matters if we said that companies also have to report on modern slavery?
Indeed, as the Bill proceeds and more owners of industry in this country realise the risk to which they are exposed through their supply chains, they will be the ones who say to the Prime Minister, “We want the protection of the criminal law. We do not wish, by inaction on our part, to be indicted for this most heinous crime of not paying the attention we should have paid, so far as possible, to clearing our supply chains of human slavery. We want to be able to stand up in court and say that we have fulfilled, in both the letter and the spirit of the law, what the British Parliament has laid down as our responsibility. We stand bravely in the accuser’s box to make our plea.”
The main point I wish to make is that although progress has been made very quickly—the Centre for Social Justice published its report only last Easter and already we have a Bill that is well on its parliamentary way, and well on its way to being improved still further—the truth is that much of the heavy lifting will have to be accomplished later. I am talking about the victims. We have a victim-centred Bill, but none of us should underestimate how big the job will be to try to repair some of the damage that victims have suffered as a result of by being enslaved, either in this country or elsewhere.
The all-party group on hunger and food poverty heard evidence on Monday from Jack Monroe, and it was immensely moving. She has a huge talent for the English language, yet even she had difficulty telling us how broken she had felt when having to feed her child from a food bank. Even now when she hears an unexpected rap at the door, she fears that it is the bailiff or a man coming to cut off her electricity or evict her from her home, even though she is now in calmer territory. If that can happen to someone in this country as a result of being subjected to hunger, it will take more than 45 days to make amends to people who have been broken and humiliated by the experience of being enslaved.
Therefore, we should go joyfully to the task of strengthening the Home Secretary’s hand and fulfilling her wish that this should be a world-leading Bill. As has been said, this could be one of the greatest issues for the Commonwealth since the fight against apartheid, giving it real purpose and the opportunity to change the world. However, let us not kid ourselves. Once the Bill is through and the Home Secretary has got her way, we will face the huge task of not only rescuing enslaved people, as the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate said, but trying to put them back together again after being so abused by the wicked slave owners who until now have operated all too freely in our country.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), and indeed all the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken so well in this important debate. It is truly shocking that more than 200 years after William Wilberforce abolished both the slave trade and slavery throughout the British empire, we are back in the House of Commons having to enact a Modern Slavery Bill, because not only has the job not been done, but slavery around the world is worse today than it has ever been. The issue is at one and the same time completely global and very local. We have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) talk about a shocking case in his constituency, and I will describe an example of modern slavery in my constituency later in my remarks.
When we consider how modern slavery is allowed to happen, we need to keep two words at the front of our minds: violence and fear. Wherever there is modern slavery, forced labour, domestic servitude or people caught in the sex trade, we find violence and fear. That is how the slave traders maintain their hold over their victims, often for many years and sometimes for many decades.
If we look at the global nature of this issue, we will see that, in the 400 years or so that the slave trade was in operation, some 11 million slaves were taken from Africa to be traded across the north Atlantic and elsewhere. Today there are a number of different estimates, but, given the nature of the issue, it is impossible to get accurate figures. In his book “The Locust Effect”, which was published this year, Gary Haugen, who heads up the International Justice Mission, estimates that some 27 million people are in slavery today around the world. That is well over twice the number of slaves taken out of Africa over a 400-year period. On the money made from this evil business, looking at forced labour alone, Mr Haugen estimates a profit of some £7 billion accruing to the slave traders.
We need to think about where slavery is most prevalent in our world, in order to get an idea of its scale not only in the United Kingdom, which is the focus of this Bill, but in a global context. “The Global Slavery Index 2013”, published by the Walk Free Foundation, which is well thought of by President Clinton and former Prime Minister Tony Blair, among others, estimates that there are 14 million slaves in India—by far the biggest figure—and 7 million in Pakistan, with 1 million in the brick factories of Pakistan alone. It names China and Nigeria in third and fourth positions respectively. Other countries are mentioned, including Mauritania, which is the country with the highest proportion of its population—about 4%—in slavery. That gives a bit of context.
Around the world—in India and elsewhere—very few investigations and prosecutions are taking place, which is what happens when a country does not have a properly functioning criminal justice and law enforcement system. We must never take such matters for granted in our country, and I do not think our own international development work will be successful unless we put more effort into helping those countries to which we are sending UK aid to develop their own criminal justice and law enforcement systems.
To return to the United Kingdom—as I know you want me to do, Mr Deputy Speaker—I welcome the Bill and commend the Home Secretary and the Minister for introducing it. The new prevention orders, the establishment of the anti-slavery commissioner and the protective measure of a statutory defence for victims of slavery or trafficking are all welcome, and the child trafficking advocates are also an important addition to our armoury.
I know that the Government will reflect in a mature and sensible way on what is said in Committee. In their response to the pre-legislative scrutiny, the Government said on the issue of supply chains:
“We intend to build on the existing legislative framework, and work with business to establish what more can be done…and develop an evidence base on best practice.”
That is an open and excellent attitude to take.
In my own constituency early one September morning in 2011, 200 police officers from Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire turned up at a Traveller site just south of Leighton Buzzard and liberated 24 people who had been kept in slavery. Some of them had been there for 15 years or more. The youngest—one of my constituents—was only 17; I think that the oldest was 57. Of those 24, 18 were British citizens.
The victims had been picked up in the most appalling and callous ways imaginable. Many of them had been in homeless shelters or soup kitchens, and one had been about to commit suicide. They were promised friendship, work, accommodation and food, but of course none of those things materialised. The regime was very brutal. When they arrived, their heads were shaved, just as happened in the concentration camps. They were made to get up at 5 am every morning, and they worked all day on block paving and other manual and construction work. Indeed, some of them were trafficked from the United Kingdom to work in Scandinavia.
I commend Bedfordshire police for the effort they put in—they assembled 200 officers on a Sunday morning, which no police force does lightly—but the effort was more than justified, and what it managed to achieve was excellent.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
After Bedfordshire police acted to take those people into safety, did they ensure that they had someone they could trust to look after them carefully, with their best interests in mind, because that is the real spirit of the Bill? Once we identify people in slavery, we have a real duty to look after them properly, care about them and put them back into society balanced and happy.
Andrew Selous
My hon. and gallant Friend is absolutely right. I can reassure him that the victims were placed in the very capable hands of the Salvation Army in Bedford, and they were very well looked after. I have since met several of the victims. Indeed, some of them came to this House and saw the exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall organised by Anthony Steen and others. There are some good news stories, in that some of the victims are very well integrated back into society, and are free from the terrible experiences that they went through.
On the issue of reparation, which has been talked about today, I am pleased that the Government said in their response to the pre-legislative scrutiny report that they are committed to quicker and easier reparation. I want such reparations to go to the victims of crime, but I ask the Government to think about how we can get some of the money to the police forces that have undertaken major operations. It is not cheap to send in 200 police officers early on a Sunday morning, given the overtime costs involved. If we made sure that the police gained from slave traders’ illicit profits, that would encourage more chief constables and perhaps more police and crime commissioners to be more willing to commit significant numbers of officers to stamp out the appalling crime that we are all trying to get rid of.
Within Bedfordshire, we have Bedfordshire Against Modern Slavery, which was set up by an excellent councillor, Kristy Adams. I suggest that hon. Members try to encourage some form of grass-roots movement in their areas to combat modern slavery, working alongside the police, the courts, the local authority and central Government. We all have to be involved in this issue together, and the public need to be the eyes and ears of the police. For 15 years or so in my constituency, people worked openly in the community, block paving people’s drives. Did none of the customers of the block paving firm using these slaves think that something was wrong? I think that if people had been slightly more aware and had reported their suspicions to the police, we could have broken this evil slave ring much earlier. The public therefore have a role.
Businesses also have a role, and all decent businesses will of course want to make sure that their supply chains are free of any slave-traded products. The courts and the local authorities have a role to play. We have not heard much about police and crime commissioners, but they are key people up and down our country who have an important influence on how the police spend their time and what they prioritise. Perhaps the sad truth is that police and crime commissioners perceive that there may not be many votes in targeting resources at the issue. Perhaps organisations such as Bedfordshire Against Modern Slavery have a role in ensuring that police and crime commissioners know that the public, as well as Members of Parliament, care about the issue. We want the police to be fully involved.
I pay tribute to the many organisations outside the House that do amazing work to keep the subject on the agenda. The International Justice Mission does that amazing work around the world in mounting prosecutions in many countries where law enforcement is frankly not up to the mark. It has been responsible for liberating many people. Its UK chairman, Raj Parker, and Terry Tennens, its chief executive, deserve credit. Members of Hope for Justice were in the Palace of Westminster only last night, briefing MPs. They estimate that we have 10,000 victims of modern slavery here in the UK. Of course, it is incredibly difficult to get accurate figures—we simply do not know—but that is a shockingly large number, even though it is much smaller than in other countries. Finally, there is the Human Trafficking Foundation and Anthony Steen, who has been mentioned. To me, he is a modern, mini Wilberforce. Many of us are grateful to him for his continued efforts in this campaign, in which we are all united.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is the done thing when one rises to speak to say that the previous speakers have been excellent. However, that is true of today’s debate. It is always difficult to single people out, but I worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) in the previous Session. She had worked for the Children’s Society and is obviously knowledgeable and passionate. During an event at the Labour party conference she introduced me to some children who were in a vulnerable position, and I know just how much she cares about the issue. The Home Office should listen to what she has to say from that front-line perspective of working with children who have been affected by such issues.
As the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said, it is shocking that we are discussing this measure so many years after the House debated the abolition of the slave trade and then the abolition of slavery. I represent one of the seats in Bristol, which of course has a historical connection with the slave trade. I was recently at a memorial for Tony Benn in the John Wesley chapel, the oldest Methodist building in the world, in the city centre. We were told that when John Wesley preached in the pulpit against slavery, riots were instigated by congregations of the other churches, which had been built by the slave traders, and very much supported the slave trade. As I said in my maiden speech, the church of St Mary Redcliffe rang the bells when the first attempts in Parliament to abolish the slave trade failed because the congregation thought that it was a good thing for the city.
Although we are very aware of the legacy, many people in Bristol would be unaware of the extent to which slavery still exists in this country. There was a horrifying case in the Bristol papers last month, when we found that people had been victims of modern slavery on our doorstep. Avon and Somerset police secured the conviction of a woman, who was sentenced for only three years, which is probably on the lenient side, for human trafficking and forced labour. She had lured 11 known victims from Lithuania to work for a pittance in Bristol. We were not sure whether they were told that they would have to pay for their travel, but the cost was deducted from their wages, which were much lower than the minimum wage, and their rent was deducted. They were not quite kept captive, but they were locked in the building without keys and could come and go only through windows. Their job was to collect those charity bags that are often delivered through doors and people are asked to leave them out filled with clothes. They were definitely exploited. They were not paid at all. If they asked for the wages they had been promised, they were threatened with eviction. As I said, the woman responsible has just been given a soft sentence of just three years. Only last week, we heard that four men were arrested in Cardiff and Bristol as part of another long-running police investigation into forced labour.
The Lithuanian case came to light after social services contacted the police. I congratulate the local agencies on bringing that case and securing the conviction. Some of the victims are being helped by the Salvation Army, as the victims were in the case highlighted by the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire. The local police and crime commissioner has told me that Avon and Somerset police are focusing on increasing their intelligence picture and training staff to improve the response to human trafficking. They are working with Unseen UK. Many Members who have taken an interest in the debate will be aware of that charity—it is a national charity but is Bristol-based. The founder visited an orphanage in Ukraine. When he asked what would happen to the children when they left the orphanage, he was shocked to hear that many would be trafficked into the sex trade—some would be trafficked into forced labour, but most were trafficked into the sex trade. Unseen has done an incredibly good job, particularly in working with the victims of sex trafficking in Bristol and elsewhere.
The local police now form part of a multi-agency response through the greater Bristol anti-trafficking partnership, and are improving their early response for victims by training 100 first-response officers. As my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Wigan and others have mentioned, one obstacle is the time limit on funding for intensive support under the national referral mechanism. Many victims require much longer support than the 45-day recovery and reflection period. The Salvation Army does a wonderful job, but we cannot continue to rely on such organisations stepping in on a voluntary level. We need to ensure that those mechanisms exist. It should not depend on whether the places where the victims are freed from slavery happen to have an effective Salvation Army operation.
Bob Stewart
Some charities suggest that everyone who is rescued should have a guardian to ensure that they are properly looked after. Does the hon. Lady agree that it should not just be the Salvation Army, but a state-run system?
Kerry McCarthy
That is a valid point. The problem with leaving things to the voluntary sector is that provision can be piecemeal and ad hoc. In some cases, voluntary organisations will provide a brilliant service, which is exactly what is needed, but unless we put things on another footing, we can never be sure that people are not slipping through the net, particularly children—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan made strongly in her speech.
We must also look overseas to see the other end of the chain. In my capacity as a shadow Foreign Office Minister, I recently met the Pacific Links Foundation, a charity that works to combat trafficking in Vietnam and helps victims with reintegration services if they return there. The foundation gave harrowing accounts of boys trafficked to the UK to work in cannabis farms. Girls were trafficked for forced marriages or to work in brothels or illegal nail bars—sometimes, the illegal nail bars were also brothels. Protecting such vulnerable children requires international co-operation. We must also consider the poverty, and lack of education and opportunity, that leaves people vulnerable to trafficking in the first place. They can also leave people vulnerable to having their children trafficked—people can end up working with traffickers and allowing their children to be taken abroad. Pacific Links highlighted to me why it is so important accurately to identify trafficking victims as vulnerable people in need of support. Children returned to Vietnam without any support systems risk being trafficked again. They or their families could be liable for a perceived debt to the traffickers, or they could be rejected by their communities if they are known to have worked in the sex trade.
In the light of the information that Pacific Links gave me, I encourage the Home Secretary to respond constructively to the criticism that the Bill does not go far enough on specific protections for children, as my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan, for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Slough, and others, have mentioned. It is not a matter of having a specific provision relating to trafficked children in the Bill. We should also guarantee independent legal guardians, and ensure that children are not liable for prosecution so that they do not have to invoke a statutory defence.
While I welcome the general thrust of the Bill, the omission of any provisions to legislate against slavery in supply chains is noticeable. There has been a groundswell of support for robust action and increasing recognition that voluntary agreements are insufficient. I was contacted by many constituents, both in the run-up to this debate and before the Queen’s Speech, supporting the campaign to legislate against slavery in the supply chain. They point out that many businesses back the Joint Committee’s recommendation for such legislation.
Since then, The Guardian has published its six-month investigation into the Thai fishing industry, which has been mentioned, with evidence that slaves have been forced to work for no pay and under threat of extreme violence, to produce goods sold in UK, US and European supermarkets. In 2012, the EU imported more than $1 billion-worth of seafood from Thailand. The paper reports that the workers were bought and sold like animals and held against their will on fishing boats. They included migrant workers from Burma and Cambodia. Other reports, such as the Environmental Justice Foundation’s “Sold to the Sea” report, provide similar accounts. A report by Finnwatch into Thai factories made allegations of forced and child labour, illegally low wages, excessive working hours, abuse by managers and unsafe working hours. A British man, Andy Hall, is currently facing prosecution in Thailand for his efforts to expose those matters.
I raised with the Home Secretary earlier the fact that the Prime Minister’s spokesman, when asked about the need to legislate against slavery in the supply chain, said that it is up to consumers to make a decision. The Home Secretary responded to me by drawing an analogy with Fairtrade. I would say that that is completely wrong. I am a great believer in consumer power, whether supporting products that are not tested on animals or supporting Fairtrade products. The difference is that we do not say that products not produced by Fairtrade means are completely unethical and immoral. I would argue that Fairtrade is the better alternative, but there is nothing horrific or criminal about the way the other products are produced. With slavery in the supply chain, it is patently obvious that there is.
Consumers simply do not know whether something is produced by slave labour. Yes, we can have public campaigns where we say, “Don’t buy Thai seafood because it might be linked to slavery in the supply chain and we think north American seafood is more trustworthy”, but most consumers will not know unless we have logos saying that something is produced by slaves or not produced by slaves. That sends out a message that something being produced by slaves is somehow all right, like going for dolphin-friendly tuna, but that is an invidious message to send. Consumer power is important in lobbying MPs, but we should first legislate against slavery in the supply chain.
Reports of labels being stitched into Primark clothes alleging sweatshop conditions have already been mentioned. The Rana Plaza tragedy has been spoken about in this House before. Labour Behind the Label, a Bristol-based national campaigning organisation, works to support garment workers around the globe. Consumer pressure is really important in highlighting these issues, but I do not think that we should leave to consumers the choice between something produced by slave labour and something not produced by slave labour. One way for the Government to step up to the mark would be by reinstating their support for the International Labour Organisation, which they withdrew when the coalition was elected.
After the report on the Thai fishing industry, the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), then a Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, announced that the British Retail Consortium would make recommendations to eradicate human rights abuses from the supply chain. This requires strong leadership from Ministers and for the UK to send a strong message to our trading partners around the globe. The Government response to the Joint Committee said that they would
“work collaboratively with businesses to support them to eliminate forced labour in supply chains, in a way which does not place additional burdens on them”.
I am worried that the Home Office will say that it does not want to place an additional burden on business with more red tape as a way of wriggling around this. Businesses ought to care about whether there is slavery in their supply chain. If that creates an additional burden or onus on them to investigate their supply chain, well that is something they have a moral obligation to do.
As consumers, we need transparency and accountability from companies. Amnesty International has said that legislating for supply chain due diligence along the lines of the Californian Transparency in Supply Chains Act will help create a corporate culture in the UK that will be intolerant of modern forms of slavery and enable it to be rooted out of the labour market. I agree.
Finally, I hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider the decision not to protect migrant domestic workers. Each year around 15,000 migrant domestic workers visit the UK with their employers to look after their families and homes. They will come here legally with those families, and many will be completely happy in their work. But the Human Rights Watch report “Hidden Away” shows that some are exposed to abuse and exploitation with no protection from the British authorities. Some have been subjected to physical, sexual and verbal abuse, confined to their homes, isolated from any contact with their families back home and given no access to a phone. Their passports have been confiscated. They are paid far below the minimum wage and, in some cases, not paid at all.
Human Rights Watch is particularly concerned that two developments since April 2012 have left domestic workers even more vulnerable and isolated, and risk the Government neglecting their obligations to them under national and international law. The first is cuts to legal aid, which have cut off their opportunities to seek help and redress and mean that there is no longer even the threat of taking their employers to employment tribunals because they cannot afford to do so. The second is that migrant workers are now less likely to seek help due to the coalition’s tied visa rules, which prevent them from changing employers; something we have heard mentioned in the debate. The fact that they risk losing their immigration status if they leave gives the employer tremendous power over them, particularly as many migrant workers have heavy financial responsibilities at home and have no choice but to endure staying with the employer that is treating them incredibly badly.
The then UN special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants concluded after a visit to the UK in 2009 that the right to change employer had been instrumental in facilitating the escape of migrant domestic workers from exploitative and abusive situations. Reversing the bar, and going back to the situation that applied in 2009, on changing employer is a practical step that the coalition could take to protect workers. The Human Rights Watch report suggests that the Government are not prepared to look at the issue of tied visas and I would be grateful if the Minister responded on that.
The UK in 2011 was one of only nine states not to vote for the ILO domestic workers convention, which was supported by 173 Governments. The coalition then rejected recommendations during the UK’s universal periodic review to ratify the convention. Again I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether she feels there is any prospect of the UK signing up to it and joining the 173 Governments who have done so.
I do not want to end on a negative note. I am incredibly pleased and proud that the House is debating the issue and will bring it forward. I do not agree with the Home Secretary that we do not have enough time to make the Bill as good as possible. I think she was implying that we need to accept the Bill because it is at least a pretty big step in the right direction. I think we have plenty of time between now and the end of this parliamentary Session to make sure that we make the Bill as tough and strong as possible for those people who have been subjected to absolutely hideous treatment and to make sure that as few people as possible are subjected to it in the future.
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). I saw the report in the paper to which she referred and thought, like her, that a three-year sentence for the serious criminal behind those abuses was too light. Hardly a day goes by when we do not have yet another report in the paper of different forms of modern day slavery. I commend the Home Secretary, as previous speakers said, on having the determination to bring in a Bill on modern day slavery in the final Session of Parliament before a general election. I commend her also on the way in which she has built the consensus about which we have heard over the last four hours or so in the Chamber. She has built consensus with all parties to make sure that we get the Bill on to the statute book.
My right hon. Friend had the foresight to appoint the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) to chair the Joint Committee of both Houses, a decision for which I respect her. I thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to serve on that Committee. It is probably true to say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you really would not have known from which political party the Members of both Houses hailed as they sat on the Committee due to their absolute determination to do their best in that pre-legislative scrutiny exercise.
If this Bill is to be world class, it must tackle the issue of modern day slavery on a global scale. When we as a country are implicated, it is no good turning our backs to where the majority of the slavery occurs. I shall, therefore, focus on the issue of the supply chain.
There are various estimates of the number of slaves globally—as high a figure as 30 million has been given, yet that is probably an underestimate. It is appalling to think just how profitable this despicable trade in human beings is, generating an estimated $150 billion each year. We must use the Bill to send a clear signal, not just at home but abroad, that criminals who perpetrate these crimes will not prosper in our country. We do not want them to prosper through any intervention of ours either inside or outside this country. The Bill will become the first Act of its kind in Europe, and tougher sentences for this human piracy will help send that strong signal. The Bill undertakes an important exercise in streamlining existing legislation and ensuring that there are no gaps in the law through which criminals can evade prosecution.
Through William Wilberforce, we have an important legacy to live up to; he had the courage and moral determination over years and years to ensure that this country got rid of terrible injustice perpetrated on poor people outside our shores. That is the spirit in which we need to look at supply chains and how they impact on people—abroad, but in ways in which we as a country are implicated.
Mindful of our reputation as one of the leading legal jurisdictions in the world—we have a proud history of the rule of law—we can do no less than pick up from where Wilberforce left off and continue his fight against this inhumanity, wherever it occurs. It can be a difficult issue for any Government. We obviously do not want to burden business unnecessarily, but I genuinely doubt whether British businesses out there would knowingly associate themselves with this blight on humanity. Despite our current efforts, however, businesses often do not have clear oversight of their complex supply chains. We saw that in the experience of Primark, caught up in the collapse of the factory in Rana Plaza. It might well have undergone due diligence on the seventh floor of that factory to establish that the working conditions were all right on the floor it had contracted for garment workers to work; it realised in hindsight, however, that it needed to go beyond that and to look at the floors above and below to see what was going on there.
As I say, not a day goes by without an example of modern day slavery taking place, and the problem with the supply chains should be properly exposed. I want to put a case study briefly before the House, and it is thanks to the Human Trafficking Foundation that I am able to do so. The person cannot be named, but is otherwise present.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I may be able to help. He can be named, but we cannot point out that the person is present—that is the difference.
Mrs Spelman
I think that the record will reveal to the wider world the true position. I am grateful to the Human Trafficking Foundation for bringing these cases to our attention.
One particular example shows why the supply chain issue must be tackled. It comes from the Islington law centre, and it concerns 10 Hungarian men who were trafficked to the UK. They were told that they would earn £250 a week with good accommodation and food, but they received only £10 a week and two packets of cigarettes. They were told nothing more until they had paid back the £400-worth of flight costs incurred in coming here. It was the equivalent of 40 weeks’ work just to pay that back. They worked first in a slaughterhouse, then a bed factory and then a tile factory. Interestingly enough, that bed factory was a supplier to the household name John Lewis, which terminated the contract when it found out, and the bed factory has now been closed. The labourers, the factory and John Lewis were all exploited by the traffickers, and in their own way they have all been victims.
Only one trafficker was arrested, because the others got away too quickly, and by the time that trafficker had been charged, all the assets had been transferred back to Hungary. That is a prime example of why we need the Bill. As for the issue of the supply chain, I doubt very much that a company such as John Lewis would want to find itself in the same position again—to find that its very high reputation had again been damaged by the discovery that products which were on sale in its stores, and which we could buy, had been produced by slave labour.
We need to balance the debate. Is the Bill a burden on business? Does business want it or not? All the businesses that gave evidence to the Joint Committee made clear that they wanted a level playing field—that they wanted the law to change so that we did not have to depend on best practice, because it would be crystal clear that companies must undertake due diligence to ensure that no part of their supply chain could be touched by modern-day slavery.
The answer to the problem lies with all of us: Governments, companies, employees, consumers and shareholders, all working together. We need to require Britain’s public companies to engage with their shareholders on their supply chains in their annual reports by amending the Companies Act 2006, which would create the level playing field that the businesses that have been harmed say they want to see. That was what the Joint Committee recommended to the Government. From now on, British corporate governance and social responsibility ought explicitly to include human rights in supply chains. How companies deal with the issue in detail, along with their shareholders, customers and employers, should be left to their good conscience, but the requirement in law would be there. I certainly have faith that British companies will do the right thing; they usually do.
In the end, the change requires just five words. That way, Britain will not turn its back on millions of suffering people around the world. We will be able to shine a light on those shadowy areas through the time-tested strength of our great legal system, and we will challenge all nations that respect the rule of law to follow suit, and join Britain in consigning this horrific crime to the history books once and for all.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman). Like other Members, she referred to horrific and harrowing cases, which are all the more persuasive because they arise from incidents that are occurring in this country today.
Benjamin Franklin said that slavery was
“an atrocious debasement of human nature”.
He said that a long time ago, and, as we know, it was a long time ago that William Wilberforce campaigned for the abolition of slavery. I think that it would surprise many of my constituents to know that it is still here, in all its grisly and awful reality. The Bill bears clear testimony to the fact that slavery, and the effects of slavery, are still to be found.
We in Plaid Cymru welcome the Bill, and strongly support it. It extends only to England and Wales, which explains the absence of my Scottish colleagues. People in my constituency probably wonder whether modern slavery exists in our area of far-flung rural north-west Wales. In fact, one of the largest cannabis factories in the United Kingdom was discovered in my constituency about 18 months ago.
We are glad that the Government have heeded some of the Joint Committee’s recommendations—although, as has already been said, only some. The Committee’s report argued in particular that the Bill could be improved by the addition of stronger provisions for the protection of victims of slavery, and specifically that the Crown Prosecution Service should be provided with guidance on the non-prosecution of victims. That point has been made again today, and I strongly agree with it.
The report also called for the Bill to provide for a system of guardianship for child victims of slavery, for a review of the visa status of overseas domestic workers and for an anti-slavery commissioner to be appointed independent from Government. I made that point earlier to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), who made a persuasive speech. The report also called for the Government to look at legislation in California dedicated to tackling modern slavery in supply chains by requiring businesses to report on what steps they had taken to eradicate the practice. That matter has also been referred to by many Members.
The Committee report, published on 8 April, said that witnesses saw the draft Bill as a bit of a “cut and paste” exercise. Other Members have referred to existing offences being pasted into the Bill. The Committee argued that it would be a missed opportunity if better provisions to protect children and to eradicate modern slavery in supply chains were not included in the Bill.
The report in particular called for provisions on victim care to be given a statutory footing; for changes to be made so that victims could access compensation more expediently; for the creation of a separate offence of exploiting and trafficking a child; for the anti-slavery commissioner to be independent from Government; and for the establishment of a statutory system of advocates.
Bob Stewart
We have heard that the Salvation Army is a fantastic organisation. I understand that it does not actually look after victims; it sub-lets that to other organisations. I understand from Anthony Steen that it would be a very good thing if our Government, rather than spending £25,000 a year looking after a victim in this country, gave £3,000 to the victim and the Government of the country from where they came to retrain those people and look after them properly. That would be a good use of taxpayers’ money.
Hywel Williams
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. We have heard several times about the need to care for people who have been subjected to modern slavery. The Bill should also deal with that aspect. People are trafficked and people come to this country for non-existent jobs. They are driven by poverty and other factors, including low wages, in their own country. Equalisation of economies throughout western and eastern Europe would tackle that issue in the long term.
I am glad that the Government have agreed to introduce child trafficking advocates, whose role needs to be strengthened, and that they have conceded that courts should have the ability to have regard to certain characteristics that victims possess— such as their age, disabilities and family relationships—in assessing whether they were more vulnerable than others would be when a crime was committed.
The Bill does fall short, unfortunately, most notably in failing to compel businesses to take steps to ensure that no slavery is involved in their supply chains, as well as in failing to amend the existing rules concerning domestic work visas. The Bill has been criticised by UNICEF for failing to include adequate measures to protect trafficked children.
Stop the Traffik has written to me this week, and I think to all other MPs, on the issue. As the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) has pointed out, according to the International Labour Organisation, forced labour generates about $150 billion every year, exploiting 21 million people. Of that huge sum, $43 billion can be attributed to non-domestic non-sexual forced labour in agriculture, construction, mining and manufacturing. We are talking about a huge amount of money.
We have heard about the case exposed in The Guardian, which uncovered the use of forced labour by the Thailand-based company Charoen Pokphand Foods, which exploited men who were made to work against their will on fishing boats. Not amending the Bill to include a responsibility on businesses to ensure that no modern slavery occurs in their supply chains would be to perpetuate a fatal flaw. In the present situation, we cannot depend on consumers or, unfortunately, on companies to ensure there is not modern slavery in their supply chains.
The Joint Committee recommended that the Government should amend section 414 of the Companies Act 2006, which at present places a duty on companies to report on “social, community and human rights issues” at the end of each financial year. It recommended that “slavery” be added to the list of issues to be reported upon. Businesses’ reports should detail what steps they have taken to verify their supply chains as well as whether they have audited their suppliers and certified goods supplied by those suppliers. The Committee was supported in this recommendation by both Primark and Tesco, but unfortunately the Government have refused to amend the 2006 Act, arguing it is too early to say whether the provisions already in place are adequate.
On domestic worker visas, changes to the immigration rules in April 2012 mean that domestic workers in private households have leave to stay in the UK for only six months, and we heard further details on this matter from other hon. Members. Kalayaan, the charity that provides advocacy for migrant domestic workers, reports an increase in the exploitation of this group since the new rules came into force, and points to a number of alarming facts. Migrant domestic workers who are tied to their employers have been twice as likely to report having been physically abused by their employers, and 71% of those subject to the new rules are reported as being effectively imprisoned in the homes where they are working. Some 53% of those on the new visa have reported working more than 16 hours a day, as opposed to 32% of those who still have the right to change employer and remain in the UK. According to internal assessments conducted by Kalayaan staff, 69% of those on the new visa were trafficked, compared with 26% of those who are not tied. The Modern Slavery Bill evidence review panel is calling on the Government to “consider reinstating the rights” of overseas domestic worker visa-holders “to change employer”, but that has been rejected, as far as I can see, with the Government steadfastly refusing to change their mind.
Groups including UNICEF have highlighted the need to improve aspects of this Bill which seek to protect children. At least 10 children are trafficked every single week in the UK. UNICEF argues that the definition of human trafficking in clause 2 of the Bill should reflect the international definition of trafficking enshrined in the UN Palermo Protocol as well as the EU trafficking directive. UNICEF also believes that the Bill should be explicit in defining a child as a person under the age of 18, so as to ensure that cases involving children are always considered in a fundamentally distinct way.
Although the new statutory defence for victims of trafficking who have been compelled by their slavery to commit an offence is welcome, it does not go as far as the non-prosecution principle recommended by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2014.
Lastly, the enabling power to put child trafficking advocates on a statutory footing should be strengthened. UNICEF has argued that independent guardians with legal powers should be introduced for all separated migrant and trafficked children, and that the principles of guardianship should be included in this Bill, including that advocates must be independent from public authorities, and that they should have adequate legal powers and be able to instruct a solicitor on the child’s behalf.
The Bill before us today is certainly a step in the right direction, but the issues that I have highlighted, and those which have been highlighted in other speeches, must not be ignored. We owe it to victims of modern slavery to get this right.
Sir John Randall (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
I draw attention to my entry in the Members’ register as trustee of the Human Trafficking Foundation.
One of the problems with being called to speak in the middle and later stages of a debate is that all the things one wants to say have been said, but this is such an important issue that I think they bear repeating, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) because I will address again many of the points he made.
In the 17 years I have been in this place, I have seen the passage of much legislation—some of it good, some excellent and some less good—but it is an absolute privilege to speak in today’s Second Reading debate on the Modern Slavery Bill. The Prime Minister and in particular the Home Secretary should be congratulated on introducing it. We heard in her excellent opening speech the obvious sincerity and enthusiasm with which she is embracing this subject. I know that she and the Minister have engaged and continue to engage constructively with the issues we are raising now as helpful criticism of the Bill.
As has been said probably by every speaker today, a large part of the reason we have this Bill is the hard work and evangelical zeal of notable people both inside and outside Parliament. As we have discovered, no discussion of modern-day slavery can avoid mentioning my erstwhile hon. Friend Anthony Steen. In fact, this feels a bit like Banquo’s ghost. I remember sitting behind him on the Opposition Benches as he was putting through a private Member’s Bill to recognise anti-slavery day in the dying stages of the last Parliament. As a Whip, I was encouraging him to stop speaking because there was a danger that he might just talk out his own Bill. Anybody who knows Anthony well knows that, sometimes, getting him to stop speaking is the hardest thing. He is passionate, persistent and persuasive on this subject and always puts the victims first. However, unlike Banquo’s ghost, whose presence is all around us, he is very much alive and kicking.
There are others too in this House who took this issue on when it was very much a Cinderella issue. I have chosen my words carefully: Cinderella is a potent example of slavery and forced labour, one that ordinary people and children can understand. Unfortunately, as we know and have heard today, existences such as Cinderella’s have been going on for some time and have not been eradicated. Here, I should also mention my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who always speaks passionately on this issue, and the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), whom I hope we will hear from shortly. He speaks passionately about issues such as supply chains and the need for transparency, and he is a little bit like Anthony Steen, in that sometimes it is difficult to shut him up on this subject, but that is only because of his passionate determination to get his message across. That is something we in this House should be proud of.
Someone I became associated with on the draft Bill and during the Home Secretary’s evidence review was the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), whom I found an inspiration. His reasonableness and ability to get things through without going over the top was remarkable. He is another person who should be noted on today’s roll of honour. I should also mention Lady Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, who will head the Government’s historical child abuse inquiry. I know she will do an excellent job, but I hope she will have time to deal with the Bill when it goes to the other place. Without her drive and abilities, the Bill would not be served well.
I came rather late to this issue, because I had other duties. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead referred to the job my former comrades do as Whips, but when we sit on the Bench silently it does not mean that we do not listen to what is going on. Our silence is not always for bad reasons; we absorb the debate. One thing I have found is that the more someone understands this issue, realising the enormity and barbarity of it, the more they become involved with it and they end up not being able to let it go. I would put myself in that position. One thing I was pleased to discover in the Bill, and generally, is that we are using the term “modern slavery”, because the term “human trafficking” does not quite convey exactly what we are talking about. To a lot of our constituents “human trafficking” might mean something a little different; it might just mean illegal immigration in some respects. As we have discovered, and as most in this House will know, we are talking about something that is far, far more than that.
I am not just congratulating the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), and the Home Secretary because I am hoping that by buttering them up they will listen more to our arguments; the Under-Secretary has only recently been appointed, she has been immersing herself completely in the subject and getting up to speed, and she has been a valuable asset to the whole process. I could also mention lots of non-governmental organisations here, but, as has been said, an amazing number of people out there in all sorts of sectors are involved in this field and they do a fantastic job. Again, they are powerful advocates, and the number of hon. Members who have spoken today having obviously been talking to their local NGOs, or to other NGOs that have been pressing their case, is testimony to that.
Like everybody else, I want the Bill to be the best we can produce. I believe it was the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) who said that there was no problem on the time scales, but I have to take slight issue with that. There is a problem with time scales, because we are off in August and we come back only briefly in September, before an extended period away because of the referendum in Scotland. We have to get the Bill out of this House—we are okay in this House because we have timetabling—and into the other House, which has lots of experts in lots of these fields and no timetabling. That is why we have to ration ourselves as to what we do and how we want to get it achieved.
We have heard about most of the things that most Members think we could improve the Bill with, the most obvious one being transparency in supply chains, which I shall speak about briefly—I have a feeling there is a better speech coming on that. Businesses would welcome that and the idea that we amend section 414C of the Companies Act 2006 to include modern slavery in the provision is a good start. One person who has not been mentioned and who is backing this is Sir Richard Branson—a powerful name to add to our campaign. One thing we have to get over to businesses is that we are not trying to penalise them; we are actually trying to help them. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) eloquently said, they do not want to be tarnished or tainted with having slavery in their supply chain. It is not a matter of sneaking around, finding out, exposing them and then penalising them; we want them to have the ability to go down their supply chain. One problem with all these things is that they will ask somebody, who will ask somebody else, and somebody in some far-distant land may say, “Don’t worry about this, it is all okay.” We want to be able to give businesses the information that it is far from okay, because they may not have the resources to check all the way down the supply chain.
There are other things that we want to do on this issue, but they probably relate more to policy than to legislation, and we must not get the two confused. We have heard quite a lot about the work of Kalayaan and the change in the visa rules for overseas domestic workers. I have to say that a lot of those arguments are powerful, but there is a debate to be had on that matter, and I am not sure whether it should be in the Bill. I know that I get harangued for this view, but I just wonder why so many people are coming here to be domestic workers when possibly there are people here who could fulfil those roles. I am not sure; all I am saying is that we should debate this matter. Changing the visa rules had a detrimental effect, and we can see that, but we must look at it in more detail.
We have talked about the national referral mechanism and the 45 days. There is a review going on, and we should wait to see what happens with that. It is obviously bizarre to think that, after 45 days, a victim is in a fit state to be effectively thrown on to the street and to have us say, “That’s it. Job done. Off you go.” Different victims will need different assistance and different lengths of time.
A little while ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) said that some people might want to go back to their country of origin. We must remember though that not all victims are from abroad; there are also victims who are in the UK and UK citizens who are being trafficked abroad.
I went to Albania with Anthony Steen, because we wanted to see whether the many Albanians who have been trafficked here—they are one of the largest groups at the moment—could go back to their own country. Sadly, the state of the country is not conducive to people going back. There is still a huge stigma, certainly in some parts of the country, about people who have been trafficked and who have been used in the sex trade in particular. The idea that we could simply return people home is not right. We have to help these countries improve their infrastructure so that there is something for people to go back to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) said that she had seen some comments on a blog—it is always unwise to look at the comments on blogs—that effectively said that these measures were for left-wing feminstas. Obviously, those people do not understand the issues involved. I say to them that if they had been lucky enough to speak to victims—I say lucky because when one speaks to them and hears what they have been through one’s life is suddenly changed—they would find that slavery is probably going on within half of mile of where they live. If they realised that, they would not say such things.
One problem is education. I often speak at local meetings; sometimes I am asked to speak on a subject that is close to my heart. It is probably easier in my constituency to talk about modern slavery than it is about HS2, the expansion of the airport or some of the other issues that might raise hackles. In those meetings, I have been pleasantly surprised by people’s reactions. It is almost as if their eyes have been opened. They say, “Yes, I know what you mean now.”
I spoke at St Margaret’s church in Uxbridge a few months ago. It was not a particularly religious meeting but it was held in a church. When I mentioned the subject, some policemen said, “Yes, we are looking at that. We recognise it.” A representative from the church said that they thought that someone was coming in who was a victim. One thing that each one of us in this House can do is to be an advocate and get this subject out to the public—to our constituents and to our families and friends.
My son is an actor and he was part of a project that took a play called “Sold”, which was all about human trafficking and for which they had spoken to people involved, to the Edinburgh festival. All those young people, who knew very little about the issue beforehand, have become complete advocates, spreading the message. That is what we must do. We can pass legislation, help all sorts of people and do wonderful things, but unless the public can help us by understanding and recognising the problem, we will not be able to get it reported.
I am involved with another organisation, just in a casual way, called Just Enough UK, which is going around schools to explain the issue. It has used the Cinderella model as well as Fagin, with all the boys being made to steal. That still goes on. The youngsters—they are in primary schools as well as secondary schools—suddenly twig.
Michael Connarty
I am enjoying the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, but I think I need to intervene to point out that there was never a Fagin. Fagin is a mythical character. The true story, which was recorded in the courts, involved a group of Italian men who brought young boys who thought they were going to apprenticeships in Milan to the UK and trained them to steal. Anti-Semitism allowed Dickens to create Fagin as the Jew exploiting boys, and it is incorrect to repeat that.
Sir John Randall
I am only repeating what Dickens said. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which I think makes another point entirely, but what I am saying is that a lot of people will be acquainted with the story of Oliver Twist, not just from the novel but from the musical. It might be regrettable that it has become a symbol of anti-Semitism, but the fact is that young people can understand the concept of youngsters being made to steal. We must ensure that young people are aware of the issue. They are incredibly observant and good at recognising strange behaviour among other kids and at seeing other things that are going on.
That is all I want to say at this stage. I look forward to the further stages of the Bill, because I think it can be improved. There are things that we have to do and I hope that the mood of consensual but friendly criticism can continue. So far, what I have heard and seen from the Home Secretary, the Minister and Home Office officials has been consistent with that. We will differ on one or two points and that is where there might be room for powerful debates, powerful arguments and powerful speeches. I am afraid that they are not my forte, but I might be able to do the right thing in the Division Lobby.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) highlights the importance of emphasising that this issue affects every constituency in this country and every Member in this House. Although on the one hand I think he is right to point out that people are sometimes not aware of it, at the same time the awareness of this issue around the country is why there was such strong lobbying from churches, NGOs, trade unions and individual members of the public as the Bill was prepared and as it reached Second Reading. I join those who have paid tribute to the many people inside and outside the House who have campaigned on the issue for so long.
Like many Members who have spoken, I want to see a number of major improvements to the Bill. In saying that, I do not want to detract from the fact that it has been introduced by the Government, as I recognise the major step that it represents.
Given my constituency, my initial concern is how the Bill will impact on Scotland and my constituency. As it stands, it does not apply to Scotland. It extends only to England and Wales because in Scotland the matters it covers fall under the responsibility and competence of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. A human trafficking Bill is expected to go through the Scottish Parliament shortly. It was brought forward initially as a private Member’s Bill by my Labour colleague, Jenny Marra, the Member of the Scottish Parliament for North East Scotland, and it has been adopted by the Scottish Government as a Government Bill, which they expect to introduce in the current Session.
I am glad that Bills are being promoted in both England and Wales and in Scotland, but it is clear that in this area, more than most, there needs to be seamless working between Governments and law enforcement agencies across England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I understand from the Joint Committee report that the Scottish Government recognise that aspects of this may be covered by a devolved competence, but that they should be taken forward at UK level. I would welcome some comments from the Minister, if she has time, about how she envisages the legislation in England and Wales and in Scotland, and the responsibilities of the various law enforcement agencies, working together when the Bills, we hope, become law.
Those areas that I, like many other Members, identify as gaps in the Bill are ones which relate to UK-wide competence, not to devolved competence—issues relating to the supply chain in particular and the requirement for companies to report on such things in their annual reports, and the proposal to extend the remit of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that another area that might be worth revisiting as the Bill goes through relates to women who are referred to the national referral mechanism in connection with prostitution? Would it not be good if the Government looked at the current law to see whether it has an effect on trafficking?
Mark Lazarowicz
That would be a valuable point to examine, although it is not one of the UK-wide matters to which I was referring. I am sure my hon. Friend makes an important point.
I do not wish to detract from the generally excellent report from the Joint Committee, but I see that although it recommends that the Bill should cover the Gangmasters Licensing Authority and the provisions in the Companies Act 2006, it does not say that the territorial extent of the Bill should be extended beyond England and Wales. I do not suggest that a Committee with such prestigious members could have committed an oversight or an omission, but that proposition needs to be considered and it would have to be dealt with at UK level.
Issues relating to the supply chain have been identified by many of our constituents. They are rightly concerned that goods, products and services that we can purchase in the UK are produced under conditions which, by any definition, would count as slavery or something close to that. We should not miss the opportunity of addressing that while the Bill is going through the House.
I take the point that Members have made about not wanting to delay the Bill so that it risks not becoming law, but the proposals from the Joint Committee in relation to the GLA and to changes to the Companies Act are very limited in scope. I cannot imagine that they would do anything other than widen the appeal of the Bill, and I do not see how they would risk its passage in this House or the other place.
We have had examples in Scotland of exploitation and forced labour—the kind of work that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority is designed to address—in areas of activity not yet covered by the GLA. From a Scottish perspective, I support this change. That cannot be taken forward at Scottish level only, because of the way the devolution settlement is structured. That is a good reason why it should be dealt with at UK level, and the Bill is the place to do it.
Similarly, the proposal to amend the Bill so as to amend the Companies Act to require companies to include modern slavery in their annual strategic reports is sensible and proportionate, and the specific explanations suggested by the Joint Committee are ones that I support. Comments from many Members suggest that there is wide support for such a measure. This again is UK legislation under the Companies Act and it seems to be a missed opportunity at this time, when there might not be an opportunity under a future Government for us to have legislation on this matter for some time to come. It is an opportunity that should not be thrown away and a reform that should not be delayed. I suspect that one of the concerns in some quarters about including requirements on companies is that UK companies will be put at a disadvantage—a concern that our companies might lose out to other companies that are not being put under the microscope in the same way. However, as many right hon. and hon. Members have said, the good company that wants to be a world leader does not want to benefit from modern slavery or forced labour. We should not have fears in that respect. In any event, as the Joint Committee has highlighted, other countries have passed similar legislation. For example, legislation has been passed in California. I hope that, just as we were world leaders when we passed the Climate Change Act 2008 nearly seven years ago, this legislation will be followed in other countries. We will be contributing to a worldwide movement by setting an early example. Although I accept that this will be anathema to certain Eurosceptics in the House, it may well be that our legislation encourages European countries to adopt similar European-wide measures for their companies.
Modern slavery is a complex issue. It requires international action. We cannot solve this problem in the UK alone, but we should not reject the chance to take the action that we can when we can do so. No one in the House would want to congratulate ourselves on taking action to tackle forced labour and slavery at home while turning a blind eye to more extensive examples elsewhere in the world if we had a chance to do something about it. The amendments that I and colleagues have referred to today show how we can take action to require our companies to act in a more socially responsible manner and encourage better employment practices to oppose forced labour and slavery worldwide, and in so doing encourage other countries and other companies to do the same.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I join the many others who have spoken in wholeheartedly welcoming the Bill. Slavery is an abhorrent crime with no place in our society. Sadly, it exists in virtually every community. I join the tribute that many others have paid to all those who have been responsible for getting us to this point. Groups and individuals up and down the country have campaigned tirelessly to see this law introduced. I commend the work of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), with whom I have had the great privilege of working closely on the all-party parliamentary group on hunger and food poverty in recent weeks. I endorse what was said about his reasonableness and desire to find a way forward that brought together so many of the different points of view.
Soon after I was elected, I was walking home from this place with one of my new colleagues late one evening, and she said to me, “Who in this place has made a big difference over the past 15 or 20 years?” I paused for a moment and thought back over Cabinet Ministers on both sides. I will not say who I mentioned, but she said, “No, it’s Anthony Steen.” I thought for a moment, and then she explained all the work on human trafficking that he had done and started here. She was right, and it is interesting that someone who had 36 years in this place, and who started the process of getting to where we are today, has gone on to make so much difference. He is a great example to many of us who came into the House four years ago.
The Bill presents a crucial opportunity for us to address trafficking in the UK, and it is important to ensure that it is sufficiently robust. I have listened to many arguments about some of the gaps and people’s aspirations for what should be in the Bill. I endorse my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) for her analysis of the work that needs to be considered to compel companies to clean up their supply chains. I worked in business for 10 years, and there may be a compelling argument that we can set out best practice in some areas and, by moral suasion, get others to follow as consumers become gently more aware of the supply chains of different companies, but modern slavery is so important that it is necessary for us to consider carefully whether something more is required through amendments to the Companies Act 2006.
To avoid repetition, I will focus the substance of my remarks on a key challenge that the Bill must address: reducing the number of trafficked children who go missing. Between 2005 and 2010, we rescued just 942 trafficked children, despite UNICEF estimating that 10 children are trafficked here every week. It is deeply concerning that of those 942 children who were taken into care, it has been formally recorded that 301 went missing shortly afterwards.
The difference between the number of missing trafficked children recorded through the national referral mechanism and the number estimated by police and charities remains a key concern. The statistics suggest that around a third of children ran away, but the Home Affairs Committee estimated in 2009 that the figure was closer to 60%. Addressing that discrepancy must be a key role for the new anti-slavery commissioner and their office.
Victims of child trafficking have been let down for too long. They are often left in poor accommodation, within easy reach of their traffickers and fearful of the consequences of escaping from them. The only way to sever the links between traffickers and their victims is to ensure that victims receive personalised support. I therefore welcome the 23 independent advocacy schemes that the Government are piloting, and I seek assurance from the Minister that the schemes will be rolled out widely and quickly and that, if they are found to be successful, their successes will be highlighted. It is important that we get that right in all areas, and I fully support the Government’s approach of testing the schemes first. No matter how emotive the subject, it is important that we work on the basis of the best evidence for what works.
Advocates will have an important role, but as the all-party group inquiry into children missing from care found, specialist foster care placements provide the most effective escape for trafficked children. Even so, there must be effective, appropriate and sophisticated training, and the level of communication must be improved. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children estimates that 38% of trafficked children go missing from foster care placements. That can be addressed by ensuring that carers are aware that their children have been trafficked and by training them accordingly. There is a clear need to ensure good access to both local authorities and the police so that any problems can be addressed immediately. It is unacceptable that in some instances carers were not even made aware that a child had been trafficked. I hope that the isolated, poor examples we have seen in the past can be addressed through the advocates, who will provide a clear point of contact.
I have seen at first hand in my constituency what a difference outstanding foster carers make to the lives of vulnerable children. I therefore urge the Minister to ensure that the advocacy pilots interact appropriately with the work being done by Barnardo’s and various local authorities to train more specialist foster carers for exploited children. The pilot carried out by Barnardo’s with the Department for Education showed that children in foster care were half as likely to go missing as those in care homes. That shows that, when handled appropriately, foster care is often the best option. It is important that advocates can build on the success of that scheme.
Child trafficking is an abhorrent crime. I suspect that there is no silver bullet or single piece of legislation that can deal with every aspect of that evil in our society, but it is critical that we do not lose the momentum that has been built up over recent months. The system has not provided adequate support to children who have been trafficked to this country. I hope that this Bill, although it will come under considerable scrutiny in the months ahead—I recognise the concerns that several Members have about getting it through in time—will start to put that right. I welcome the fact that we are here today discussing this massive and vital step forward. I hope that the Government will listen to some of the observations on the transparency of supply chains so that we can make real progress and pass this legislation without delay.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
It has been an enlightening afternoon—I have sat through most of the debate. I am sorry for those Members who did not get manage to get slipped away before I was called to speak; as the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) said, I can be pretty emotional and repetitive on this issue, but I make no apology for that.
I want to compliment the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), who became engaged in this issue when she stepped down as a Government Minister. Having taken an interest in the supply chains, she bolstered my determination to convince the Government that we need to change the law to bring companies into line with at least the situation that exists in California, if not something better, if we are really to make an impact and increase the scope of the anti-slavery movement that started more than 200 years ago, because slavery does not happen only in the UK. If we deal only with the UK, we might prosecute a few people and stop a few hundred people being exploited, but we will not deal with slavery, and this is called the Modern Slavery Bill.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) has returned to the Chamber, because I thought that her speech was a tour de force that articulated the need for this Government really to deal with slavery. We should look at the documents. We had the draft Modern Slavery Bill and then the excellent report from the Joint Committee. As many Members have said, we could not really put a cigarette paper between the opinions and motivations of its Members, who were from parties on both sides of the Lords and the Commons. We then had the Government’s response to that report, and at the same time the Bill was published. I have to say that parts of the Government’s response to some key issues were so thin and poor that they had to be exposed, as I think they were in the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough.
On the question of whether there should be a specific crime of trafficking children, which I will come to later, I think that the strength lies with the Joint Committee, not with the Bill before us.
I want to talk first about the thanks we owe people. Every member of the Joint Committee requires thanks, because, in the same way as happens when people go on a foreign trip, we bonded over the common purpose of trying to improve the draft Bill. It is amazing how Committee members from all parties and different belief systems came together, but I am sorry that the Government have not taken into account the report in its entirety, so we have a lot to talk about.
Soroptimists UK invited me to speak at their conference. That is not an organisation that would usually take such a forward position on an issue of such massive import. I thank in particular Miss Billie Wealleans, the organiser of the Scotland north branch. The conference carried the motion that it would campaign this year to get the supply chains amendment inserted in the Bill. The conference came to the same conclusion as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough did in her ten-minute rule Bill, and as I did in my private Member’s Bill, which, sadly, was talked out.
The Human Trafficking Foundation and Anthony Steen have been mentioned. The previous speaker, the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), entered Parliament in 2010, but he missed the best part, because it was the energy of the generation before 2010 that brought us to where we are. Many compliments have been paid to people since the publication of the Centre for Social Justice report, “It Happens Here”, but that was way down the line—it was after my private Member’s Bill had been debated and talked out on the Floor of the House. It was the first time that a Conservative-led organisation took the issue seriously. It is led by someone who was a bête noire of mine when I was in local government in Scotland. To see it take such a forward position was heartening to me, but it was perhaps just a little late to save my Bill. ECPAT UK has done so much good work over 20 years, particularly, as the hon. Gentleman has said, on the question of children.
The Catholic bishops conference was fully behind my supply chains Bill. Unfortunately, that was not noted by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), whom I believe is devout in that particular faith. The conference backed the Bill, but he volunteered—the Whips arranged it—to talk my Bill out on the Floor of the House. I pointed out to him that it was also supported by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, particularly its then moderator, Albert Bogle. He told me that he was not afraid of the Church of Scotland, but that he was a little afraid of the fact that the Catholic bishops conference supported my Bill.
There is a wide range of support, including from individual bishops of the Church of England, including the bishop who sat on the Joint Committee, and Christian Action Research Education. They all hearten me because I am a humanist and an atheist. I am not just a humanist without a church; I am someone who does not believe in the whole nonsense of totem poles and pie in the sky when you die. I think you have to earn it every day, here.
Focus on Labour Exploitation has been mentioned, because labour exploitation is at the heart of the issue—the use, as the Home Secretary has said, of human beings as commodities whereby people can get rich by putting them in a position where they have no rights and where they are available for exploitation at the cheapest cost.
Other organisations include the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, UNICEF UK and the POPPY Project, which, as has been said, has been doing such stalwart work in rescuing trafficked women—mainly, I have to say, from our immigration service, which tends to put them in Yarl’s Wood, treat them like criminals and try to send them back home, where the facts show that they are re-exploited and re-trafficked again and again. We would not be sending them back to safety even if we put £3,000 in their back pocket, as the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) has suggested we should do.
Before the Centre for Social Justice published its report, “It Happens Here”, Andrew Wallis of Unseen UK was a stalwart supporter of my supply chains Bill, and I think he also supported the ten-minute rule Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough.
Anti-Slavery International has been doing such a stalwart job, but with its hands tied behind its back, because we lack the proper legislation. Aidan McQuade, who leads it, still thinks that the supply chains amendment we want, which is stronger even than the one in the Joint Committee report, is not good enough. He wants to use an equivalent of the Bribery Act 2010 to make it a criminal offence for the chief executive of a company to be found using exploited labour in its supply chain, which would be pretty tough legislation.
Walk Free, which was mentioned earlier, was set up by Andrew Forrest, who owns a company called Fortescue and lives in Perth, Australia. He gave evidence to the Joint Committee by satellite, but I have spoken with him in London. He set up an organisation when he found that his own company was using trafficked children in, I think, Nepal. He wanted 1 million members; then it went up to 5 million members; and Walk Free now has 7 million members worldwide, who are in his network and are taking up cases.
David Arkless of ArkLight, the former world president of Manpower—the most audited company in the US, as well as the most ethical company in the US—has to be thanked for the amount of work that he has done to spread the word, including by offering training to any company that wishes to do things to stop exploitation.
My question is: when we are going up a mountain—we are going up a mountain, because the Bill will be hard but, I hope, effective—why would we stop three quarters of the way up? Why would the Home Secretary want to stop and plant her flag somewhere on the mountain, instead of going to the top? Only at the top of that climb will we take on the work done 200 years ago and take it forward.
Many things have been said, and it has been hinted that the Home Secretary is involved in a contest against some dark force in No. 10 Downing street that is trying to stop the Government moving all the way forward on the Bill, particularly on questions such as supply chains. I once asked the Prime Minister, when he appeared to be reluctant to sign up even to the directive on human trafficking, where he had lost his moral compass. I suggest that both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, if they are looking for a moral compass on this issue, should follow the direction of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough and her all-party group, which has been working for a long time. The all-party group was founded by Anthony Steen, and apart from giving him his knighthood, which he has long deserved, they should take a lesson from it and go the whole way.
The first thing that troubles me is the definition. The six-step definition in the report has been dismissed as somehow too complicated. We took evidence from Lord Judge, who used to be one of the most senior judges in the land. His advice was: “If you want to do something and have a court do something, say what it is you want them to do; don’t muddle it up with complicated phrases.” However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough has pointed out, the Bill has a lot of complicated phrases—drawn from other Bills into one Bill—which do not simplify it at all, but probably complicate it for people.
For the simple definition in the Bill, we recommended that it cover the slavery of children and others, and that child exploitation offences should simply say:
“It is an offence to exploit a child”,
and:
“It is an offence for one person to obtain a benefit through the use of a child for the purpose of exploitation.”
People recognise such a definition. We took evidence on the very simplest way to do it from barristers who have prosecuted and defended, and it seems to us that the Government have missed an opportunity to lay out a law that would be recognised and used properly. Those offences were part of what we called a hierarchy, all six parts of which built bit by bit into a clear definition of what we are trying to stop.
Another point is about the protection of victims, including when a victim is turned into a criminal. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) may not realise it, but we need to change the attitude of police forces and of the Border Force.
We met a young woman when we visited POPPY, who said: “I was trafficked, I was brought here in a boat. I had never been outside Africa before. I ended up in Liverpool. I was put into prostitution and moved around the country. I ran away and I went to the police because I always had this idea that British justice would free me if I could reach the police station. They threw me in a cell. They treated me like a criminal. They said I’d done all this just to get into the country and they put me into Yarl’s Wood.” It was only when POPPY met that young woman that her life of exploitation could be pieced together and she could be rescued. She is now in college in London.
The police should not treat people who are trafficked as criminals, and that also applies to Scotland. It is one of those coincidences, but I had a cannabis factory in the house next door until about nine months ago. By a police blunder, they got away, although I had warned the police six weeks before they fled. If the person in the house—the farmer—had been caught, they would now be in Polmont young offenders institution. There are three young people in that institution at the moment who were trafficked from Vietnam and used as farmers. They were caught, but the big people who brought them here—the people who make the money—did not get caught.
Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Minister in Scotland, said to me when he launched the review—Baroness Kennedy sat on the inquiry—that the then UK Border Agency, now the Border Force, was the problem and that it criminalised people. I have to say to Kenny MacAskill that the Scottish police, for which he is responsible, criminalised those young men who are in Polmont for being farmers in cannabis factories. We need to change the police attitude and the Border Force’s attitude. That would affect Scotland massively, because it applies to the whole UK. The Border Force is not just for England, but for everyone.
Mark Lazarowicz
Surely my hon. Friend’s point emphasises my point that there needs to be effective co-operation and liaison between enforcement agencies throughout the UK, no matter that separate legislation will be introduced for Scotland. That is precisely why we need to work together, and I hope that the Minister will speak about that in her response.
Michael Connarty
I do not in any way try to diminish my hon. Friend’s point, which he made very well. When I was outside Dungavel, which is basically Yarl’s Wood in Scotland, campaigning to have people released, I was told that it does not hold people for a long time. However, it is a little piece of English territory in Scotland because it is effectively run by the Home Office, not by any institution in Scotland. The point is that if we change the police attitude to the victims in England through the Bill, we will change it in all the other jurisdictions.
I have a plea, which I will not read out in full, from Graham O’Neill from the Scottish Refugee Council, who helped draft the Scottish Bill for Jenny Marra, our friend and Member of the Scottish Parliament who introduced the measure in Scotland. He said that,
“the biggest priority for Jenny and I is to secure at least a statutory right to assistance for survivors of modern slavery.”
They want that to be in our Bill, which would then be copied by the Scottish measure and would change the lives of victims universally.
ECPAT has written at length about the victims in its submission on the Bill. I will quote from it because it is a distillation of many years of work and advice to us:
“ECPAT UK’s work with trafficked children over the past decade has seen us campaign tirelessly for a system of legal guardianship in order to protect the best interests of children and uphold their rights. The Modern Slavery Bill has made provision for ‘Child Trafficking Advocates’, which represents a move in the right direction, but falls far short of a system of independent, legal guardianship that can adequately support and protect children and is in line with best practice across Europe and is recommended by international bodies.”
Guardianship is part of the directive that we signed up to—it is clear in the EU directive, but we have not implemented it correctly. ECPAT should be listened to on that. Independence is important.
The hon. Member for Salisbury spoke about foster care. It is not necessarily about foster care, but the fact that most of the children who are trafficked have language problems and, as people who have worked in this field for a long time said, feel closer to the trafficker than to the authorities. We must find a system that gives people someone who looks after them and someone they feel confident in, so that they do not wish to go to someone else who will re-traffic or re-exploit them.
Another issue is the independence of the commissioner. The Home Secretary assured me that only matters of endangering or exposing an individual, interfering with a possible criminal prosecution or questions of public security will be edited out by her. As I have long said, however, the commissioner must be entirely independent. The Bill must say that the Home Secretary shall provide those resources, shall give the commissioner powers, shall set them up independently, and that the commissioner shall be given rules to work to rather than having to go through the Home Secretary every time they want to publish anything, as they will live by those rules.
I have to disagree with the right hon. Member for Meriden, having been in the Netherlands and Finland a number of times. We have asked the ombudsperson in the Netherlands several times whether they are controlled by any Member of Parliament or Minister. They say, “No. I write what I see and I publish what I need to, and the Government have to take it into account, even if I am criticising the Government.” Interestingly, in the Netherlands, the ombudsperson was given the job of looking after both trafficking and child sexual exploitation, because there is so much confidence in that person’s independence. The Dutch are on to their second ombudsperson, and that situation remains. Until we change that provision, we have a problem.
The third and last thing I want to talk about—people expect me to talk about it—is the transparency of UK supply chains, because it is missing from the Bill. I do not know whether there is a problem at No. 10 Downing street, but someone is giving the Prime Minister such bad advice. He is running into his last year before the Government go to the polls. People will look at the Bill and say, “What made the Prime Minister be dragged kicking and screaming by Marks & Spencer, Tesco and Sainsbury’s to put something in the Bill that wasn’t previously there?” We know—I take it that people have good intelligence on this—that the Home Secretary wants to do something in the Bill about supply chains. Everybody knows. Eighty-two per cent. of people surveyed have said that they want a clause dealing with the transparency of UK supply chains in the Bill.
What Government would not go with the rub of the green in that situation? Only a Government who have some misguided idea that any kind of statutory regulation will somehow offend the public or the business community would do so. I cannot find that. I could find it when I tried to get a private Member’s Bill through, but it is much more difficult to convince people of an idea when it has not been given the blessing of Government time. When I spoke to the Ethical Trading Initiative, it said, “We want to see this.” The logic has been put forward by so many Members. Why should bad companies get away with it? Why should companies that want to rip off the public and sell them goods they know are tainted by slavery get away with it? Good companies do not want that, so we should level the playing field. I think Churchill wanted a minimum wage for that reason. He said bad companies undermine good companies, and the worst of companies undermine everyone.
It is quite clear that a narrative and a logic are leading the business community in that direction, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) and others have said, and as I have said all along. There is a kitemark on offer to companies that says, “We have the right kind of auditing. We are reporting on that auditing and we are getting rid of any errors we find.” When I was doing business economics at university, I was told that to find a problem was to find the jewel, because it would help people to improve their company. That is what the supply chains proposal is about.
Andrew Wallis of Unseen UK was dealing with this issue long before the Centre for Social Justice ever decided that it should take it up. I commend the CSJ for taking it up—it has taken it up later than Anthony Steen, later than the Human Trafficking Foundation and later than Unseen UK, but it has taken it up. Why will the Government not take it up? I do not understand what is going on.
I am going to say a word about domestic servants. There is absolutely no doubt that the Government have done something immoral in abolishing the domestic servant visa, as it was, when we find that 62% of domestic servants who come with people from other countries do not get paid a wage. Somebody talked about contracts. How can there be a contract with somebody who brings servants in as baggage with their family to look after their children and cook their food, and treats them so appallingly? The Government have abolished their right to leave their employer. All they can do is go home or stay with that employer. They are usually so tied in to families that they do not have a world outside. The little stipend they receive gets sent back to their families, who live in abject poverty in other countries.
Why will the Government not realise that what they have done has soiled their hands, as there are people enslaved in this country, under our very noses, with their complicity? Please do something about that. At least give us some sense that the Government have not completely lost their moral marbles.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
I pay tribute to all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. Many compelling arguments have been made. I simply want to add a few brief comments.
It is absolutely clear to all concerned that slavery is one of the oldest and worst crimes. It is a most appalling thing to deprive another human being of their liberty. Slavery has not been eradicated as a crime—this is the very reason we are here discussing it once again under its modern guise—yet nor has it stayed still. It is a crime that has been able to evolve with technological changes, and as the countries of the world have come closer together. Other Members have made the argument well that there are both international and domestic elements to this abhorrent crime. In saying that the crime has evolved, I make no particular distinction between those elements at this point.
It is right that we update how we treat the crime and it is right that we do that in a considered way. The consolidation in part 1 of the Bill is helpful and will allow for a higher chance of successful prosecution. With that goes a more effective disruption of business that can flow from slavery. That is an extremely important and very practical thing. The consolidation also allows for clearer sentencing. I welcome the addition, as I understand it, of a potential life sentence for this crime. If we look down the list of other crimes that we treat as worthy of a life sentence—murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to murder, manslaughter, rape, attempted rape, grievous bodily harm, armed robbery and firearms offences—all of them are concerned with the life and liberty of other human beings. It is right that we put slavery in the same category.
I also welcome the move in part 1 to make reparations and provide compensation to those who have suffered this appalling crime. That links to the very reason we might think of slavery as a serious crime: the life and liberty of other human beings. Reparations for “harm resulting”, as set out in clause 9(1), are perhaps merely an effort to put money where life and liberty are concerned, but it is the right thing to do inasmuch as we ever seek to do that in the legal code.
I am a Member from Norfolk. I grew up in west Norfolk and am well aware of cases of exploitation, abuse and trafficking of migrant workers in my county. The gangmaster Audrius Morkunas, a Lithuanian national operating in my county, was convicted earlier this year. Ten years ago, in Operation Absent, police officers from around the country including Norfolk constabulary collaborated to free, in the words of Norfolk constabulary, “modern day slaves.” This is a crime about which we in Norfolk know all too much and the same would be true of other rural areas. This afternoon, I was discussing with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) the way in which this crime is prevalent in our neck of the woods. I draw that example to say that modern slavery is prevalent in the sense that we can all see it under the surface of modern life in Britain.
I want to make one important point about the local and regional economy that we want to see flourish in this country. As a teenager, I worked in fields and factories in west Norfolk, where I grew up. In fact I may be alone in this House—I do not know—in having worked for a legitimate gangmaster. You may not think this of me, Mr Speaker, as I stand here today, but it is none the less the case. I worked alongside—and got to know as friends—various foreign workers at that time, Bulgarians in particular. I make no suggestion whatever of abuse at that time but it was easy for me to see how abuse could occur and how it could be perpetrated, particularly upon migrant workers. Good law is essential to protect those workers certainly, but also to protect the breadth of the local economy. When we talk about modern slavery being prevalent, it also does no good at all to our economy in Britain for people to perceive certain sectors of the economy as being the place where slavery occurs. Good law protects the victims who may be subject to genuine crime, but also protects the reputations of sectors of industry, such as agriculture, in Britain where we want to see good practice and good commerce thriving. That is very important and is something we care about, particularly in Norfolk where we value our agricultural industry.
I raise that as an additional argument to go with those that are being made about supply chains. Yes, there are lengthy supply chains that we want to be able to understand, but there are also some sectors of industry in this country that we want to see do well and where we want to see good law protect workers and customers.
On a local basis, I want to pay tribute to a charity operating in my constituency called Freedom. Hon. Members may be aware of it, as it was the charity that played an honourable role in the recent freeing of three slaves in Lambeth. Freedom took a phone call from one of the women concerned who had been held for 30 years in a household in London. That charity does extremely good work and I am extremely proud that it operates from a centre in Hellesdon in Norfolk, as well as other operations around the country. I want the provisions in the Bill to assist that charity and others like it to continue doing the very good work that they do.
Many of my constituents—whether they knew that that charity was based in Hellesdon or not—care very deeply about this Bill and about what it can do. I have corresponded with them in recent months, as have many other hon. Members. I know that the Minister has faced a few calls for improvements today within the Bill and I look forward to her comments on it. I wish to ask about part 4 of the Bill. Like others, I want this part to work and to function very well. However, there could be scope for determined criminals to use clause 39(3) and other clauses as a get-out. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s reassurance as to how she intends part 4 to be used to protect those who need it and not to allow it, in turn, to be abused.
I add my call to that of others for sensible co-ordination with other areas of law. It so happens that all these areas are close to the Minister’s responsibility, and I am sure that she will have in mind how best to co-ordinate the provisions of this Bill with those that regulate gangmasters and with newer rules that regulate forced marriages. The visa system is also relevant, and I am pleased to see in his place on the Front Bench the Minister for Security and Immigration. All those areas come together naturally with this sort of legislation.
I began by noting the importance of consolidation in this area, and I welcome the fact that this important Bill is also a concise one, providing a simple toolkit to begin what I hope will be Britain’s leading role in the world in this extremely important area of human progress.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I, too, welcome this Bill. Although it does not extend to Northern Ireland, I believe it is an important part of the framework for protecting individuals across the United Kingdom. I will have something to say about the Bill’s application to Northern Ireland in a few moments.
More than 200 years ago, slavery was accepted as part of the norm across the world. Christians in this country believed that it was wrong because all people were equal in the eyes of God. They found a champion in this House, which voted to abolish slavery. The power of the Royal Navy was used to stop international traders who continued to traffick people from Africa to America.
That manifestation of slavery was dealt with by this House. Where there are weak people and strong groups with no moral scruples, however, the exploitation of individuals will continue. More than 200 years later, we see that slavery is still being manifested in many ways. If this debate does anything, it will awaken many people to something that they perhaps did not know was occurring in the United Kingdom—slavery on our doorsteps.
I remember when the issue of slavery was raised in the Northern Ireland Assembly by my colleague, Lord Morrow, who found that people had been brought to the provincial town of Dungannon in his constituency, having been trafficked from other countries, used as prostitutes, beaten and held in captivity. I am sure that many people in Dungannon did not have a clue that was going on. Lord Morrow presented the evidence to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and is currently taking through a private Member’s Bill to deal with that particular issue.
I believe that the Government were sincere in their attempt to legislate, even with only one year of this Parliament left. As other Members have pointed out, a whole range of people have put great pressure on the Government to deal with this issue. I particularly welcome the Government’s recognition that those who are caught up in the slave trade need protection, and that if a case goes to a court of law people need to be sure that they can give evidence without intimidation. The court system and its advocates must help and guide people who might be strangers to our country through the process. We need tougher sentencing and advocates need to raise awareness of the problem with public authorities. I welcome all those aspects of what has been said needs to be done.
Like other Members, I make criticisms of the Bill not because of a sense of churlishness, but because of a sense that if we are to have legislation, and if there is a genuine desire for that legislation, we should ensure that it is effective. I hope that my comments will not be seen as being totally negative, or as being an attack on the Government because I do not believe that they are trying to do their best.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
After the House has passed legislation, is it not vital that the courts step up to the mark and take the matter seriously as well? The sentences that are given often do not fit the crime.
Sammy Wilson
I am pleased that the Bill enables sentences to be extended to life, which will give the courts an opportunity to deal properly with the criminals who are involved in the trade of slavery.
As a number of Members have pointed out, the Bill contains a notable omission. The best thing to do is to prevent slavery from happening in the first place. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) gave us a lot of information. How likely is it that companies that are using slave labour in the United Kingdom will be caught as a result of fewer inspections? I believe he said that there would be one inspection every 250 years, and that there was a chance of employers being convicted once in a million years. That is hardly going to focus the minds of those who use slave labour on the fact that the authorities are going to get them.
I know that one argument will be about the expense of inspections. As the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) pointed out, we know that certain areas and certain industries in the United Kingdom are more prone to using slave labour than others. If there are to be inspections, why can they not target likely employers? Some of them may have a record; there may be local knowledge. If such people are harassed, there may at least be a chance that they will desist from using the slave labour that they are currently exploiting.
It has rightly been said that the offences that have been specified are really just a gathering together of existing pieces of legislation. The fact is—and there may be a number of reasons for this—that the number of convictions has been very low. Even when people have been identified as engaging in the slave trade and using slaves, the percentage who are taken to court and are convicted is below a third. A small number of people are taken to court, and there is a small percentage of convictions. Moreover, given the complexity of the legislation, those cases often take a long time. A case in Northamptonshire involved 200 police officers; 13 arrests were made, and, three years down the line, there were two convictions.
As the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) pointed out, it is not that the Government do not benefit from good legal advice. I am not a barrister, but I know that legal advice has been sought on how the offence could be made simpler, more understandable and easier to prosecute. However, none of it has been included in the Bill. If we are to have effective legislation, let us not just gather together elements of legislation that have not been seen to be working so far; let us look at offences and define them in the Bill. Of course the Government may argue that consolidating the legislation and all the support that will be made available will increase the conviction rate, but if the legal opinion is that the plethora of laws at present causes complications, this is the time to change that.
The protection of children has been well highlighted. From her vast experience, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) made it clear that we need separate definitions and separate measures to deal with the exploitation of children. I cannot understand—the Minister did not make it clear—why a definition of children would cause complications and perhaps lead to even fewer convictions. If the reason is to do with establishing the age, there is an easy way to deal with that. If there is some concern about establishing the age, put the individuals in the general legislation. Where it is clear that we are dealing with children, let us have separate legislation and a separate definition of children.
The next issue I want to raise is in relation to other parts of the UK. The Joint Committee pointed out that, although private Members’ legislation does mirror the Bill, it does not totally mirror it. One easy option would be to ask the Northern Ireland Assembly to pass a legislative consent motion, so that the legislation would apply in Northern Ireland. The alternative is to take separate legislation through the Assembly, but given the length of time it takes to get some legislation through the Assembly, the legislation might be passed not in this Session of Parliament or the next, but the one after that. That gap causes great concern in one particular area: the seizure of assets and their use to recompense victims.
If assets are kept in Northern Ireland or Scotland, will it be possible to pull those assets in when someone is convicted of using slave labour in England and Wales, or will it be much more difficult? In Northern Ireland, we have an added complication. I know that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) tried to dismiss the point I made earlier but it was also highlighted by the Joint Committee. The National Crime Agency is not able to operate fully in Northern Ireland because that is being blocked by the Social Democratic and Labour party and by Sinn Fein. That in turn creates a difficulty in dealing with the trafficking gangs, who may see places such as Northern Ireland as a haven from which they can operate.
Mark Durkan
Again, I make the point that the debate has nothing to do with the National Crime Agency and the wider issues in Northern Ireland. The SDLP’s concerns in that regard do not relate to the issue of asset recovery and never have.
Sammy Wilson
The SDLP’s concerns may not relate to the recovery of assets from criminals but, because the National Crime Agency legislation cannot apply to Northern Ireland, the fact is that the issue is all tied up with the blockage that has occurred, owing to the attitude of Sinn Fein and the SDLP.
On the issue of corporate supply, the use of slave labour in the supply of materials from many developing countries is a multi-billion pound industry. It is worth while for slave traders to use slave labour, given the rewards. There have been impassioned pleas to the Government to include that matter in the legislation. There does not even seem to be any commercial argument against that, at least not from firms that want to demonstrate corporate responsibility. In fact, if anything they appear to be arguing that the market is flawed if we do not have legislation to protect firms who wish to do the right thing in respect of their supply chains, because otherwise they are undercut by the gangsters and the criminals.
I find it very odd that on one hand we will legislate for what goes into our food—for what is in a burger—but we do not seem to be concerned about how it is made, who it is made by or what conditions they work in. We do not seem to think it causes any difficulty for firms to have traceability for the ingredients, but somehow or other it creates commercial difficulties if we want traceability regarding the labour force used in making goods that are sold here in the United Kingdom.
Given that I did not hear any Members on the Government’s side resisting the calls from the other side of the House for transparency in corporate supply chains to be included, and given that major organisations in the United Kingdom have said they have no difficulty with this, but, indeed, they would welcome it, I trust that as this Bill goes through the House, that will also be included.
This is an important Bill. I commend the Government for bringing it forward, and I commend the Secretary of State for the energy she has put into it and the commitment she has made, but I hope the criticisms that have been made and the shortcomings that have been highlighted will be taken on board and addressed during the Committee stage.
Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
First, may I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and the Home Secretary for having missed the first 20 minutes of the debate, but it is good to be here and to be the 20th Back Bencher to speak? I start by saying that, I think for the first time in my life and quite possibly the last, I agree with every word the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said—every last dot and comma.
I congratulate the Home Secretary and the Government on bringing the Bill forward, and on the good intentions behind it and the hard work they have put into listening. I believe, as a Member of the Joint Committee, that it was good that there was strong interaction between Ministers, officials and the Committee, and the report we produced was a very good one. It is interesting that all the speeches I have heard from the Back Benches on both sides of the House have entirely supported elements, or all, of that Joint Committee report, and in summary what I might say, apart from repeat the contents of the speech of the hon. Member for East Antrim, is simply, “Please revisit the recommendations of the Joint Committee report that you haven’t felt able to accept so far, and see whether, in the light of this debate, you should consider them again.”
At the heart of this has got to be how we treat victims. First, we have got to recognise that they are victims. Secondly, we have got to give them the protection they need to make sure we get convictions of those who are organising and driving these evil webs of crime. We took plenty of evidence to show that victims live in fear often long after they have been liberated. Too often they finish up defecting back to their abusers or going back home and being recycled yet again as a victim. Too often cases collapse because victims’ evidence will not stand up and the Director of Public Prosecutions does not believe that a conviction can be secured with such witnesses, or if they do go to court, that the witnesses will not provide the evidence they should be able to provide. The hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) gave a specific example of a young lad of eight who insisted that his lawyer be instructed to give evidence that the man who was managing him was his father, not a trafficker.
We can see that there are fundamental problems with the current system and the Joint Committee recommended ways to tackle that. I will not rehearse them all, but it is a pity that, although the Government have moved on from the existing jumble of offences spread over many different statutes and got them into one place, they still have the jumble. That is one of the points on which attention needs to be focused. There is clearly a difference between being a victim as a defence against prosecution, and having a non-prosecution clause. Again, the Committee was clear on what it thought would be best in that regard, and I hope the Home Secretary, whom I am delighted to see is here listening, can reconsider.
Another aspect is the care of victims. There are many complex processes. As has been said, the police and social services may be involved—the immigration services are certainly likely to be involved—and that is three just to start with. It is difficult to imagine how those who do not speak the language—particularly the young person who has little education and perhaps no literacy, who is in awe of their slave master and comes from a culture where authorities are instinctively distrusted—can navigate that system. The evidence we took and the Committee’s proposals concerning advocates are very important in that regard.
I welcome the pilots that are being commissioned and I hope they will produce results, although it has to be said that a pilot that is evaluated after only six months is probably not going to give a long enough run for us to be really sure what we have got. When victims of trafficking are rescued and acknowledged— the acknowledgment process may be difficult—they have up to 45 days of support, on a contract that is organised very well by the Salvation Army. However, after the 45 days there is absolutely nothing, and no further support is available.
All these deficiencies can be put right, but who is going to manage the process of putting them right? At this point, I want to say a word or two about the anti-slavery commissioner. In her evidence to the Joint Committee and earlier today, the Home Secretary pointed out that this is going to be a world-leading model of how to tackle modern slavery, and I welcome that absolutely. However, I wonder whether we would recommend to the Governments of the Philippines, Bangladesh or Nigeria, for example, that they should have an independent anti-slavery commissioner who is a civil servant embedded in their ministry of the interior. It is not just about creating a credible system that will work for victims and will work here. If we are going to be world leaders in this regard, let us set an example and not create something that is obscured by a typically British fog of accountability, which we can usually get away with because our systems have integrity and our ministries have Chinese walls. All of that is true, but we could be proud to be an advocate of a worldwide system of anti-slavery commissioners that is independent of Governments. I hope the Home Secretary will be open to considering that.
I did not hear any Back Bencher say that they thought it a bad idea to extend this legislation to include supply chains. Some 16 of the 20 speakers said that they thought doing so was highly desirable, and were surprised that such a provision was not included. I hope that that straw poll of participants in this debate will be evidence that the Home Secretary and the Government take to heart. Perhaps she will want officials to draft a note of this debate and make sure that relevant members of the Cabinet in other Departments are aware of the opinions of this House. That evidence and the evidence given to us in the report show that if we do not regulate supply chains and we rely on Marks & Spencer, Primark, John Lewis and so on to have their own standards, we will be increasing the profit margins and the attractiveness of the slave labour sector. The cost of complying with their own voluntary codes will be an on cost for the products they sell to people, so relying on a voluntary code is increasing the profit margins of the slave owners around the world. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) was rightly well commended by others, and he pointed out that we can do this by adding five words to the Companies Act 2006. These are five words that the industry wants and that this House wants, and they are five words that cost the Government nothing in public expenditure. I hope very much that we will see that provision as well.
Like everybody who has spoken, I could easily say another 100 things about the Bill, but I will not do so. I started by endorsing the Home Secretary’s initiative on this vital concern, and what I have said is not, in any way, designed to undermine it; rather, it is to help her to deliver a truly world-leading reform. I look forward to working with my Liberal Democrat colleagues, with colleagues on the Opposition Benches and with my coalition colleagues in Committee and in the House of Lords to make sure that that is exactly what we get.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
We all welcome this piece of legislation. The Home Secretary said that it would lead the world in tackling exploitation, and I know that much has been said today about the role played by William Wilberforce and his attempt over many years to abolish the slave trade. Of course, as a Hull MP, I am always very mindful that William Wilberforce was a Member of Parliament for Hull, and we now have the Wilberforce Institute for the study of Slavery and Emancipation at the university of Hull to mark the amazing thing that he did.
The Opposition are very pleased to have the Bill’s Second Reading debate today. It was important to note that the Government produced a draft Bill first, and we had the benefit of pre-legislative scrutiny of that Bill. I wish to pay tribute to the Joint Committee that carried out that scrutiny: my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field); my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty); the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall); the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce); the right hon. Members for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) and for Meriden (Mrs Spelman); and some Members of the other place. From reading their excellent report, it seems to me that they heard from witnesses from a wide range of charities, churches and other bodies. The proposals the Committee made greatly improved that original draft Bill.
The Government have accepted some changes proposed as a result of the pre-legislative scrutiny, but not as many as they need to accept. Given the contributions we have heard from Members from all parts of the House today, I hope that the Home Secretary and the Minister will look at again at some of the proposals in the report. I wish briefly to discuss some of the excellent contributions we have had today. We have had a wide-ranging debate, with lots of contributions. I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough as the excellent chair of the all-party group on human trafficking and modern day slavery and to agree with her compliment to the role that Anthony Steen played in ensuring that Parliament took this issue seriously. I know that we are not allowed to refer to him sitting in the Box, but I know that he has been listening carefully to our debate this afternoon.
My hon. Friend talked about the three Ps: prevention, prosecution and protection. She raised concerns about the Bill’s particular focus just on prosecution, and spoke about the need to have well-constructed offences and whether we needed to look again at the way the offences are currently drafted. She made the important point about the need for simple language to describe the offences to ensure that we push up the number of prosecutions. She also raised issues about separate offences for children, which I will come on to in a minute, and the role of the anti-slavery commissioner being strengthened, as well as the domestic worker visa and the Gangmasters Licensing Authority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) also talked about how important it was that there was the non-prosecution of victims, and he welcomed the statutory defence in clause 39, as did the right hon. Member for Hazel Grove.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), who brings enormous experience to the debate from her work with trafficked children, made a passionate case for the improvements that she wants to see in the Bill. She spoke with great knowledge on the issues around age. In particular, she mentioned the idea that has been raised by the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association in the past about having age assessment centres in regions around the country, which is something that the Bill Committee may wish to look further at. She said that this was a golden opportunity to get the law right on guardians for children.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) talked about prevention, and he argued very passionately for the GLA to have its reach extended to construction, the care sector and hospitality. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), in her role as a shadow Minister in the Foreign Office, talked about her discussions with the Pacific Links charity and the international angle to this legislation. She also spoke very well about the consumer power issue only going so far, and the need for legislation on supply chains.
In his opening remarks, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said that it seemed from the debate that the Bill was one that the House very much wanted to fashion, and, given the number of ideas that were coming forward about how the Bill could be improved, he was absolutely right. The particular points he raised were around children and the supply chain and the need to support victims. He said that this was a good Bill that could become a world-class Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) made the case for the cross-nation work that needs to take place within the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, who speaks with great knowledge and experience about the supply chain, referred to his private Member’s Bill. He expressed his views very strongly, saying, why stop when we are three-quarters of the way up the mountain. He said why not go to the top of the mountain and make this a world-class Bill.
I also want to refer to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) who said that she had read somewhere that anyone who is interested in this particular piece of legislation would have to be a left-wing feminista. I just want to say to her that we left-wing feministas welcome right-wing feministas too, and we think the fact that the debate has gone on across the House shows that there is cross-party support for this piece of legislation. She urged her Front-Bench team to be bold and brave.
There were many other contributions to the debate this afternoon. The need for more positive public awareness and public information was made by the hon. Members for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) and for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). The hon. Gentleman also talked about the need for a global and a local perspective. There was a welcome for the duty to notify in clause 44 from the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). There were a number of contributions about the need for specific provisions around the supply chain. The hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), who said that he was a dyed-in-the-wool pro-business Conservative, made the case for why there should be legislation on the supply chain and talked about the Californian Act and how that might be a sensible way forward.
The right hon. Member for Meriden called for the proposal on the Companies Act 2006, which was mentioned by the Joint Committee, to be brought forward, as did the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, and he told us that Richard Branson backed that idea, too. The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) and the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) also talked about the supply chain, and the hon. Lady talked about the use of agricultural workers and how important it was to ensure they were protected.
There is obviously a need for strong support for child victims and the case for that was made by the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen). The case for strengthening the role of the anti-slavery commissioner was made by the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay). The court’s ability to punish with sentences of up to life imprisonment was welcomed by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who also talked about the fact that the National Crime Agency does not operate in Northern Ireland.
We want to see improvements to the Bill in five areas. We think that there are some concerns about the drafting of the offences, as the definitions are not always consistent, but we want to work with the Government to see whether we can improve them.
We will table amendments on a specific offence of child trafficking and exploitation. We also want to push the idea of having full child guardians. I listened with care to what my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan said about acting in a child’s best interests and that might be something that a guardian would be able to do whereas an advocate would not.
On the question of support for victims, we feel that the remit of the anti-slavery commissioner needs to be extended and that there needs to be more independence from the Home Office. We also believe that a statutory basis for the national referral mechanism should be included in the Bill. There are various other technical issues that we will want to debate in Committee, including the 45-day reflection period, reparations and the strength of the non-prosecution clauses.
Let me return to the issue of the supply chain. The Joint Committee called for provisions on the supply chain to be included, but no clauses in the Bill relate to it. We will table amendments to put that right and we believe that it is correct that large companies should show and report on what they are doing to eradicate slavery. We believe that that has widespread support from industry and business. We think that the point about domestic workers needs to be debated in Committee, as does the question of extending the GLA into other industries.
Many speakers in the debate have described the nature of modern slavery and, along with those mentioned in the opening remarks of the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and in my comments, we will table amendments that we believe are needed for the Bill to diminish the trade in this century. William Wilberforce told the House in May 1789 that
“we can no longer plead ignorance, we can not evade it”.
We can all agree that Britain can again play a leading international role in fighting slavery, as we did 200 years ago when Wilberforce was successful. If we get this legislation right, it will strike a huge blow for freedom, but it will be a tragic missed opportunity for slavery’s victims if we fail to produce a world-class piece of legislation. As William Wilberforce said:
“Accustom yourself to look first to the dreadful consequences of failure; then fix your eye on the glorious prize which is before you”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)
This has been an excellent debate, which has shown the House at its best. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed, and I take their contributions and suggestions in the spirit in which they were intended. I also welcome the cross-party support for the Bill.
We all want the same thing: to stamp out slavery and make it clear that there is no place for anybody who wants to abuse human beings as slaves in this country. I hope that we can all work together to achieve that aim. The experiences of coming into contact with victims of modern slavery are always harrowing. I would describe my life before I took this job as the Minister with responsibility for modern slavery and organised crime as one of blissful ignorance. I had no idea about the scale of the problem, the extent of it, its depth or breadth, how it affects towns and cities across the country and how it affects all communities. The victims I have met and the stories I have heard have deeply affected me. Each one brings home just how difficult it is to tackle this crime.
Throughout debate on the Bill, we must remember the immense misery and trauma experienced by the victims of this crime. Held against their will, with no means of escape, they often endure rape, violence and psychological torture. That is why it is so unacceptable that slavery is still a fact of life in this country.
The Bill will make a real difference. It is critical to improving the law enforcement response to modern slavery. It will ensure that perpetrators can receive the sentences they deserve, including life imprisonment. It will strengthen our powers to recover their ill-gotten assets, and it will enhance protection for victims of this heinous crime. We cannot safeguard victims if we do not catch and convict the perpetrators. The actions that we are taking, both in the Bill and outside it—changes to policy, the trials and the reviews of existing mechanisms that we are undertaking—are all aimed at achieving that.
The Bill has the potential to be even more than a crucial step towards stamping out slavery in this country. It will send an important signal to the wider world that the time has come to take firm action to end global slavery. That message is even stronger after today’s debate because of the degree of cross-party support for the Bill and the commitment that right hon. and hon. Members have shown to the cause in their contributions. Today’s debate builds on the excellent work of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, which has helped to shape the Bill. I am grateful to the members of that Committee and welcome the important contributions today from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), my right hon. Friends the Members for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) and for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell), and the hon. Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty).
During the debate a large number of Members identified areas where the Bill might adopt a different approach. I understand hon. Members’ deep commitment to using the Bill to make a difference on a wide range of issues and I will continue to work on both the Bill and the non-legislative ways in which we can tackle this horrendous crime. However, I urge hon. Members not to endanger the passage of the Bill in a very short Session of Parliament by trying to widen its scope. The Bill is a crucial first step, which will make a real difference to the lives of the victims of the appalling crime of modern slavery. By focusing on the very serious offences of slavery and trafficking, it will give law enforcement the clearest possible signal that Parliament wants these crimes stamped out, but it is a first step and I am determined that we will deliver it in the short Session that we have available.
Karen Bradley
Time is short, and I would like to cover as many points as possible. I give a commitment to all Members who made contributions that if I do not respond to them during this winding-up speech, I will write to every one of them and involve them all in the work that we are doing. I am sure that in Committee we will discuss in detail all the points that were made, and I commit to look closely at all the issues raised before we start the line-by-line scrutiny upstairs.
We heard from 21 Members in full contributions and interventions. We had contributions from the hon. Members for Slough, for Foyle (Mark Durkan), for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, the hon. Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), for Arfon (Hywel Williams), for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), for Linlithgow and East Falkirk and for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), from my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham), for Central Devon (Mel Stride), for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), and from my right hon. Friends the Members for Meriden and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, my hon. Friends the Members for Salisbury (John Glen) and for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove.
On the specific issues that were raised, I must start with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead. He has done tremendous work in this field and been a real leader. His work on the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee has been outstanding, but as always he pushed the envelope slightly with the Deputy Speaker in some of his comments and references. I know he will be forgiven for that. It was astute of him to spot that it was the women who were driving the measure through. The three whom he mentioned show that it takes a woman to make these things happen on occasions. He also took an important intervention from the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), who is not in his place, about the work of the NGOs and the charities on this matter. It is vital that we recognise that those organisations help to support the victims. They have amazing experience and they know how to make sure that the victims have the best support. It is our job in this place and in government to give the NGOs the support that they require and let them get on and do the work that they do so well.
The hon. Member for Wigan shared her great personal experience of the issue. I was very interested to hear all her contributions. I would very much like to discuss these matters further with her—not just the Bill but the NRM review and how we can deal with her concerns about children. I was interested in the work that she talked about with the former UK Border Agency, which, as she knows, no longer exists. I was at Gatwick last week to meet the anti-trafficking team there and it is clear from her description of the work that she did with UKBA many years ago that that work is now taken into account on the front line of Border Force, which is acutely aware of the difficulties of dealing with child victims of trafficking and ensuring that they are properly looked after and supported. I was impressed with the work that I saw and I would like to share that with the hon. Member for Wigan if possible.
The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip claimed that he was repeating what had been said before. We all find that difficult to believe because he always gives a different perspective in what he says. I liked his comment that modern slavery was a Cinderella crime. I shall start thinking of the slavemasters as stepmothers and ugly sisters. That might help explain it to people outside this place who have not heard the victims’ stories that we have heard. His points about raising awareness and education and his comment that we should all become advocates for this issue were incredibly important. I am sure that we will all leave here happy to talk to our constituents and explain to them why this heinous crime needs to be tackled.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire referred to the work of the Bishop of Derby, who was a member of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee. As he is relatively local to my constituency, I know that he does an incredible amount of work. She said that there should be a hotline or place where people could go to report what they had seen. We are working with the NSPCC to develop an appropriate hotline, which we will launch later this summer. There will be one place where people know they can go to report instances of the crime that they have seen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon talked about what Wilberforce had to go through 200 years ago, but he made an important point about the difference between slavery then and today. Then it was a visible, acceptable crime. People did not actually think of it as a crime. It happened in front of them. Today, we all know that slavery is abhorrent; it is not something that we should tolerate in our society. Yet people do not know how to spot the signs of it; they do not know how to deal with it; they do not know where to go to report it. The Bill and other measures will help to address that problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford referred to comments on Twitter about this being an obsession of left-wing feministas. As a right-wing feminista like her, I am proud that it is our obsession. I also experienced a Twitter moment when I was asked last night why we have a Minister for modern slavery when slavery is illegal. That is a good point, and it perhaps brings home the deficiencies of social media. She also talked, as did my hon. Friends the Members for South West Bedfordshire, for Enfield, Southgate and for North East Cambridgeshire of the work of local police forces. From an operational and policy point of view, we need to work to ensure that local police forces know the signs of this crime, know where to report it and share intelligence so that we can prosecute the perpetrators and make sure that they get the punishment that they deserve.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North talked about the situation in rural communities and how she had once been an employee of a legitimate gangmaster, which was interesting to hear. I am sure nobody in the House would have any ideas about the Whips Office being anything like that—my hon. Friend and I shared time in the Whips Office—but her point about rural workers and migrant workers is important. I recently visited Devon and Cornwall police, which has dedicated migrant worker police community support officers who work closely with the Gangmasters Licensing Authority and others to identify the signs of trafficking, slavery and exploitation. All that work is incredibly important, and we need to see more of it being rolled out across the country.
The hon. Member for East Antrim talked about the Bill raising awareness, which is also an important point. The more we talk about and consider the Bill, the more that people outside the House will see that the Government are concerned about the issue and are taking action. I therefore thank him for his contribution.
The hon. Member for Arfon highlighted the interesting disparity between income levels in the countries from which trafficking victims often travel. Again, one of the strange parts of the crime is that the victims of trafficking often want to be trafficked, if that makes sense, because they feel that they are leaving something worse to go to something better. It is only when they get to their destination, having committed an immigration crime by allowing themselves to be trafficked, that they are exploited as a slave. I am pleased that we have introduced a statutory defence in the Bill that ensures that anyone who has committed an immigration crime, not knowing that they would end up being abused as a slave, will be protected.[Official Report, 17 July 2014, Vol. 584, c. 7-8MC.]
The hon. Members for Edinburgh North and Leith, for Foyle and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, and others, raised concerns about the devolved Administrations. Although the Bill has territorial extent only in England and Wales, it goes so far as to cover the devolved Administrations. We are working closely with the devolved Administrations, and we are ensuring that, where there are gaps that we know how to fill, the offence will be dealt with throughout the country, not just in England and Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North talked about the possibility of the statutory defence being used as a loophole. I reassure her that the defence will include clear safeguards. For example, the defence will apply only to victims of trafficking or slavery who have been compelled to commit the offence as a direct consequence of their enslavement or trafficking and where a reasonable person in the same situation would have had no realistic alternative but to act in a similar way. I look forward to debating all those issues and more in Committee. The victims should be at the heart of our further deliberations on the Bill, and I have no doubt that the true mark of the Bill’s success will be fewer victims whose lives are blighted by modern slavery.
If the House will indulge me, this is the first debate in which I have spoken for two years, as I have spent a significant amount of time in the Whips Office. The last time I was able to contribute to a debate was on behalf of a vulnerable constituent, and I was very proud to be able to stand up for my constituent in that debate. I am even prouder to return to speaking in this House to stand up for all the vulnerable victims of slavery and to see this crime being tackled and stamped out. This is my message to anyone out there who feels that they can abuse and use victims of slavery: “There is no home for you in this country. We will find you, we will prosecute you and we will lock you up.”
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Modern Slavery Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Modern Slavery Bill:
Committal
1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 14 October 2014.
3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
4. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption of that day.
6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or any further message from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Anne Milton.)
Question agreed to.
Modern Slavery Bill (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Modern Slavery Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Anne Milton.)
Question agreed to.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 5 to 10 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Agriculture
That the draft Public Bodies (Abolition of Food from Britain) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 6 May 2014, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
Legal Aid and Advice
That the draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1: injunctions to prevent gang-related violence) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 9 June, be approved.
Financial Services and Markets
That the draft Banking Act 2009 (Exclusion of Investment Firms of a Specified Description) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 5 June, be approved.
That the draft Banking Act 2009 (Banking Group Companies) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 5 June, be approved.
That the draft Banking Act 2009 (Third Party Compensation Arrangements for Partial Property Transfers) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 5 June, be approved.
That the draft Banking Act 2009 (Restriction of Partial Property Transfers) (Recognised Central Counterparties) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 9 June, be approved.—(Anne Milton.)
Question agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 11 to 14 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
European Union
That the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Cooperation Agreement) (Iraq) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 9 June, be approved.
That the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Cooperation Agreement) (Vietnam) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 9 June, be approved.
That the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Cooperation Agreement) (Philippines) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 9 June, be approved.
That the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Cooperation Agreement) (Mongolia) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 9 June, be approved.—(Anne Milton.)
Question agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 15 to 20 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Electricity
That the draft Contracts for Difference (Electricity Supplier Obligations) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 23 June, be approved.
That the draft Contracts for Difference (Definition of Eligible Generator) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 23 June, be approved.
That the draft Electricity Market Reform (General) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 23 June, be approved.
That the draft Contracts for Difference (Standard Terms) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 23 June, be approved.
That the draft Electricity Capacity Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 23 June, be approved.
That the draft Contracts for Difference (Allocation) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 30 June, be approved.—(Anne Milton.)
Question agreed to.
RAF Fast Jets
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight the safety of Royal Air Force fast jets, a subject that concerns the safety of RAF personnel, civilian air traffic and all those who use it, as well as communities under the flight paths of RAF fast jets.
At present the RAF operates three types of fast jet: the Hawk trainer, which flies from RAF Valley on Ynys Môn, or Anglesey; the Tornado, which flies from RAF Marham in Norfolk and RAF Lossiemouth in my constituency of Moray; and the Typhoon, which is operating from RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire. In the near future, the RAF and the Royal Navy will operate the F-35 Lightning from RAF Marham.
As anybody who has seen any of those aircraft in flight will attest, they operate at incredible speeds, which can reach over 1,000 mph. The cost of a single fast jet ranges from around £20 million each for a Hawk to around £100 million each for an F-35. RAF personnel are trained to exceptionally high standards over a long and sustained period and on an ongoing basis throughout their entire career. I have had the good fortune while representing Moray to get to know a great many of those personnel, and I hold them in the highest regard, both personally and professionally.
There are many aspects of fast jet safety that I could highlight, but in the time available this evening I will concentrate my remarks on the risk of mid-air collision. Sadly, air proximity risks are all too common in UK airspace. Official statistics from the UK Airprox Board show that between 1998 and 2013 there were 361 airprox events involving Tornado jets, of which at least 46 were in the most dangerous “Risk Category A”, meaning that a risk of an actual collision occurred, and of those at least eight involving two Tornadoes. Data on airprox incidents between 2000 and 2012 reveal that the number of airprox incidents involving Tornado jets was higher than for all other types of aircraft, both civilian and military, and that Tornadoes have been involved in 12% of all incidents.
Of course, there have also been airprox incidents involving other types of fast jet. One year ago, there was a detailed report on Wales Online about a near collision between Hawk jets above Aberystwyth. The pilots had the benefit of a collision warning system—also known as a traffic collision avoidance system—on board their aircraft, which alerted them with the warning, “Traffic, Traffic,” and the collision was averted. That example shows that the CWS or TCAS is installed in Hawk jets. It is mandatory on commercial airliners and it is installed across most of the RAF fleet, but not on Tornadoes or Typhoons.
Last week was the second anniversary of the 2012 collision of two Tornado fast jets from RAF Lossiemouth above the Moray firth. Three brave, dedicated and professional personnel were killed in the collision—Flight Lieutenant Hywel Poole, Squadron Leader Sam Bailey and Flight Lieutenant Adam Sanders—and a fourth was seriously injured. We pay our tributes to them today and I am sure that the thoughts of everyone in this Chamber are with their families, friends and colleagues at RAF Lossiemouth and elsewhere. The death of service personnel in accidents, especially if they are avoidable, is particularly painful.
Just prior to the anniversary last week, the Military Aviation Authority’s service inquiry report on the 2012 Tornado collision was published. It concluded that there were 17 contributory factors, including the absence of a collision warning system, which, as I have said, is mandatory on civilian aircraft and is installed across most of the RAF fleet, but not on Tornadoes or Typhoons.
The inquiry reported that the need for a collision warning system was highlighted within the Ministry of Defence 24 years ago, following a collision in 1990. Through the dogged research of air safety campaigner Jimmy Jones, who worked as an RAF Nimrod engineer, and from freedom of information inquiries and parliamentary questions answered by the MOD, we know that in the early to late 1990s there was an extensive collision warning system development programme that led the MOD to believe it was feasible. The report highlights the inclusion and feasibility at paragraph 1.4.6.468.
For the sake of clarification, will the Minister confirm in his summing up that an extensive collision warning system development programme was started in the early 1990s and that it led the MoD to believe that it was feasible? That start date is essential in understanding what I believe followed and what is an extremely serious charge: a series of negligent MOD decisions that may have led to the deaths of RAF personnel and the risk of many others.
The requirement for a CWS was made in the 1998 strategic defence review of the then Labour Government:
“Improving the Tornado GR4 bomber and its deployability—deployment packs to assist rapid deployment on operations, additional support manpower, engine and avionics spares packages; portable engineering and hanger accommodation; and”—
critically—
“a collision warning system to improve safety for man and machine”.
As we can see, without any ambiguity, the MOD was formally committed to such a collision warning system—a commitment that has still not been fully delivered to this day.
The report says:
“Although a specific Strategic Defence Review commitment, Secretary of State did not declare the funding to be non-discretionary; therefore Collision Warning System was prioritised and funded as part of the normal planning process (meaning it could be delayed by Central Staffs and the profile of implementation altered during its development”.
The Secretary of State at the time was George Robertson, now the noble Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. Given what we know about the delays that followed, it would be good to hear from Lord Robertson why spending on this life-saving technology was not protected.
What we go on to learn from the service inquiry report about CWS procurement is truly shocking. It states that
“it has suffered from numerous delays, cancellations and deferments without a coherent audit trail, which has made it difficult for the SI Panel to gain a complete picture of decision making. However, we know that, following numerous accidents, the 1998 SDR instigated the development of a CWS for the Tornado GRl/4 to be fitted ‘early next century’. Over the next 14 years the programme was subject to five deferrals, re-programming prioritisation, deletion in 2010 and eventual resurrection in 2012 on direction of the Secretary of State for Defence following elevation of the Tornado mid-air collision risk”.
The report goes on to highlight a number of particularly noteworthy milestones along the route of delays, cancellation and reinstatement. In 2004, the director of Air Staff said that
“it is difficult to defend the non-equipage of the Tornado and successor fleets with a Collision Warning System”,
including
“our belief that the CWS provision for Tornado is overdue and find it increasingly difficult to maintain the line we have taken with the CAA”
—the Civil Aviation Authority—
“that progress on introducing CWS is being made.”
In 2005, the Tornado collision warning system initial gate business case estimated how many aircraft would be lost if it was not installed, stating that
“historical data suggests there is a statistical probability of losing another 9 Tornados and 5 civilian aircraft before the Out of Service Date.”
That very same year, however, the MOD deferred CWS, and maintained a grotesque “Yes Minister” formulation that although there was funding in place for a 2010 in service date,
“it was not misleading for external communications”
to continue their line, knowing fine well that it would be installed only for 2014. The report found that:
“The lack of a CWS fitted to Tornados GR4s by 2012 is a direct consequence of Short Term Plan 2005 activity”,
and that there was
“no explanation why Defence Management Board were not told of the reality of the likely deferral on the In Service Date”.
I ask the Minister to confirm whether this is correct.
Does the Minister agree with the SI report that in 2010 the then Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), cancelled the collision warning system for Tornado? Does he agree with the report when it pointed out that that was not in line with established procedure? Does he agree with the report that
“fitting a CWS to the Tornado GR4 is assessed to reduce the risk of collision from 1 in 3 to a 1 in 6 before its Out of Service Date”?
Does he agree with the warnings that the catastrophic risk of collision with a commercial airline
“gives rise to the strongest societal concerns.”
That societal risk, as outlined by the then Under-Secretary, was talked about at length in the next section of the report. That section highlighted comments by the director general of the Military Aviation Authority, stating that the fact that the Tornadoes would be out of service soon was
“unlikely to be accepted as compensation for the apparent failure of the Dept to implement the programme hitherto—herein lies the very significant ‘societal risk’ that the Dept is viewed publicly as having been derelict in its duty of care to both its personnel and the public at large.”
What was warned about has come to pass, and three of my constituents died above the Moray firth when their Tornadoes collided.
It is taken six months since the completion of the service inquiry for the report to be published. Its contents are damning. There are many elements that I do not have time to go into, including the loss of key documentation by the MOD in relation to the CWS issue. The report makes it clear that not all relevant documentation was available to the service inquiry, including the report of the Tornado airworthiness review team.
Before I sum up, I want to ask the Minister a series of questions about the decisions of Defence Ministers in his and past Governments, which I hope he will be able to answer. Why did the then Secretary of State for Defence, George Robertson, having identified the collision warning system in the 1998 strategic defence review as a system that would
“improve safety for man and machine”,
allow it to fall into discretionary spending, which meant that it could be delayed repeatedly? Why did the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and Minister for Defence Procurement, Lord Drayson, accept the advice of officials that if it appeared that the MOD was funding a collision system for Tornado, it was not misleading to suggest it would be installed by 2009, when he was briefed that the date was actually 2014?
After repeated warnings from the risk holders and the director general of the Military Aviation Authority that it would not mean Tornado risk was as low as reasonably practicable—ALARP—why did the then Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for North Somerset, cancel the CWS programme? After holding the societal risk for a mid-air collision involving a Tornado for only six days, why did he reinstate the programme? Why were proper procedures not followed after the risk was no longer tolerable and routine flying operations stopped? What happened to the Under-Secretary’s order to deliver a review into the planning and programming situation that led to CWS being deleted? The report was due to be done in August 2011. It is missing. Where is it? Was it ever completed?
Why were key documents such as the Tornado airworthiness review team report not available to the service inquiry? Did the SI board consider the 1996 TART report? Why was publication of the service inquiry report delayed for so long? The Government issued a statement last week accepting liability for the 2012 Tornado collision. I understand that settlements may not yet be completed with all the victims’ families and that for legal reasons that may constrain what the Minister can say. However, on what basis have the Government accepted liability?
God forbid that there are any further collisions, but on the basis of MOD legal advice will the Government accept liability for any future mid-air collision involving a Tornado without a collision warning system?
What about Typhoons, which are currently in service and also operating without a CWS? Only last month, a German Luftwaffe Typhoon crashed with a Learjet near Olsberg in North Rhine-Westphalia. The Learjet came down near a populated area killing both people aboard. Remarkably, the Typhoon of the Taktisches Luftwaffengeschwader 31 landed safely at Nörvenich airbase near Cologne after the collision. The incident illustrates the risks of mid-air collision involving Typhoon aircraft. Now is the time for the MOD to explain why it is so far behind with the evaluation and installation of a collision warning system for Typhoons.
On 13 May, I received a written parliamentary answer to the following question:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what collision warning system is currently being tested on Typhoon aircraft; when he expects testing to be completed; when a decision will be taken to install such a system; and what the estimated total cost is.”
The Under-Secretary, who is replying to this debate, said:
“Analysis is currently underway into potential collision warning system capability for Typhoon. A system has not yet been fitted on a Typhoon aircraft for testing.
It is not possible at this stage to provide a timetable for the development of this capability, or for the decision on whether to install such a system on the aircraft. Similarly, it is too early to estimate the likely cost of such a system.”—[Official Report, 13 May 2014; Vol. 580, c. 444W.]
Given that, will the Minister confirm why it is not possible at this stage to provide a timetable for the development of this capability? Why has there not been a decision on whether to install such a system? Why is it too early to estimate the likely cost of such a system?
I have asked many questions this evening and I hope that the Under-Secretary will answer them all. I have no reason to doubt his best intentions, but I fear that he will not answer a great many of them. I believe that the brave RAF personnel who fly fast jets deserve the answers. I believe that service families deserve the answers and that there is a public interest in fully understanding what has happened and, more important, what has not happened when it comes to RAF fast jet safety.
I believe that there is public interest in who made the decisions to delay, cancel and reinstate the installation of a collision warning system and why. We should know why it was acceptable in the Ministry of Defence to mislead about the time scale on a CWS for Tornadoes and to allow this to drag on for so long.
Given what we have learned from the service inquiry by the Military Aviation Authority, the time has come for these questions to be properly answered, under oath in a fatal accident inquiry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) on securing a debate on what all hon. Members accept is an important matter. I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond, if not to all the hon. Gentleman’s questions—he acknowledged that he asked a great many. I will attempt to answer as many as I can and, where I am unable to do that, we will write to him in due course.
Air safety is of paramount concern not only to me, but clearly to everyone in the RAF and in the Ministry of Defence. I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman’s interest in the matter. He is a consistent questioner of the Department on the subject. I am therefore pleased that we have an opportunity to have a debate about it and to talk specifically about the RAF’s fast jet operations.
I pay tribute to the men and women of the RAF who operate fast jets and dedicate their service to the defence of our country. The hon. Gentleman rightly raised concerns about the tragic loss of Squadron Leader Sam Bailey, Flight Lieutenant Hywel Poole and Flight Lieutenant Adam Sanders, when two Tornadoes collided above the Moray firth near his constituency two years ago last week. My thoughts and sympathies are also with the families and friends of those who died so tragically.
I wish to make it clear from the outset that the RAF is satisfied that all risks to life associated with the operation of its fast jets are both tolerable and as low as reasonably practicable—ALARP. If that were not the case, the RAF would not fly these aircraft. I can assure the House that air safety is at the core of all the RAF’s aviation activity. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that no flying can ever be without risk, yet prior to that tragic loss and despite the proximity events to which he has referred, there has not been a mid-air collision involving RAF Tornado for 13 years.
The service inquiry into the tragic loss two years ago has been painstakingly thorough, taking more than 100 witness statements, including 60 interviews within three weeks of the incident. It concluded in November 2013 that the cause of the accident was lack of recognition of converging flight paths. Seventeen contributory factors were identified, of which only one was lack of a collision warning system. The purpose of the service inquiry was not to attribute blame, but to ensure that we learn lessons from that tragic incident and do whatever we can to prevent it from happening again. The MOD has accepted liability for the incident, and will continue to liaise closely with the families affected. As the matter is subject to further legal proceedings, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.
In recent years, and in particular following the publication of the Nimrod review, which was undertaken by Charles Haddon-Cave, QC in 2009, significant work has been undertaken to improve flight safety. Not least, we have now established an independent military aviation authority, the role of which is to regulate all military aviation activity and to assure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that risks are being managed to an acceptable level. Since 2010, all aviation risks are owned and managed by named duty holders. They are very senior, suitably qualified and experienced officers who are personally and legally accountable for the safe operation of their aircraft.
The risk of mid-air collision is well known to the MOD and a great deal of work has been undertaken to reduce it, both in the UK and overseas. At the time of the incident, the MOD was in the process of introducing the centralised aviation data service, a pre-sortie planning tool that allows aircrew to plan a sortie and identify what other aircraft have planned routes in the vicinity. That planning tool is but one of a range of measures in place to minimise the risk of mid-air collision. Others include extensive aircrew training designed to ensure that pilots are fully aware of their surroundings; use of transponder equipment in military aircraft; aircraft and ground-based radar; and air traffic control.
It is clear from the hon. Gentleman’s remarks that he believes that a collision warning system would have prevented that tragic accident, but it is simply not possible to be that definitive. The service inquiry did not conclude that the lack of a collision warning system caused the accident. The inquiry specifically stated that
“it is not possible to completely remove the risk of colliding with another aircraft regardless of the controls and mitigations put in place”.
Therefore, a collision warning system is not a panacea. It cannot guarantee that a mid-air collision would never happen again. A CWS provides an additional level of security and another tool for the aircrew to use. The majority of RAF fleets have a collision warning system or a plan to fit such a system. Airborne collision avoidance systems are installed on all RAF multi-engine transport aircraft. The Hawk T2, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, has a traffic collision avoidance system—TCAS II—fitted, and we are currently in the assessment phase to fit a system to Hawk T1.
However, such capability on front-line fast jets remains developmental. It is not simply a matter of fitting existing equipment that is available for civil-registered aircraft. The Ministry of Defence is in fact a lead within Europe for the development and embodiment of CWS on existing fast military jets. That is despite the technological and operational challenges of retrofitting such a system to fleets whose performance far exceeds that of normal aircraft profiles and performance.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, we have initiated a programme to fit Tornado aircraft with a similar system. This is currently being trialled on two aircraft, and a third has been fitted for further development. On current planning, we intend to introduce this capability in stages from later this year.
Analysis is currently under way into the potential to fit a collision warning system on to Typhoon aircraft, but it is too early to provide a timetable for development of this capability. The hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions in response to a previous written parliamentary answer I provided to one of his questions. I am not in a position to be able to give him any further comfort on why this is the case, other than that it is a very complex process, and that at this stage we are not far enough along in that process to be able to give clarity on either timetable or cost.
Looking forward, the F-35 Lightning II will have a limited collision warning system in its early capability block, which is supplemented by advanced sensors and software to provide pilots with a much higher level of situational awareness than our existing platforms.
On the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the procurement for the Tornado collision warning system, it is a matter of record that the commitment to fit a collision warning system to Tornado aircraft was made in the 1998 strategic defence review. Developing such a system proved difficult and attempts to develop a bespoke solution were unsuccessful during the early part of the past decade. It was only in 2008 that a commercial off-the-shelf collision avoidance system was identified as a potential solution for the Tornado GR4 fleet, and detailed design work began in December 2012 following the award of a contract to BAE Systems. It is true that the programme had been cancelled in April 2011—I think the hon. Gentleman said it was in 2010—as part of measures to bring the Department’s equipment budget back into balance, but that decision was revised within three months, clearly demonstrating the success of the post-Nimrod review duty holder construct. The duty holder elevated the risk to the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), on 14 June 2011, who within a week directed that the collision warning system should be reinstated.
Of course, fitment of a collision warning system to the Tornado fleet was not the only recommendation in the service inquiry. The other procurement recommendation was for new automatic personal locator beacons, which were contracted last month and are due to enter service in autumn 2015. I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the service inquiry findings were reviewed as a matter of urgency throughout the MOD and substantial progress has already been made in implementing the 42 recommendations.
I can answer one specific question posed by the hon. Gentleman in relation to the Tornado airworthiness review team report of 1994, which has been released by Defence Equipment and Support under a freedom of information request.
In conclusion, we recognise that air safety is not just about equipment. Risk management and training form an integral part of safety management. The RAF seeks to improve all aspects of its safety management system, which holds, at its core, the principle of continuous improvement. I would like to make it clear that the safety of our aircrew, other aviators and the general public, and protecting our aircraft to maintain a defence capability, are of utmost importance to the RAF.
Question put and agreed to.
Public Inquiry into Hormone Pregnancy Test Drugs
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Organ Transplants
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this subject. We debated the organ donation register only a few weeks ago, but it is appropriate to highlight the issue in national transplant week. I believe that everyone present is committed to ensuring that organ donation increases throughout the United Kingdom.
I pay special tribute to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), because although I am introducing the debate, I must confess that she asked me to do so. We asked the Backbench Business Committee for an opportunity for this debate, and that opportunity has come this morning. I thank the hon. Lady for giving us all the opportunity to participate, and I hope that the debate will be useful to all involved. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the opportunity to speak on this subject in national transplant week. I am passionate about organ donation not just because of the cold facts, but because I witnessed first hand how urgent and important organ transplantation is when my nephew Peter required a kidney transplant.
I was delighted to hear that the latest figures from the British Medical Association show that the number of people who have registered to be an organ donor in Northern Ireland has reached an all-time high of just over 582,000. I checked that figure last night and again this morning because I wanted to make sure that it was right, and it is correct: 582,000 people are registered. That is fantastic news. That all-time high has no doubt been aided by the marvellous work of our Health Minister in Northern Ireland, Edwin Poots, who since 2012 has been dedicated to increasing awareness of organ donation and achieving the desired figures.
That said, much more needs to be done. The UK has one of the lowest rates of organ donor registration in Europe, with 96% of the population supporting the principle of organ donation yet only 30% actually being registered. More than anything else, those low numbers are because the UK population is unaware of and often misinformed about organ donation, how to register, the process involved and how vital transplants are. Many campaigns are under way. I do not often read The Sun, but it is running a campaign on transplants. It pursues many issues, and today it is trying to encourage more people to sign up to the organ transplant list.
Currently, 7,000 people are waiting for an organ transplant, and three people die each week while waiting for organs. That is three people too many: three families left heartbroken by the loss of a loved one who could have been treated if more people were on the list to donate. Just one person can save up to nine lives, so the Government must encourage as many people as possible to sign the register. I know that the Minister is committed and that her response will be positive. With this debate, we want to encourage our nations, collectively, to get involved and sign up.
A third of families refuse to give consent for their loved one’s organs to be donated because they are unaware of their loved one’s wishes. That is just one reason why the Government must consider legislating on the introduction of a “soft” presumed consent system, wherein the families of the deceased can object to donation if the deceased dies without expressly electing whether or not to donate their organs. I strongly believe that people should be on the list as an organ donor unless they opt out. That is very much the soft option. Such a system would undoubtedly increase the number of organs available for transplantation and reduce the number of people dying while on waiting lists.
In 2013, the Public Health Agency in Northern Ireland carried out a survey in an attempt to gauge public opinion about organ donation and came up with some interesting figures. It found that 56% were in favour of presumed consent, just 18% were against it, 8% wanted more information and 18% did not know. A further 62% said that they would not opt out if a soft system was introduced. I believe that there is movement among the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland towards the soft option, which we should consider.
The NHS “Taking Organ Transplantation to 2020” strategy seeks to increase donor rates by 80%, but it does not include or discuss the option of a soft opt-out system. Perhaps the Minister could share her thoughts on that in her response. The lack of mention of a soft opt-out is unfortunate, as the strategy refers positively to the evidence from countries such as Belgium, Croatia and Norway showing
“an increase in donation rates following a move to an opt-out system together with investment in infrastructure and raising public awareness of organ donation.”
It is clear that other nations have made the move and seen the benefits; it is time that our nation moved in the same direction.
The 2013 survey also found that 84% of respondents in Northern Ireland supported the idea of transplantation, but only 32% were on the register. Worryingly, more than a third of respondents were not aware that the organ donor register existed, with that lack of awareness being lowest among 16 to 29-year-olds and people over the age of 65. Perhaps we need to do more to encourage people in those two age categories.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling argument about the need for organ transplants and has addressed the opt-out system that has only recently been introduced in Northern Ireland. Does he have any suggestions as to the possible reasons why many people do not offer to give their organs for donation?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I will come on to address that issue later in my speech, but we can do a number of things. In Northern Ireland, when people apply for a driving licence they must decide whether they want to be on the organ donation list. There is no dispute: they have to answer yes or no. If they answer yes, they are on it; if they answer no, they are not. It is as simple as that. I think that that is one reason why 582,000 people are on the donation list in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Government here on the mainland can take that approach as well.
I want to highlight a couple of other important points about the 2013 survey. Many of the respondents were wrongly informed on the subject of organ donation—for example, one in five wrongly thought that it was possible for a brain-dead person to recover from their injuries and that only the organs of young people were good for transplants. That shows the need for better understanding of the system, and we should look at how we can educate people through campaigns in schools, TV adverts and in GP surgeries. Maybe we MPs can post on our Facebook pages or websites—not maybe; yes we can. We must encourage people to sign up to the organ donation list.
In Northern Ireland, 78% of people surveyed said that they would accept an organ if they needed one. Some 96% of families claim that if they knew their loved one’s wishes, they would agree to the donation. That shows how important it is for families and friends to discuss organ donation. It should be a subject for consideration. Perhaps a media campaign could be organised and the issue written into the storylines of some of the soaps. That might make it an essential subject matter for discussion around the dinner table.
Several charities have backed this debate, and I would like to mention a few shocking statistics that they have kindly supplied me with. I want to focus on cystic fibrosis; I know that other Members will focus on other things. The chief executive of the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, Ed Owen, said:
“We are delighted to lend our support for National Transplant Week. For many with the life-shortening condition of cystic fibrosis, a lung transplant is the only way to prolong life. Yet it is a tragedy that one in three on the transplant list will die waiting for new organs.
It is vital that more lungs are made available for transplantation. So we strongly support measures to encourage more people to donate their organs in the event of their death—and we continue to support a change in the law to a system of presumed consent to help ensure more people have that vital discussion with their loved ones about their wishes.
Alongside this, more effective action is taken to ensure that a greater number of donated organs are used for transplant with a new national lung allocation scheme and greater use of extended criteria lungs. Our report, ‘Hope for More’, published earlier this year, set out a series of recommendations”.
I want some of those recommendations to be looked at.
Last Saturday, I was judging horses. I do not know very much about horses, but I was lucky; they said to me, “Pick the one that looks the best to you,” which was dead easy. It may not have been the horse the experts thought was the right one, but it was the one that I thought was the right one. At that event, I met a constituent, a gentleman with cystic fibrosis. I remembered him as a healthy, active person, but when I met him on Saturday, he told me that his condition had worsened. I am ever conscious of him and of many other constituents affected by this issue.
In March 2014, the Cystic Fibrosis Trust published the report “Hope for More”, which contained 12 recommendations for increasing the number of successful transplants. Key among them was a call for a national lung allocation system similar to the UK urgent heart system. We have a system in place that works; why can we not extend it to lungs? Regular audits have been key to the success of the urgent heart system. Surely a similar system could be introduced in relation to lung transplants.
In Germany and America, the introduction of a lung allocation system has led to a significant increase in lung transplants and huge decreases in waiting lists. I presume that we could do the same here; there is no reason why we cannot. The current system certainly seems flawed. If a patient in the south of England needs a lung transplant, they must wait for one to become available in their area rather than receiving a lung from the midlands or the north of England. We need some kind of scoring system so that those who are most desperate for a transplant receive one first, and people are ordered from those most at risk to those least at risk.
The Cystic Fibrosis Trust has come up with more ways in which the number of organ donors and therefore transplants could be increased. Although time does not permit me to go into great detail—I am conscious that other Members want to contribute—I believe that those suggestions warrant a committee to consider and delve into the issue. I hope that the Minister will indicate in her response whether she feels that a committee would be helpful in moving the campaign and this debate further on.
Existing lung donor criteria were originally drawn up over 30 years ago. Although they were reviewed in 2001, they have changed little. The criteria place limits on donors according to age, previous health complications and a number of other clinical measures. Although it is important to ensure that only viable lungs are transplanted, those limiting rules mean that lungs from fewer than 25% of brain-dead donors are used in clinical lung transplantation. There are clinically viable lungs among the remaining 75%, and we need to maximise their use. I suggest that we look into that.
On lung resizing, data on organs exported overseas suggest that many lungs from larger donors are not used due to size mismatch. The technology exists to resize organs, and it must be made more widely available. People with cystic fibrosis have smaller than average bodies due to difficulties absorbing nutrients from food.
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation techniques, which artificially preserve critically ill lung transplant patients and allow them extended time to receive donor lungs, have been developed to prevent death. ECMO is available at eight designated centres in the UK, but guidance is lacking on its appropriate use in lung transplants, where it has been shown to work as a bridge between respiratory failure and transplantation. It is feared that without clear guidance, ECMO will not be used appropriately in such circumstances, leading to adverse outcomes for patients.
The NHS Blood and Transplant 2020 strategy commits to providing
“guidance on levels of acceptable risk in relation to offered organs, particularly from extended criteria donors”.
It notes:
“Clinicians…will use their judgment, based on the current national and international evidence, to draw up criteria for non-acceptance”
and that
“there is variation in acceptance practices throughout the UK.”
Further, the strategy lays out actions
“to improve certainty about organ function”,
including investment in research to identify better biomarkers associated with good or poor function.
The Cystic Fibrosis Trust believes that it is the responsibility of NHSBT to publish guidance that brings together current national and international evidence to provide an up-to-date framework to support and guide clinicians’ judgment. It is a weakness of the NHSBT 2020 strategy that there is no commitment to providing clinicians with such a resource. Since the introduction of a German surgeon, André Simon, as head of transplant at Harefield, transplants have increased by 50%, while outcomes have remained every bit as good. It is ascribed to the culture difference in Germany. André Simon, having transferred that willingness to use extended criteria lungs at Harefield, has had an impact on the transplant programme there.
The 2020 strategy mentions the need for NHS hospitals and staff to be better supported to meet demands. That is welcome, but no mention is made of lung downsizing, and very little is made of extended criteria organs. Elsewhere in Europe, donor lung resizing is commonplace and outcomes are equitable with those of lungs that are not resized. Only three doctors in the UK can resize lungs, so it is a lottery as to whether they may happen to be around when needed. That is not disrespectful to anybody; it is a fact of life. Methods such as those, which involve controlled and safe innovation, are key to improving the likelihood of a lung transplant and go hand in hand with the NHSBT’s aim to
“ensure that transplant centres have the capacity and surgical expertise and other clinical skills to meet the demands for transplantation”.
Innovation has not been addressed in detail in the strategy, but it has been identified as an area on which commissioners must focus in order to make it a reality. Although the NHSBT strategy expresses a desire for a 5% increase in the number of hearts and lungs transplanted from donors after brain death, it is unclear how that will be achieved. We believe that there must be a renewed focus on understanding which lungs are suitable for transplant. There is strong evidence indicating that a new approach is increasing the rates of successful lung transplant elsewhere in the world.
Recent scientific guidance suggests that extended criteria lungs are key to progress in increasing lung transplant rates. Research published over the past 10 years by a range of international centres such as the university of Toronto, Hannover medical school, University Hospital Zurich and the Royal Brompton and Harefield Trust suggests that the use of selected extended criteria lungs may safely expand the donor pool without adverse consequences for lung transplantation. Many lungs designated as marginal by the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation criteria are now perceived by experts to be as clinically effective as standard criteria lungs.
Things are changing. Scientific evidence and research shows that more lungs are suitable, and we should be using them. Although the medical evidence is continually evolving, public perceptions are falling behind. We must address the issue of education and perception in the general public. We as MPs, this Government and the House can collectively ensure that that happens.
The charity Anthony Nolan seeks to help people with blood cancer or rare blood disorders who require blood stem cell or bone marrow transplants. The charity has said that despite the fact that there are more than 553,000 donors on the register, there are still not matches for every patient in need of life-saving transplants. Once again, more donors from black and minority ethnic communities are needed, as the only chances of finding a match are among those of similar ethnicity.
The average number of donors per constituency is 796, which is encouraging, but more are desperately needed. In my constituency of Strangford, we have a lot to do, with just 381 donors. I intend to use my opportunities as an MP through Facebook, my website, this debate and the local press to encourage more people to sign up and show the importance of organ donation and transplantation back home, but we must encourage Government to consider new ways of campaigning and raising awareness and new approaches, such as a soft opt-out system and a national lung allocation system.
I have had other correspondence from other bodies relating to organ transplants and blood safety. There are certain risks to organ donors, but they can be monitored in such a way as to reduce safety concerns. Maybe we need to raise the level of awareness and education, so that donors know they are in safe hands. We need to ensure that blood donors and organ transplant patients receiving blood transfusions are as well educated and informed on blood safety issues as they can be.
I am very aware that other Members want to speak and I will give them that opportunity; I also want to give the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), and the Minister the opportunity to conclude the debate. I will just give a few figures to put matters into perspective. Since 1 April, 309 people have donated organs; an additional 563 people have donated corneas; 824 people have received the gift of sight; and 804 people have received transplants. However, there are still 6,966 people waiting for the gift of a long and healthy life. Ultimately, choosing whether or not to donate organs will always remain the individual’s right, which is good and proper, but we in this place have a responsibility to ensure that the individual is well-versed in the matter and that the choice they make is an informed one. In organ transplant week, we need to focus on the legislative change that can and will put more people on the organ donor list, so that we can save even more lives. The first stage of that campaign is today in Westminster Hall, and we ask the Minister to respond appropriately.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Osborne. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on having secured this timely debate. As he said, it is national transplant week, and I wish to emphasise a particular aspect of organ donation.
The hon. Gentleman said he seldom reads The Sun; I assure him that I rarely read the Daily Mail. However, the Daily Mail has joined the campaign to encourage more organ donation and it has picked up on the case of a young boy who lives in my constituency. James Lewis, just four years old, is one of the 32 British children who desperately need a new heart. He was diagnosed last year with restrictive cardiomyopathy, which means that the lower chambers of his heart are rigid and cannot fill up with blood. His parents Kate and David have now spent nearly a year hoping and waiting for a donor, but importantly for them they have thrown their energies into Live Life then Give Life, a charity campaigning to save and improve the lives of all those in need of, or in receipt of, organ and tissue transplants. The charity exists to improve education and awareness of organ donation, and to fund projects that increase the number of successful transplants in the UK.
Little James has become something of a poster boy for the campaign and his parents have taken the brave decision to talk about child organ donors, to remove the stigma surrounding the issue of organ donation by children, as well as the superstition about it that there sometimes is. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the amazing technology that exists, including the ability to resize lungs, but unfortunately hearts cannot be resized. James is a four-year-old boy and because of his condition he is tiny; he can accept a heart only from a donor who is, at most, three times his body weight. Inevitably, therefore, that organ would have to come from another child.
I am sure that many of us here today have registered as organ donors ourselves, but how many of us have also signed up our children? As Kate Lewis says, organ donation needs to be much more visible and that is part of the reason why she has been so open about James’s condition. If she could ask one thing of the Minister today, it would be a Government-backed campaign in hospitals, doctors’ surgeries, Sure Start centres and schools as a way of removing the taboo that surrounds child organ donation.
We all appreciate how hard it must be for any parent to have to make a decision about organ donation at a dreadful time after a tragic event. However, there are significant time pressures because organs have to be retrieved very quickly. That is why it is so important for people to talk about organ donation and to understand what their loved ones’ wishes are, so that at a very difficult time the decision, in many ways, has already been made and people know what everybody’s wishes are.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will want to tell us what strategies are in place to encourage organ donation and to increase the sign-up to the donor register. It is a sad fact that although 31% of adults are signed up to the donor register, it is thought that about 57% of parents would not give consent for their child’s organs to be donated.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider pushing for discussion of organ donation to be included as part of citizenship education or personal, social, health and economic education in schools. For many children, the issue can be astonishingly straightforward, and many of them have said that they see it as being just like recycling—making good use of something that would otherwise go to waste. It is Kate’s belief that children are far more open to the idea of organ donation than their parents, and I have no doubt that she is right.
Children such as James desperately need replacement organs; their futures are entirely dependent on receiving them. As I said at the beginning, I wholeheartedly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate, which is an opportunity to bring this issue out into the open and for ideas from a range of charities to be debated. I have mentioned Live Life then Give Life. The Cystic Fibrosis Trust has also been in touch with me, and its “Hope for More” report gives some really good pointers as to the way forward. This week is an opportunity to bring this issue to the fore and to discuss the myriad ways in which we can break any remaining taboos surrounding this life-giving issue.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Mrs Osborne, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, as always.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate and for raising awareness in the House of the desperate need to increase organ donation. I will focus on cystic fibrosis. As the Minister will know from an Adjournment debate I secured a few months ago, I have a nine-year-old niece who has CF. Thankfully, she is in pretty good health at the moment, but as a family we obviously live with the knowledge that her condition is likely to deteriorate, particularly as she gets into her 20s.
In that Adjournment debate, I spoke about the excellent CF centres that we have in Bristol for children and adults with the condition, and one of the key things that I discussed with people when I visited Bristol’s adult CF centre was the desperate need for lung transplants. Thankfully, life expectancy for people with CF is increasing; it used to be very much a childhood disease, as people with CF did not survive into adulthood. However, it is still a life-limiting illness and most of the 10,000 people with CF in the UK will need a lung transplant to extend their lives.
CF is the third most common reason for lung transplantation and CF patients have the best survival rate among those who receive lung transplants, with 60% of them living for at least another five years and some for much longer. Obviously, given medical improvements, the situation is getting better all the time. The Cystic Fibrosis Trust gives the example of 43-year-old Vicky Petterson, who was successfully given a transplant when she was 28, enabling her to watch her son grow up and to celebrate two decades of marriage. A lung transplant is not a cure for CF, but it can give the recipient and their family the priceless gift of more years of life.
Generally, there are about 60 people with CF on the transplant waiting list at any given time. On average, they will be on the list for 412 days, and it is quite shocking to compare the UK’s statistics in this area with those of some other countries. In Austria, the average wait is 107 days; in France, 110 days; in Spain, 180 days; in Belgium, 194 days; and in Germany, 244 days. The Netherlands is much worse than those countries, with an average wait of 594 days, but the UK figure is one of the worst in Europe, with an average wait, as I said, of 412 days, which obviously puts a huge strain on patients waiting for transplants. While they wait, their condition will deteriorate quite significantly; many of them will become dependent on oxygen and will have to spend most of the time they wait in hospital, as they require intensive treatment. Usually, they would not be expected to live for more than two years without a transplant, so a clock is ticking as they wait for the call about a transplant coming through.
A few months ago, the case of Matt Lodge was reported in The Bristol Post. Matt was 23 and had done pretty well throughout his time at university, but then his condition had suddenly deteriorated. While he was waiting for a transplant, he always had to stay within four hours of Birmingham, so that he could be ready to drop everything and go there for a transplant. One night, he received a phone call at 1.30 am to tell him to go to Birmingham. He obviously headed up there, only to be told that there had been a mistake and his blood type was not compatible with the donor organ, so the operation could not go ahead. Several months later, he is still on the transplant waiting list; we can only imagine how traumatic that must be for him. It was very brave of him to have gone public with his experience and to use it to support the opt-out campaign and to try to encourage more people to come forward as donors.
As the hon. Member for Strangford said, the Cystic Fibrosis Trust is campaigning to maximise the use of organs. The trust’s “Hope for More” campaign has already been mentioned, as has the national transplant week’s “Spell it Out” campaign.
Some 32% of the UK population—just over 20 million people—are registered at the moment, but it is important to note that lack of registration is not necessarily a problem, because fewer than a third of donors would have been registered in the first place. The biggest issue is consent. The CF Trust reports that the UK has one of the highest rates of family refusal in the western world. Obviously, it is difficult for families to face such a big decision when they have just lost someone: they might feel that it is a violation of their loved one’s body or they might just not be ready to talk to doctors about such issues, particularly if the death has been sudden. That is why it is so important for people to discuss the issue with their families. It is one thing carrying an organ donor card or being registered online, but the best thing people can do is tell their family in advance that they would want that done, because then the decision is much more straightforward.
The hon. Member for Strangford talked about resizing—downsizing—lungs. The “Hope for More” report details ways, including resizing lungs, to reduce the time that people spend on the waiting list, other than just increasing people’s willingness to be donors.
Just 23% of donated lungs were successfully transplanted last year. Some of those not used may have been clinically viable, if only certain procedures could have been followed. As the hon. Gentleman said, the CF Trust is concerned that the criteria used to assess whether a lung is safe and to designate “extended criteria lungs” may not reflect current scientific knowledge because those criteria were mainly developed 30 years ago and need bringing up to date. The trust’s report accordingly calls for a
“renewed focus on understanding what lungs are suitable for transplant”
and for more transplant surgeons to be trained in downsizing donor lungs. As the hon. Gentleman said, only three people are trained to do that. Downsizing is particularly important for CF patients, as the hon. Gentleman also said, because they tend to be smaller than usual and cannot necessarily cope with average-sized lungs.
Techniques such as ex-vivo lung perfusion could be used to assess and potentially repair sub-optimal lungs. I understand it is still experimental at this stage, but the CF Trust reports that researchers suggest it could improve transplant rates by up to 30%.
The hon. Gentleman has obviously been well briefed by the CF Trust—I was listening to him, thinking, “Okay, cross those bits out”—so I will not go into too much detail about the national lung allocation system. However, as he said, lungs are allocated to the nearest transplant centre, which will assess the patients on its own list for the most suitable match. That would apply even if there were a patient in more urgent need on another transplant centre’s waiting list.
This year, NHS Blood and Transplant has developed a super-urgent group—some people will be considered a national priority and will be able to receive compatible lungs from anywhere in the UK. However, the CF Trust is keen for the measure to be rolled out and used anywhere. Of course, it is quite difficult to assess who is the most urgent case, but the issue needs to be looked at. As the hon. Gentleman said, there is already a similar system for heart transplants.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I, too, work closely with the Cystic Fibrosis Trust here in Parliament. I have hosted a number of events and have met people who have had lung transplants. The hon. Lady is right to highlight the UK’s average waiting time of 412 days, one of the highest in Europe. I lend my support to the CF Trust’s idea of a national lung allocation system, which could be a big step forward in reducing that waiting time and could make the use of those organs a lot more effective.
Kerry McCarthy
I understand that the hon. Gentleman chairs the all-party group on cystic fibrosis. I am grateful for his support.
My final point is about the importance of psychosocial support for patients preparing for and recovering from a lung transplant. It can be a stressful process, yet support is not commissioned as a demand-led service. The fact that lung transplants have been cancelled because patients did not feel psychologically prepared or able to go through with them, despite all the desperate waiting, indicates that more consideration needs to be given to psychological support and a more holistic approach to the whole process.
I hope today’s debate has underlined the need for a more joined-up approach across the board to improve organ donation. The issue is not just about registration and donation rates; it is also about innovation, to improve the availability and allocation of donor lungs. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I am sorry that I did not give you prior notice that I wanted to speak, Mrs Osborne. Although this is an important issue to me, I did not realise that it was on the agenda and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on introducing the debate. I agreed with a substantial part of his speech, although not all of it. I will come to that point later.
Organ donation and transplantation is one of the most important developments in modern medical science, enabling treatment of patients with failing and damaged organs. Huge advances in transplant surgery and immunosuppression have enabled great advances to be made. Hearts, kidneys, livers, lungs, pancreases, and other organs, are successfully transplanted, but the demand continues to grow. Medical science is enabling more transplantation and we are living longer, but still about 500 people die every year while waiting. We always have to be looking for ways of increasing the levels of donation and transplantation.
My interest in the subject stems from a friend of mine receiving one of the early heart and lung transplants at Papworth, probably about 25 years ago. It was phenomenal at the time, but since then it has become much more common and is more accepted. I have had an interest since that time and that has developed in terms of promoting support for those suffering from kidney disease in my constituency, for example, with the development of a dialysis unit, and it continues here. I am also a trustee of Kidney Foundation Wales, a wonderful organisation promoting transplantation in Wales, although I disagree with it about presumed consent. I have always been disappointed in that regard and somehow feel isolated, because all the other trustees of Kidney Foundation Wales favour a change to presumed consent, which is now a new Welsh law. However, I am implacably opposed to it, because I just do not believe it will work. I will come to that point later, as one of the two points that I want to make today.
We all want to increase the level of organ donation—that is, all those in favour of presumed consent and all those in favour of continuing with informed consent. Providing new life to a fellow citizen is undoubtedly the greatest gift that any of us can give. I have spoken on this issue several times before, but there are two new issues to consider that I want to mention.
First, I emphasise how much amazing success we have had in promoting organ donation. We all owe a debt to the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who established the organ donation taskforce—in 2005, I think—under the chairmanship of Elisabeth Buggins, an outstanding leader in this debate. That taskforce produced a report in 2008, with a target of increasing organ donation by 50% over five years. That target was met last year. However, it does not stop there. The latest figures show that, after six years, there has been a 63% increase, and it is still rising. We have seen a phenomenal increase as a result of the organ donation taskforce’s recommendations, which did not include presumed consent; in fact, it said that that was not a recommendation. It recommended an increase in the number of intensive care beds and specialist nurses, copying what had happened in Spain, which had delivered great success there in increasing organ donation. It is important to recognise that we can continue to build on the great success that we have achieved.
Secondly, I am disappointed that the British Medical Association takes a different view from me, supporting the introduction of presumed consent. However, it decided to do that on the basis of a show of hands at a conference meeting, and it was the quality of the speakers in the debate that led to that decision. Its decision was not based on a comprehensive report, like that of the organ donation taskforce; it was just a show of hands.
The point that I really wanted to make in contributing to this debate, because it is important and supports my view that no self-respecting surgeon would remove a patient’s organs without the support of their next of kin, is that the Royal College of Surgeons has in recent weeks withdrawn its support for the BMA’s position. The Royal College of Surgeons said:
“Evidence from these countries demonstrates that investment in public awareness campaigns and infrastructure that supports transplantation services, such as the availability of intensive care beds and number of specialist nurses in organ donation, can substantially increase organ donation.”
That is key. It continued:
“It is therefore of profound importance that investment in these areas is increased to support organ donation.”
It also said that
“we believe that there is insufficient evidence that an opt-in or opt-out system increases rates of organ donation. We consider the issue to be a matter for personal ethical and philosophical deliberation. We believe that to improve organ donation rates it is vital that investment in public awareness campaigns and infrastructure that supports transplantation services is increased.”
That is the key point on which I want to finish. There is no evidence that moving to an opt-out or presumed consent system will deliver any more organs. The Welsh Government incessantly repeat that it will, which is why popular support is seen when people are asked about the system. Clearly, if people are told again and again by the Government that the system will increase the number of organs, they will say that they support it. If I believed that it would increase the number of organs, I would support it, but I do not, because it simply will not do that. An important point to remember is that we need to invest in those things that work.
Jim Shannon
In my introduction, I referred to three countries that have shown that the soft opt-out option was successful: Belgium, Croatia and Norway. There is evidence and, with respect, the hon. Gentleman cannot deny that.
Glyn Davies
I have not studied the situation in Norway, but for many years the example in this debate was always Spain. Spain was the great success story, and it is indeed the best performer in the world. The Welsh Government have recently claimed Spain to be a presumed consent country. The reality is that the law was passed in 1979 and was effectively not followed. It was abandoned in 1980 and remains on the statute book, but it has never been activated. Ten years later, Spain introduced the changes recommended by the organ donation taskforce and had spectacular success. As a nation—I hope the Minister will say that we will carry on doing this—we need to continue doing what we have done, which has produced success: focusing on intensive care beds, specialist nurses and the example that the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) mentioned of people telling their next of kin. If all families knew, we could raise the consent rate, perhaps by 20%, to the levels that Spain sees, and we would deliver all the organs we need. The key is people telling their next of kin, so that their next of kin know what they desire. Far more transplants would be carried out and more people suffering would live.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
I well remember watching the television as a child in 1967, hearing the news of Dr Christiaan Barnard’s first heart transplant and being absolutely amazed. It seemed like something out of a science fiction book, yet we have moved in a relatively short space of time so much further forward. The one area, however, where we have not moved forward is public recognition of the essential part they have to play in donating a life. We have to raise awareness of that and of transplantation’s possibility and viability. Government and surgeons can only do so much; the public are the vital missing component.
We have, as has been said, a large percentage of public buy-in to the concept of transplantation. Some 97% agree with it, but only 30% carry donor cards. I follow the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), and he and I co-chair the all-party kidney group. That statistic is important, since those awaiting a kidney are the largest group of people requiring a transplant. Some 5,640 people are awaiting transplants. Since April this year, 457 people have received kidneys from deceased donors and 158 have received kidneys from living donors. Those who are still waiting and their families and friends are deeply worried that a donor will not be found in time. In the meantime, they face kidney dialysis, which is a lifesaving but traumatic event. For many, it happens three or four times a week, and their life is on hold.
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on the initiative taking place in Wales. People frequently say things are half the size of Wales or have twice the population of Wales. We are always used as a measure, but I have long felt that we are a nation of 3 million people that has huge potential for trying new ideas and huge opportunities for breaking new ground. In Wales, 56 people were donors in 2012-13, enabling 211 organ transplants to take place. Some 200 people are on the waiting list in Wales. We have to look at anything that makes a difference. We are a small country and we have to be creative.
The Human Transplantation (Wales) Act 2013 comes into effect on 1 December 2015. Will it make a difference? It provides an opportunity to learn a lesson, not just for Wales, but for the whole of the United Kingdom and, hopefully, the whole European Union and the whole world. I held a debate in Archbishop McGrath, which is one of my local Catholic schools, and the students chose the subject. They wanted to debate it. As young people, they felt that the issue affected them. What was interesting was that over and over again, issues came up where we have to be up front politically and enter into the debate. There was a fear about harvesting and people being allowed to die because surgeons wanted their organs. They were shocked to find, when they did their research, that in reality someone has to die to be an organ donor, in the right way, at the right pace and in the right place at the right time. The best place to be an organ donor—or the worst place, depending how one looks at it—is a high dependency unit, because there is an idea of when someone will die and there can be time to find the person who needs to receive the organs, an available surgeon and an operating theatre.
I reiterate the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) on psychological preparedness, which we do not highlight enough. There is huge stress and strain on people waiting for an organ. Sometimes, when the day arrives, they cannot face it. They feel terror at the change in their life. People have minutes in which to respond, and we should not underestimate how traumatic that can be, or how traumatic survivor guilt can be, whether that is for the person who died so they can live or for those still on the waiting list. The person taken off the list has a chance to live, while others were turned down.
I will briefly talk about some constituents. Jean Schofield gave her kidney for her son, Mark, who has now had three transplants. It is not necessarily just one transplant that is needed; some people need a lot more. Her fear and anxiety over her son has made her a driven fundraiser. She is an absolutely amazing example of how people can give their energies to organ donation and to fundraising for research and support for those who suffer.
Katy Lloyd, who is 24 and from Bridgend, has cystic fibrosis, which was identified when she was four months old. I cannot begin to understand what her family must have lived with knowing that she would eventually need a double lung transplant. The tension and fear experienced by her parents every time she had a cold or fell ill must have been horrific. Following her transplant, Katy said, “I didn’t think about it. It was all I’d ever known.” Imagine if all you had ever known was that one day you would need to face such an operation and that your life was on hold. She has made a fantastic recovery and is a great example of the difference that an organ transplant can make.
Judith French, a great friend of mine, has polycystic kidney disease. Polycystic kidneys cannot be removed during transplants and continue to grow. She was unable to leave the house and had a frequent, urgent need to be near a bathroom. The transplant was wonderful, but she still has large and growing polycystic kidneys, which is like carrying around a big bag of potatoes. She has high blood pressure, a swollen stomach and back problems, but she was refused access to benefits because she had had her transplant. We must consider how the benefits system recognises that transplants do not necessarily end the difficulties that some patients face and that they may still need support.
Andy Eddy, whom I recently met at an all-party group meeting, is 48 and married with two children aged 11 and 13. He was a practising solicitor and was advised to have a hepatitis C injection. An unknown genetic defect meant that the inoculation—a positive step to protect his health—actually led to the destruction of his liver. He had liver disease and liver failure and faced a long, horrific wait on the transplant list while his health declined. His life has been turned around following his transplant. He joined the British transplant games as a volunteer, winning one silver and three bronze medals, and is now chair of Transplant Sport. I have written to the Minister about the games, because they should be held at the same time as national transplant week, because they help to show the difference that can be made by a donation. Someone can be taken from death’s door to athlete. That is how big the change can be and that is what we must ensure that people understand.
Finally, it is vital that we get the message out about the need for conversations about one’s wish to be a donor. Talk to your family today about what you want. My husband has a motor neurone condition called Pick’s disease and I have power of attorney over his health. We went to see a consultant, who asked me, “On death, would you be willing for your husband’s brain to be donated for medical research?” I can still feel the shock at being asked that question. I said, “My husband still has the capability to make that decision. I want him to make it.” He said, “I want to do it.” I cannot imagine having that conversation at the point of his death. Such conversations must happen now while people are fit and healthy and they must be stark and serious. That is what I want to come out of today’s debate. I want families around Britain to be having those conversations, so we do not get refusals when people are carrying donor cards.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mrs Osborne. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding time for this debate during national transplant week. I also thank my hon. Friend—if I may call him that—the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) who went to the trouble of taking the proposal to the Committee. It has been really good to hear so many powerful speeches this morning, in particular that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who moves me every time she talks about what is happening to her and her husband. It is incredibly brave to talk about such things publicly. For people paying attention to this debate, what she said will have brought home why they must talk to their families tonight about being an organ donor not only so that they will know their wishes, but also to inspire other family members and friends to join the register. We must remember that being on the register does not mean that just one life could be saved; up to nine lives could be saved or improved. Being an organ donor is an incredibly good, generous, human thing. If we can achieve one thing from today, I hope that more people will confidently register as donors and that families will give their consent to organs being donated at what are difficult and traumatic times.
The progress that we have made in increasing the number of registered donors is great. I was grateful for the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who has a family interest in the matter. It is particularly powerful when hon. Members’ personal circumstances inform our debates and policy decisions. However, one under-represented group on the donor register is families from certain ethnic minority communities, which is a big issue in my ethnically diverse constituency. What steps are the Minister and NHS Blood and Transplant taking to increase donation rates among minority communities, because their need for donations is as great as any other?
I want to talk specifically today about lung transplantation, which I have discussed before not least because I was introduced to the issue by a constituent of mine, Natalie McCusker, who received a double lung transplant at Wythenshawe hospital last year. As did other hon. Members, I want to thank the Cystic Fibrosis Trust for the helpful briefing and support given for today’s debate and more generally. I also welcome the progress made since my Adjournment debate on the subject almost exactly a year ago when I talked specifically about the problems with the allocation system and how certain parts of the country, including my region of the north-west, were losing out. It is not just that in comparison with other European countries the UK performs less well; within the UK some zones do much better than others. The north-west is one zone where people have a particularly long wait for lung transplants. I welcome the allocation of super-urgent cases on a national basis and the annual review of the size of zones, which are both good steps forward.
There is, however, scope to do more. We could look at extending national allocation to all super-urgent cases and then perhaps to urgent cases. In due course, we could run the whole country on a national allocation basis. I realise that NHSBT and the Minister will want to examine carefully the possible consequences for patient outcomes, but can she assure us that the proposal remains under live and active consideration? International evidence suggests that a national allocation system could produce as good if not better outcomes. When we are so far down the European league table, it is right to consider what we might learn from other countries.
I am also pleased that NHSBT has reissued some of the guidance relating to transplantation, in particular guidance on the difficult transition from child patient to adult patient, which was exactly the situation that my constituent Natalie found herself in. She was initially being treated at Great Ormond Street hospital, but when it became likely that she would need a transplant, she was coming up to her 16th birthday and so had to transfer to the adult list and effectively lost about a year in terms of her being deemed ready to receive a transplant. I understand that improvements have been made in the guidance on handling that transition. I will be grateful for any update that the Minister can give us.
Supply of organs has been discussed by other hon. Members this morning. There have been important and welcome developments on resizing, which is especially important for children, women and CF patients, who are likely to be of smaller stature. Colleagues also pointed out, however, that only a tiny handful of doctors are able to carry out the resizing operation. What steps are being taken to extend that capacity?
Similarly, what about extending the criteria for usable lungs, which is clearly a sensitive issue? Patients’ own wishes and—I do not say the word in a pejorative sense—prejudices have to be taken into account. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, however, international research suggests considerable potential for more marginal lungs to be reusable, while differentiation between different transplant centres even within the UK is apparent. Harefield is doing particularly well, perhaps showing the way.
Will the Minister update us on what is being done to assess the evidence further on extending criteria and revising guidance? Will she also tell us what is being done about looking at the very different rejection rates in the different centres around the country? That is of particular importance when we are stuck with the zoning system, which means that people may be forced to go to a centre where rejection rates are much higher than if they were in treatment elsewhere.
Like the hon. Member for Strangford, I shall comment on some of the other techniques being developed. For example, the ECMO technique is highly specialist, as he said, and it is clearly appropriate, not in all, but in some circumstances. It will be useful to hear what work is being done to provide detailed guidance.
In particular, I wanted to raise an issue that has not yet come up this morning, which is funding for transplantation. There is no use doing what we are doing so successfully to increase the number of donors and to improve the usability of lungs and the techniques that mean more transplants can be carried out because the surgery and the science are there to enable them, if we have not in parallel put in place the funding to ensure that we can pay for an increased number of transplants. The national commissioning team understood well that the funding models had to be designed and progressed alongside and in parallel with the science, the improving clinical strategies and the successful public registration and awareness campaign.
Other interventions, however, are now competing with transplants for funding, while the specialist services budget, which funds transplants, is under pressure and might even face cuts. At the same time, commissioning is moving to local area teams, which will not have the same understanding of some of the decisions that need to be made on transplantation priorities, which risks us moving to an unco-ordinated approach and widening inequality of outcome between centres.
Transplantation risks becoming underfunded even as the numbers that can be treated are on the rise. We have already seen a significant increase in the number of transplants carried out in recent years, and that will increase further as allocation methods improve, donation rates increase and technology allows more lungs to be used. It would be an absolute crying shame if the strides forward in good practice were stymied by a lack of resource or by a commissioning model that cannot optimise the clinical progress and the public engagement being made.
I am, like others, pleased that we have had the opportunity to explore the subject this morning. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Osborne.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for a debate on such an important issue. In his opening remarks, he alluded to others who have encouraged him, so I thank them, too, and the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed; they have shared their personal connection and the case studies of their affected constituents. Our discussion today is most timely, given that we are in the midst of national transplant week.
Sixty years ago this year, the world’s first successful kidney transplant was performed by Dr Joseph Murray in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr Murray broke new ground when he and his team transplanted a kidney from Ronald Herrick to his dying twin brother, Richard, which saved his life. Today, kidneys are the organ most commonly transplanted, with about 2,000 transplants each year in the UK.
Organ donation is without doubt one of the great success stories of the latter half of the 20th century. This debate and national transplant week provide the opportunity to celebrate such fantastic achievements, to debate the challenges facing organ transplantation and to increase awareness of organ donation. It is welcome to see so many hon. Members showing their support for the campaign.
Over the past century, organ transplantation has overcome some major technical limitations to become the success that it is today. Breakthroughs include developing surgical techniques to manage the immune response and devising preservation solutions to enable prolonged periods of ex vivo storage. The results of organ transplantation continue to improve as a consequence of such innovations and of improvements in peri-operative and post-operative management.
Major progress has been made with the infrastructure and organisation of organ donation, which has led to a significant increase in donation rates. I am extremely proud of the fact that, in 2001, the previous Government said that we would double the number of donors from 8 million to 16 million by 2010; we achieved that a year early, in 2009. The 19.7 million of us on the NHS organ donor register are testament to the changes made at every level—from hospitals to the critical care and emergency department staff committed to donation. Most of all, there is the generosity of donors and their families.
Despite all those astounding achievements, many challenges persist, most notably the shortage of suitable donor organs. We know that the number of potential donors is declining because people are living longer and fewer are dying in hospitals in circumstances where they could donate. Every year in the UK, about 1,200 people die after death has been diagnosed on neurological criteria, with a further 3,000 people dying after the withdrawal of treatment in circumstances where donation is possible.
The hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) highlighted the particular challenge of finding suitable child and infant donors. That makes it more critical than ever to increase the pool of willing donors and to encourage more people to join the NHS organ donor register, which includes engaging with parents to consider the gift of life at a time of child death tragedy.
As many Members have said, market research carried out by NHS Blood and Transplant highlights that, although 51% of the population definitely want to donate their organs and 31% said that they would consider it, only 31% have actually signed the register. Twenty years on from the launch of the NHS organ donor register, people may sign up in many ways, such as through an online form, a 24-hour donor line, a text message, the GP or even a driving licence application. I did so when I signed up for my Boots advantage card. Surely even more mechanisms could be used to sign people up—the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned a debate we had on the issue only a few weeks ago, when I suggested supermarket cards. What more could we be doing to encourage people, particularly young people?
A current campaign, led by the Anthony Nolan trust, goes into schools to encourage 16 to 18-year-olds to consider signing up to the bone marrow register. What more could we be doing across all schools?
Jason McCartney
The hon. Lady has just raised the campaign by the Anthony Nolan bone marrow trust—it is called Register and Be a Lifesaver. As the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) pointed out, there is still an issue when it comes to different ethnic backgrounds. As the bone marrow register has been mentioned, I want to point out that northern Europeans have a 90% chance of finding a bone marrow donor, but that figure falls to just 40% for people from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds.
Luciana Berger
I was just about to come to the specific challenges of regional differences and of people from different communities having access to organs. To finish my point about the important campaign by the Anthony Nolan trust, as part of that campaign the organisation wrote to all MPs to encourage us to write to schools in our constituencies to inform them about the opportunity to have the Anthony Nolan trust come in and inform 16 to 18-year-olds about the chance to be a life saver. I want to put on the record that I strongly encourage other Members to write that letter if they have not already done so—I sent mine off only last week—because it is something that we can do as MPs to encourage people locally to get involved.
In response to the hon. Gentleman’s point about specific communities, the challenge, as we have heard from a number of Members, is not simply getting more sign-ups to the register but targeting specific communities and areas that we know are losing out from the stark inequalities in our system. In the north-west, for example, where my constituency is situated, patients are waiting longest for a transplant and we have the highest death rate among those who are waiting: 62.2% of patients in the north-west wait more than six months for a transplant, compared with an average for England of 47.3%. Some 23.2% of patients in the north-west have waited more than 18 months for a lung transplant, compared with an average for England of 15.8%. We need to take regional differences into account.
Many Members have referred to lung donation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) referred to the zonal lung allocation system, an important issue that I will focus on in more detail. The Cystic Fibrosis Trust has raised legitimate concerns about that system and is concerned about equity in lung allocation.
Currently the allocation of lungs to transplant centres operates on a rota system. When a donor becomes available, the organs are offered to the closest transplant centre if a matching recipient has been identified. If no suitable candidate is found, the organs are then offered to the next centre, as per the pre-agreed rota. The likelihood of getting a lung transplant and the time frame for the procedure will therefore vary according to where an individual is listed. A donated organ will not currently always reach the candidate most in need anywhere in the country. Will the Minister give her view on the zonal lung allocation system? Does she have any plans to develop a more needs-based system?
It is not just where someone lives that can affect their chance of having a transplant operation if they need one. People from BAME communities are up to three times more likely to need a transplant than others, yet, because organ matching is likely to be closer when the ethnicity of the donor and the recipient are the same, they have to wait much longer. For example, on average a person from a BAME community will wait a whole year longer for a kidney transplant than other patients.
The #Spit4Mum campaign to find suitable stem cell donors for a woman called Sharon Berger—I am not related to her—highlighted the specific challenge of finding suitable donors for members of the Ashkenazi Jewish community. I am a member of that community and I have done my bit to contribute to that specific campaign. But we know that there are many different ethnic minority communities that struggle to find donors of organs and stem cells.
Such inequalities are not acceptable. We cannot accept that some of our citizens will be far more likely to die than others because of where they live or their ethnic background. Will the Minister address that point specifically and outline what concerted action the Government will be taking to tackle it?
Many Members on both sides have raised their concerns about what more we can do to support families in honouring the wishes of their loved ones. It is very difficult when someone passes away, but we know that in 2011-12, 125 families overruled an individual’s intention as recorded on the NHS organ donor register to become an organ donor. Many people do not realise that if they have not made their donation decision clear, their family could be asked to agree to a donation taking place. Nobody wants to leave their family with such a burden, so it is vital that we encourage and support families in having those conversations earlier. The theme of the current national transplant week is “Spell it out”. Will the Minister outline what she is doing to promote that message further? There is a great disparity between those people who sign up and share their intentions with their families and those who do not, and there can then be issues with vetoing.
I will touch briefly on the issue of the opt-out or presumed consent system, which was raised both by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) and by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies). There are many obvious advantages to the system. I return to the point I made earlier: there is a gap between the 51% of the population who definitely want to donate their organs, the 31% who would encourage it and the 31% who have actually signed the register. The system will be introduced in Wales in 2015. Any change in legislation will need to take into account the impact of the system in Wales and must have the backing of the public. What consideration is the Minister giving to learning from the introduction of the system in Wales and to introducing a similar system in England?
Sandra Osborne (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I ask her to be mindful of the fact that the Minister has many points to answer in the debate.
Luciana Berger
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East referred to the international comparison that suggests that there is room for improvement in ensuring that we are making the most of donor organs. The Cystic Fibrosis Trust has pointed out that a large number of donor lungs are never used, despite consent from the next of kin. Lungs from fewer than 25% of brain-dead donors are utilised in clinical transplantation. The need for suitable organs must be balanced against possible risks to the recipient, such as transplanting an organ that does not work properly or transmitting a serious disease from donor to recipient. However, I echo the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on donor lungs: there are clinically viable lungs within the 75% that are not used and more can be done to address the issue.
Anxiety over the likely function of an organ largely explains why it is only in a minority of cases that all possible solid organs are used. The Government strategy for organ donation and transplantation, published last year, highlighted that sometimes actions that could be taken to improve the function of a retrievable organ are not taken and the organ is declined. On other occasions, organs declined on the grounds of poor function should have been accepted and implanted. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that we are using as many donor organs as possible? I also echo and reinforce the points made and questions raised about supporting patients who are waiting for organs to ensure that, when the time comes, they are psychologically prepared.
This issue is important to all Members, across the political divide. Anyone in this room could one day need an organ donation or have a loved one who does. We are making progress but we must maintain our momentum. I welcome the Government strategy for organ donation and transplantation set out last year. I am happy to work with the Minister and do all I can to promote efforts to improve organ donation and transplantation, to ensure that anyone who needs an organ transplant has one. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
This has been an excellent debate, and I am only sorry that I have less than 12 minutes—slightly less time than the shadow Minister took—to respond. As always, I hope colleagues realise that if I cannot respond to substantive points during the debate I will write to them afterwards.
I will try not to reiterate some of the excellent points made about the backdrop to the debate, but I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate and on being such a stalwart supporter of health debates generally—we are in this Chamber together very often and it was excellent to see him leading today’s debate. There have been many thoughtful contributions today. I would also like to note that as a former member of the Backbench Business Committee I particularly welcome the fact that it has given Parliament the ability to have timely debates. It is excellent that we are having this debate in national transplant week. The Committee is a real innovation that has worked out well.
I join those who have paid tribute to donors and their families and all those who work in the NHS to make organ donation and life-saving transplants such a success story for our nation. Rightly, however, colleagues have focused on where we can do even better, and I will try to respond to some of their points. I will certainly draw the attention of NHSBT to the many good points that have been made.
It has been well established how many people are on the register of those waiting for a transplant. It is also well established what a success the taskforce set up under the previous Government has been. In the six years between April 2008 and April 2014, we saw a real strengthening of the donation programme, with donation rates going up by 63%, and transplant rates by 47%. However, we know that there is more to do, and programmes in other countries are producing even better results.
We have heard of people—in some cases, we have heard moving personal examples of constituents—who are waiting far too long for suitable organs to be donated, and I will touch later on what NHSBT is doing to work with surgeons in that regard. Sadly, many of those people have lost their lives waiting for a transplant, so it is heartening that the number of people registering for organ donation has increased by more than 3 million since 2010 and is now more than 20 million. I pay particular tribute to people in Northern Ireland for the impressive rates there, which the hon. Member for Strangford highlighted.
The critical issue, and one of the things NHSBT wants us all to focus on in national transplant week—indeed, many speeches did focus on this—is the need for people to discuss organ donation with their family. People need to add their names to the register, but they also need to talk with their families about the fact that they have done so. The shadow Minister and others alluded to the fact that a relatively small number of people die in circumstances where they could be donors, and there is some reason to think that that pool of people might actually diminish. The need for people to have a conversation about registering was movingly explained by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who used a personal example that highlighted the issue so much better than any number of statistics could.
The UK’s consent rate is the area of particular concern and focus, because it is one of the lowest in Europe. Last year, four in 10 families said no to allowing their loved one’s organs to be donated. In 2012-13 105 families, and in 2013-14 119 families said no, even though they knew their family member was on the organ donation register. Obviously, it is a real concern that they knew that person’s wishes and still said no.
On the point my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) made about children, it is worth noting that young people can give consent and go on the register if it is obvious they can make that consent real. If they are judged to be old enough to give consent, they can do so; if they are too young, consent will still be down to the parents. That comes back to the point that it is important to have a family discussion, for all the reasons that have been highlighted, and I will talk a little more about that later.
One group of people who play a really important part, and who have made a contribution to the success of our programme, with its higher rates of donation and transplant, are the specialist nurses for organ donation—the SN-ODs. They do amazing work at an absolutely tragic time in a family’s life, and their specialist training has been one of the critical factors in moving us forward. When we last debated this issue, I said that the reality is a long way from cool, calm debating chambers such as this, where we exchange statistics and thoughts on how to improve things. Many decisions about transplant are made at a moment of great trauma; it might be 3 in the morning, and somebody might not even want to be parted from the body of a loved one who has just died. At that moment, the clinicians have a real duty of care towards the family, who will be very distressed, and the reality is that, operationally, clinicians will not overrule a distressed family who are absolutely determined they do not want to donate. This is about having a conversation beforehand, which, as the hon. Member for Bridgend underlined, is so important.
NHSBT and clinicians are very aware of the possible consequences of getting adverse publicity for overriding a family’s wishes. There is a delicate balance to be struck. I should remind Members that lung transplants need to take place within 12 to 16 hours of retrieval of the organ—for hearts, it is up to six hours. That is not a big window of opportunity, and it comes at a terrible moment. That is where specialist trained nurses such as the SN-ODs are so fantastic. However, we need discussions to happen much earlier.
As these debates always do, this debate has touched on diverse opinions about introducing opt-out. I will not go into that in any detail, because we have rehearsed these issues before. However, I would just say that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) is right to say that the jury is out on the international evidence regarding whether it is opt-out or opt-in that makes the difference, rather than a concerted programme of many other things—the sort of things, in fact, that our organ donation taskforce has addressed. The strengthening of donation programmes and other steps have made a significant difference, but we will watch with interest the impact on donor numbers of the proposals in Wales. However, we are yet to be entirely convinced that they alone will make the big difference. Again, if a family are strongly against donation when their loved one has died, their strong wishes will not be ignored and overridden, even in the situation in Wales. This still comes down to understanding what families want.
The “Taking Organ Transplantation to 2020” strategy is very much evolutionary, and it builds on the infrastructure we have in place, particularly as regards response rates. Members have mentioned other aspects of it. One aim is to have 5% more donated organs transplanted. Some of the work going on to support that is on improving organ function before retrieval, improving the function of retrieved organs, reducing the rate of declined organs and supporting surgeons in understanding risk. Work is therefore being done under the strategy on those important issues.
During the debate, Members highlighted lots of the good ideas we are using in promoting organ donation and encouraging people to sign up to the register. The Cabinet Office is working on further initiatives, but it always welcomes suggestions. Everyone involved in policy development on this issue is extremely open to good ideas, and I will certainly ensure that the debate is brought to the attention of colleagues in the Cabinet Office.
I also urge Members to do what they can this week. Tomorrow afternoon, NHSBT is hosting a good event of its own, and I hope Members will attend. There have been lots of suggestions of what Members can do. The hon. Member for Strangford said he is using his Facebook page. We can also use links on our websites and social media—MPs are increasingly good users of social media. This week, people are using #spellitout to try to get a conversation going. I urge Members to support the NHSBT event and to use that hashtag. If they are planning an end-of-term bulletin to their constituents, I urge them to pick this issue out to help spread the word.
As was rightly said, it is disappointing to see both the length of time members of ethnic minority communities are waiting for a transplant and the refusal rate in such communities, which is nearly 80%, compared with about 40% nationally. There is a real challenge, which is why my Department is supporting the National Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Transplant Alliance in looking at some of these issues and addressing the inequality people from such backgrounds face in waiting for a donor.
In June, I supported the launch of a new project to train peer educators from the Pakistani Muslim community in Birmingham to work in communities to increase rates. Sadly, because of parliamentary business, I was unable to join them on the day, but I have suggested that we ask them to join us later this year in Westminster to talk about the project. I will make sure Members are told of the event at the time so that Members—particularly those of us with diverse constituencies—can come and hear about the experience of those involved. In our previous debate, Members mentioned the challenge of trying to recruit more SN-ODs from within ethnic minority communities, because we face a similar challenge with recruitment as we do with the consent rate.
Earlier this year, following our previous Adjournment debate on this issue, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and I debated cystic fibrosis, and progress has been made. The point about the zones has also been made. The cardiothoracic organs advisory group has recommended that NHSBT review the consequences of introducing the two levels of priority for listing—urgent and routine—along the lines that have been described. Obviously, it is important to make sure the arrangements do not lead to inequity, and I can assure Members that NHSBT will keep the issue under regular review.
I will be talking to NHSBT imminently, at tomorrow’s meeting. Indeed, I have regular meetings with it. In the half a minute remaining, I want to reassure Members that the organisation is extremely proactive and open-minded, and I find it very receptive to new ideas. Many good, constructive and thoughtful ideas have been put across in the debate. I will have a discussion with NHSBT and ask it to review the debate and to respond to hon. Members through me where I have not been able to respond today. I reassure Members that all good ideas are considered and that we are all working in the same direction: we want to increase donation and transplantation rates and to give many more people a chance of life.
Ministry of Justice Shared Services
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Osborne.
I have an extraordinary story to tell, of Government ineptitude, which will give us a key to their legacy to the nation. It is a story about punishing success and rewarding failure. The shared services in Newport were set up in 2006. It was a happy occasion. There was a lovely building, and thanks to the enterprising action of the council, shared services were welcomed. It was a marvellous idea to take little inefficient units that operated in prisons throughout the country and concentrate them in one centre, to provide a more efficient service and to save money—which it did. It saved £32 million in the first two years. The staff have by now, through their efficiency, dedication and skills, created savings of £120 million.
What do we do now? Shall we alter a winning team and wreck something that works so well? In this case the answer is yes. The Government, with fanatical devotion to the concept that all that is private is good, wonderful and efficient, and all that is public is bad and inefficient—the heresy behind so many of their failures, which we have witnessed in the past few years—decided to set up an alternative, as an improvement. They ran a scheme, which was operated by a group including the firm Steria. They sought a more efficient way of running the system, rather than leaving it alone and letting it continue to make money and savings for the country.
I shall not go too far into the detail of who is to blame, because, as we know, failure is an orphan and it is only success that has parents. However, Steria had a leading role in the operation from 2011. What has it achieved? It has achieved a loss of £56 million. What has it produced? Nothing of any practical value: that is the simple truth. When people make a loss of that kind, what should we do? Should we dismiss them, or forget about them? No. The Government are setting up a new consortium. They will let Fujitsu run the IT this time, but the project is still run by the French company Steria. It has a contract from the Government. We shall be looking for some of the facts from the Minister this morning, but that contract could lead to the loss of jobs or of 49% of the work—we cannot translate that into jobs. It could mean the offshoring of jobs, probably to India.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Minister said during questions last week that he is against offshoring jobs in his Department. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the fact that the Cabinet Office seems to have no such qualms, and does not Steria’s record of cutting and offshoring jobs and closing offices speak for itself?
Paul Flynn
My hon. Friend is right. There is general puzzlement about the conflicting statements that come from the Government. Perhaps they can be cleared up this morning. There is a scheme: the jobs will be privatised, and I do not know how the Government can exercise control if that happens. We are told that they are against offshoring jobs. The Prime Minister said so a short while ago; he said he wanted us to “reshore” jobs and bring them into this country. It seems an act of madness to take successful jobs from an initiative developed in Newport and send them overseas, and to spread the profits to a foreign company—a French company.
I am rather surprised when I see the Minister who is replying to the debate, whom I have greatly admired in his political career. We have been in the House a long time, and in his sensible period, when he was a Liberal Democrat, before his metamorphosis, he would have agreed with every word of my argument, as he has on many occasions. The red boxes have a strange effect, and change people’s personalities, but I am sure that it is possible to revert. I was the right hon. Gentleman’s constituent for many years. He used regularly to send me letters and would ask me what the Lib Dems should do for the country. I always made interesting answers and suggestions, not all of which he followed up.
Paul Flynn
Some he did, yes. He did not give us eternal life or a Labour Government, which were the main things I thought would be of benefit.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. The issue affects my constituents as well, because some of them work at the Bootle site for the Ministry of Justice. They have been commended for their work over many years. They are loyal civil servants and are deeply worried at the prospect of privatisation, losing their civil service status, and ultimately losing their jobs to outsourcing. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is surely the role of Government, and not just constituency MPs, to look after our constituents’ interests and keep jobs in this country for them instead of letting them be outsourced?
Paul Flynn
It was touching when my hon. Friend and I talked to our constituents, who went on strike a fortnight ago. For most of them it was the first time they had done that in their lives. They would not have expected to go on strike. One had been displaced from the Passport Office, following another Government scheme to reduce it to such an emaciated state that when there is an unusual call on it, it cannot cope—the system is at the point of collapse. Those people have done nothing wrong. As my hon. Friend said, they have won accolades for their efficiency and service; but now their jobs hang in the balance. There is no certainty. They cannot look forward to a future beyond 12 months.
There is no sign that anything can be working efficiently. I wish the Government would learn the lesson. They seem to be blind on the issue, given what they did in relation to Atos. Atos broke a pledge that helped it to win the £184 million disability assessment contract. That was a story of chaos and loss, and the great suffering of hundreds of thousands of people—because of the inefficiency of Atos. Every MP has heard heartbreaking stories of people who have been misjudged and badly treated by Atos. In four out of 10 cases where the original decision was questioned, the challenge was upheld. That episode was a terrible error.
In addition, G4S had a £284 million contract to provide 10,400 staff for the Olympics; but it fell spectacularly short and we needed 5,000 members of the armed services to come and fill the gap. Where was the brilliance and perfection of the privatised services then? Serco charged taxpayers far too much for monitoring criminals, under a contract dating back to 2005. What happened was a rip-off, and Serco had to repay £68 million. Why give those people, who are little short of criminals in their behaviour, those contracts? Why favour them as we do? Capita, which in the House of Lords was referred to as “Crapita”—we would not use such language here—won a £50 million contract to run individual learning accounts programmes, which collapsed. There were mounting allegations of fraud among the programme providers and concern about the costs, which went £93 million over budget.
The Ministry of Justice had a £42 million contract for interpretation in the courts, which stalled at the outset after being given to a small company that Capita acquired to run the contract. Some 6,417 complaints were recorded by Capita, and 680 trials in magistrates courts and 34 Crown court trials were ineffective as a result of interpreters not being present.
There is a long catalogue of a Government favouring private firms over the well-established civil service ethic and systems that have served us well, and they are about to do the same again. Will the Minister tell us, and make it clear to my constituents and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and others, what the position is? Are their jobs in danger of being sent offshore? Will he give an absolute guarantee that that will not happen?
Bill Esterson
I am interested in what my hon. Friend says about security because the issue has also been raised with me. My constituents are very worried that in an answer I received from the Secretary of State last week he ruled out being able to protect any of the jobs. Not only will they lose their civil service status, which is much valued, they will lose their jobs. When they stop being civil servants, they will not be able to apply for vacancies elsewhere in the civil service because they will no longer be civil servants. That is a real concern for them, as is the suggestion about outsourcing and jobs going overseas that my hon. Friend mentioned.
Paul Flynn
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point that we are very much aware of. Civil service status is prized. We have forgotten to appreciate the value of civil servants, which has been neglected. In the last 24 hours, a Minister was highly critical of the civil service ethic and attacked the core of the civil service, which has benefited us so richly for the past 150 years. There is a move towards politicising civil servants. Many of my constituents work for the civil service, often not for very great salaries. The Government’s failure to appreciate their value and worth is a terrible blow and an act of ingratitude.
My constituency and many other places in Gwent have benefited from the influx of civil service jobs. We suffered greatly from the loss of manufacturing industry and the fact that the Patent Office, the Office for National Statistics and the shared services centre came to my constituency saved the economy in a way that is greatly valued. The city and the country—Wales—have a huge amount to lose if the Government behave in this cavalier way with civil service jobs. They should have the security of a continuing contract, and richly deserve loyalty from the Government. I look forward to the Minister’s assurance on that. People should not have been driven to strike, but who cannot appreciate their anger against an ingrate Government?
At the World Economic Forum in Davos on 24 January, the Prime Minister referred to reshoring jobs and said he wanted Britain to become the “reshore nation”. He announced the creation of a new Government body to encourage companies to locate in the UK jobs that would once have gone to the far east. We seem to be seeing the reverse. A Minister said in the House last week that he was against exporting jobs and siphoning them off to other countries. That is now becoming unpopular because people do not like dealing with confusing accents and it is no longer as commercially attractive as it once was. It does not seem to be the future. The Government’s duty is to remain loyal to their staff and to return the loyalty and skills of the workers by believing in them and fighting for their jobs, not to desert them and leave them with considerable anxiety and worry, and perhaps worse ahead with loss of employment and destitution.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Osborne, I think for the first time. I warmly congratulate my colleague, the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who is a former constituent. I did not drive him out. It was his choice, and I was happy to have him living near Elephant and Castle. I understand absolutely his continuing and proper interest in the matter. As he knows, I know Newport fairly well. It is a great city, which became a city relatively recently, which was hugely welcome. He was correct in saying that following the industrial decline of that part of south Wales, where I lived when I was growing up, the ability to have new initiatives such as the Office for National Statistics and other departments, such as the Patent Office, and the shared services centre has been healthy. That is self-evident in the beneficial effect on the economy.
I also welcome the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and her interest, and acknowledge the presence and interest of the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) who, understandably and rightly, wants to speak up for his constituents who are employed by the Ministry of Justice. I will return to the numbers in a moment.
I want to make a couple of general propositions. First, in case the hon. Member for Newport West has any doubts, I have never changed my view about the politics and assessment of the public and private sectors. I do not have a simplistic view that all private is good and all public is bad. That has never been my view. I have always believed that there may be good public services and good private activity. I also observe that while I have been in this place and he and I were in different positions because I was on the Opposition Benches and he was loyally—sometimes loyally, but often constructively and critically—supporting his Government who were going down the same road in outsourcing and introducing contracts with the private sector for previously public sector jobs. Since I have been in this place, there has been a debate about what jobs should remain civil service and local government jobs, and what should be in the private sector. That is nothing new. It is not a creation of this coalition Government.
I will deal with the key facts and then, I hope, most of the concerns. I am here to listen and it is good that the hon. Gentleman has secured this debate so soon after the latest stage in the process of deciding what will happen to the shared services, and the consultation starting with the unions last month. As he knows, the whole ministerial team is fully apprised of the concerns of those who represent people in this work. There was evidence of that at Justice Question Time last week when a series of questions about that was rightly asked.
Bill Esterson
The Minister made a point about outsourcing jobs being nothing new, and there has always been a balance between public and private involvement in public services. The difference this time is that Steria’s track record is open to question, and the £56 million write-off on the IT project is a great example. The question put to me by my constituents was why was there no involvement by staff and the trade union in the in-house bid? Why was it carried out in what they believe were questionable circumstances and why were they not able to win, given the efficiency and high quality, and commendation of their work over many years?
Simon Hughes
I am going to try to make these points, because I hope I can address such concerns. If there are any remaining issues and some time available, I will be happy to take further questions.
I ought to add that I saw a bit of the “Newsnight” programme last night; it was actually a former Minister, rather than a current one, who was talking about the civil service. I hope that we would all join together in saying that we think our civil service is an ace organisation. It is one of the best public services in the world and we respect everybody in it. Certainly, as a new Minister in my Department, I want to thank the civil servants who work for us—not just in the Ministry of Justice, but in other public Departments—for the public service that they give.
I entirely understand that a change of the kind being proposed is hugely worrying for staff affected. That is obvious. I know that many valued, hard-working staff in Newport, Bootle and elsewhere will be concerned about the potential impact of the changes on their lives, and I will do what I can to give reassurance, as well as sharing the facts as accurately as I can.
We are talking about just over 1,000 people working for MOJ shared services. The figures I have been given, going up to today, are that the full-time equivalent number in Phoenix house in Newport is 725 and that at Redgrave court in Bootle, it is 103. Here, in Petty France, there are 67 full-time equivalents in the shared services department. There are 31 in the Prison Service college, although they may not in the end be affected, and there are 154 in nationwide teams, so we are talking about just over 1,000 in total.
As part of the shared services reforms, which are part of a wider civil service reform programme, the majority of those staff will transfer to one of the two independent shared service centres, which have been created to work across a wider range of Government Departments and services. Subject to contract, which has not been awarded yet, the independent shared service centre, to which the majority of Ministry of Justice shared services staff will transfer, is, as colleagues know, to be managed by Shared Services Connected Ltd, or SSCL. That is a joint venture between the Cabinet Office and, yes, Steria Ltd, which already manages services on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is also moving its shared services across. The other company deals with much smaller parts of the civil service organisation.
The decision to move to this company was taken following a full evaluation of both the independent shared service centres and the option to remain in-house in the Ministry of Justice. The reason why SSCL was chosen as the preferred framework provider was that it provided the most competitive solution, which—this is very important for all constituents, including mine, those in Newport and those in the north-west—provided the potential to deliver significant savings to the taxpayer. The evaluation criteria included people impact, service delivery, cost and IT.
Simon Hughes
I will in a second. The SSCL proposal was the strongest, in part due to the investment that it is already making in a new IT platform and the fact that the costs could be shared across multiple Government Departments—I will carry on, because I am conscious of time, but I will try and give way later.
I want to reassure colleagues that, as I hope they know, anybody transferred, if the contract is entered into, will be protected by the TUPE arrangements, so their employment will transfer across to any new employer. There will be no overall detriment to their terms and conditions or their pensions. The current arrangement is that the Ministry of Justice has secured at least 12 months’ job protection, starting from October 2014, when the transfer to SSCL is due to take place. If the transfer does go ahead this autumn, the jobs will be secure as well as all the transferred rights for 12 months after that. As part of the agreed protections, we expect all MOJ sites to remain open for at least the first year after transfer to SSCL.
I appreciate that staff have concerns about job security beyond that. I fully understand that, but obviously I cannot make specific commitments beyond the agreement that has been negotiated.
Simon Hughes
In a second, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. It is worth bearing in mind that the addition of the MOJ and the Home Office to the independent shared service centre will almost double its number of users. That gives it a strength, a credibility and a potential that, I would have thought, strengthens its future. Staff will still be required to provide services for those users and I can tell people in south Wales, the north-west and elsewhere that absolutely no decisions have been made to close any MOJ site.
Nick Smith
I thank the Minister for giving way. I am glad that earlier he acknowledged the importance of these sorts of jobs to the south Wales economy—particularly the Patent Office and the statistical service. Newport is wary about what is happening, as are the south Wales valleys just north of it. What steps is the Minister actively taking to stop these jobs being offshored? It is really important that he addresses that point.
Simon Hughes
I was going to make that point next, so I shall make it next as planned. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s interest, as an MP not far away from Newport.
There is obvious and understandable concern about any offshoring, following a transfer. First, there has been no decision to offshore any Ministry of Justice shared services work. Secondly, I tell all hon. Members—the hon. Member for Newport West and his colleagues—that should there be any such proposal, it would need the specific agreement of the Ministry of Justice. I therefore repeat the fact that the Secretary of State has made it absolutely clear that he would not support such a proposal. Given that this is the first opportunity I have had to speak on the issue, I make it clear that I would not support such a proposal either. It seems to me that we have an obligation, particularly in those services that do key jobs for the public, to have the jobs done in this country, and the Ministry of Justice has been very clear that it will retain the right to make a decision in relation to any such proposal.
Simon Hughes
No, I am going to finish what I have to say, otherwise I might not be able to complete my remarks in the time. The Secretary of State made a commitment and we have had reference to the commitments from the Prime Minister. I repeat the commitment to British jobs here in the UK, and I hope that that is very clear to everybody.
Paul Flynn
Who will take this decision? There seems to be a different view in the Cabinet Office on this. Can he give a guarantee that the Ministry of Justice will have an absolute ban on these jobs going abroad?
Simon Hughes
I have not been in post since the beginning of this whole debate, but according to my understanding, the deal is that any such proposal to offshore would require the consent of the Ministry of Justice, and the current Secretary of State has made it clear that while he is in office, he would not give that consent. I repeat that on my own behalf and on behalf of the Ministers in the Department.
Simon Hughes
No, I cannot give way—if I can in a second, I will.
Although I have been as categorical as I can, I completely understand that there will be concerns. Change is of course destabilising and upsetting, and no one wants an uncertain future, but the reason why this is being done and why Government have made this sort of decision over the years is that, if we have to make our financial ends meet and to balance our budget, we have to ensure that we deliver public services in the most efficient way possible. Money spent on paying debt is not useful, and paying more than we need to run our public services means that money cannot be spent on other things that we all think are justified, such as the NHS and education.
It is, of course, right that we look to reform how the Government deliver savings and at more efficient ways in which to deliver back-office functions such as HR, finance, procurement and payroll. The civil service is therefore, by definition, moving towards being a leaner and more efficient machine.
May I deal with one matter raised? Steria was selected for the joint venture following competitive and rigorous testing. It is true that Steria was one of a number of suppliers involved in the previous programme. Several other parties were involved, however, and it is not right to conclude that Steria was the cause of the issues with the initial programme, which clearly went wrong. As it happens, Steria was involved with the IT on the previous programme, whereas the IT for the current programme was contracted to Fujitsu, as has been said. It is not possible to make an exact comparison.
The Department would not be pressing ahead with the reforms if it did not have confidence that SSCL was the right option for the future of MOJ shared services. We will listen to the workers in the work force and to their representatives. In the end, I hope that the result will be good for Newport and Bootle, and for the people who work there.
Global Health (Research and Development)
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Before I call Mr George to introduce this important debate, I should point out that seven colleagues have expressed a wish to catch my eye, and that will be during a period of 50 minutes. If Back Benchers, not including Mr George, can restrict themselves to seven minutes each, that will give the shadow Minister and the Minister enough time to wind up the debate.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I am delighted to have secured this debate on research and development for global health, particularly in the week when the all-party group on global tuberculosis, which I co-chair with the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), publishes its report “Dying for a Cure: Research and Development for Global Health”. The role of all-party groups on health generally, particularly health in developing countries, is an important dimension of the work of parliamentarians. We often have opportunities to expand and probe these issues, which are important to many of our constituents; it is also important, of course, that we as a country play a leading role in the world in this respect.
This afternoon, I hope to provide a canvas on which hon. Members more expert than I on this subject can add their own, more expert comments. I want simply to go through a number of themes that I think are important for the Department for International Development as it develops its leading role in addressing the urgent need for advances in research and development for global health. I particularly want to emphasise the issue of tuberculosis.
The incidence of tuberculosis is falling marginally year on year. Currently, there are 8.7 million new cases each year. Tragically, 1.3 million people die of the disease, and there are about 650,000 cases of drug-resistant tuberculosis. That is largely a man-made disease, because of inadequate treatment with front-line drugs. Only about 10% of those cases are getting adequate access to diagnosis and treatment.
We in the United Kingdom cannot isolate ourselves from the issue because there are about 9,000 new cases of tuberculosis in this country each year, and the London area is the capital of Europe as far as tuberculosis is concerned. There were more than 400 new cases of drug-resistant tuberculosis in this country in one year, and that number is going up. This disease should concern us domestically as well as internationally.
We need to bear in mind not only the tragedy for those who contract the disease and their families, and the further tragedy for those who die from the disease; there is also, of course, a significant burden on the public purse. It costs £5,000 to treat a patient with first-line tuberculosis drugs and £50,000 to £70,000 per annum—sometimes, a great deal more—to treat drug-resistant forms of tuberculosis.
An estimated 13.7 million people die every year from, or in connection with, a group of diseases known as poverty-related and neglected diseases. Those include TB, HIV, malaria, dengue, yellow fever and others.
Research and development is, of course, expensive. There are some estimates that developing a new drug through commercial routes costs at least $l billion. Pharmaceutical companies invest in developing products with the potential for a significant financial return, to pay for the original development costs and ultimately to make a surplus—a profit. They are not charities, and that is what their shareholders would expect them to do.
In addition, as the diseases I have mentioned primarily affect poor people, there is often no financial market to incentivise commercial sector pharmaceutical development. Accordingly, very few new products, whether they be new drugs, new diagnostics or new treatments, are developed. There is therefore a market failure in the development of drugs, diagnostics and vaccines for diseases that predominantly have an impact on low and middle-income countries. Although pharmaceutical companies will be developing the Viagras of this world for the west, it seems that crucial drugs that would save millions of lives in the developing world are very difficult to advance at all. That market failure is similar to the failure of the commercial sector to develop new antibiotics. Again, that is because there is insufficient financial return on offer for such products.
In the absence of the commercial sector, public and philanthropic organisations attempt to fill the gap, but progress is slow. There are significant improvements to be made in co-ordination, the level of financing and the policies of public sector donors. There is a wider concern. The World Health Organisation, in its report in April, identified—rightly, I think—the serious risk of antimicrobial resistance as a very significant challenge for the world in the coming years.
Of course, it was very welcome that last week the Prime Minister announced a commission to undertake a wide-ranging, independent review led by the internationally renowned economist Jim O’Neill. It will look into the whole issue of antibiotic resistance, about which many Members of the House have been most concerned.
A lot of us are concerned about the improper prophylactic use of antibiotics generally, in many sectors. Of course, when we look at tuberculosis, we also see a significant problem in some countries. Often it is in the private sector, where drugs are doled out as first-line responses but the health systems are not in place to ensure that the patients will complete the course of treatment. That significantly increases the risk of drug-resistant tuberculosis.
Tuberculosis has been traced back 70,000 years, and the period for malaria is similar, but for the majority of that time the best cure for patients was rest, fresh air and lots of hope. In the 19th century, as many as one in four deaths in the United Kingdom were attributable to tuberculosis. Obviously, we have concerns now about the advancement of drug-resistant tuberculosis. If we are to avoid that fate and to accelerate the progress made against HIV, TB and malaria during the past decade, we must find new interventions that are more effective against these diseases and that can help to drive them towards elimination.
Of course, there is, as we fully understand, a commercial development process. Those of us who have been following the advancement of candidate vaccines for tuberculosis, for example, have been encouraged by the work of many companies, but we are talking about something that fundamentally requires public sector intervention and support. The pharmaceutical companies backing the initiatives are not putting all their money and resources up front; a partnership with Government is required.
Although many early scientific advances in disease control were discovered with public or philanthropic money, most pharmaceutical development is now carried out in the commercial sector. The costs of researching and developing a new treatment, vaccine or diagnostic can be extremely high, and estimates for the cost of drug development run to billions of dollars. Because of the high cost of research and development, pharmaceutical companies inevitably target their resources towards diseases and conditions likely to yield a financial return. That means that most companies focus their efforts on diseases and conditions that affect the west or developed countries, because those markets can pay the most for new drugs.
Another significant impediment is that when companies develop their products, they maximise their profits and protect their interests and investment by securing patents. That gives those companies monopoly rights, which may make the prices for the drugs so high that patients in poorer countries cannot afford them. That is a problem of access. Problems related to research and development for global health will not be fixed unless treatments are developed and made accessible to everyone who needs them. In the face of such market failure, alternative models must be created to ensure that those medical products are being developed, even if not through a commercial route.
Andrew George
I will just make my next point; my right hon. Friend may be pleased when I have. Thankfully, such models exist. Product development partnerships are an important group of organisations that work with academic, public and private partners to try to develop important new products where the market has failed. The Department for International Development, as my right hon. Friend knows from his work as an excellent Minister in that Department, is the world’s leading public funder of PDPs.
Mr O'Brien
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this timely and important debate. I draw the attention of the House to my registered interests in the field—albeit that they are all pro bono, I hasten to add—and I apologise for the fact that I cannot stay for the whole debate.
My hon. Friend is driving towards an optimistic point. There has been a model that has helped the normal incentivisation of product development through a potential return from a purchasing power market, so it seems to me that we have great grounds for optimism on diseases of poverty—malaria, HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, but also the neglected tropical diseases where the motivation is often not to avert death but simply to improve well-being. DFID, as a partner, has been tremendous in its commitment not only to commissioned but to operational research, which is fundamental. I urge my hon. Friend to look at the growth and sustainability of public-private product development partnerships, because I think they are one of the most significant ways forward.
Andrew George
My right hon. Friend is much respected in his field, and I am sure that the Minister heard what he had to say. The leading role that DFID plays in funding and encouraging PDP is commendable and should be extended.
I want to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister some questions about DFID’s role regarding PDPs and the funding of research and development. It is important that DFID continues to be respected in the world as a leading player, so I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend agreed to look at lifting the apparent cap on the funding of research and development from, as I understand it, about 3% to perhaps 5% of DFID’s total budget. I know that funds need to be found from elsewhere, but I believe that that is an important issue.
I would be interested to know what my right hon. Friend has to say about the Department’s plans to take PDPs forward. Notwithstanding the Prime Minister’s welcome announcement last week of a commission on antibiotic resistance, will DFID press ahead with finding solutions in areas where we already know about problems of antimicrobial resistance, and not simply use the commission as an excuse to delay action in areas where problems have already been identified and research and development are urgently required? Will the Minister ensure that research and development include not only the development of pharmaceutical responses, but diagnostics research into biomarkers and bio-signatures, and the development of point-of-care and non-sputum-based tests for adult and paediatric tuberculosis?
I do not want to detain the Chamber for longer than necessary, particularly when so many others wish to speak. I want to highlight the importance of the work of the all-party group on global tuberculosis—particularly the report, which I encourage hon. Members to look at and which is on the group’s website. The Government must make sure that we sustain our leading role in research and development. We must recognise that there is a limit to what commerce can do, in terms of funding and creating sufficient market incentives, to put in the enormous amount of work required to fill the gap in research and development. That work must be sustained, and we must not simply wait for the commission on antibiotic resistance to provide the stimulus to take it forward.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on securing the debate. I have the privilege of representing probably the biggest concentration of biomedical research institutions in this country and in Europe, if not in the whole world. I must declare an interest as a member of the court of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and as a governor of the Royal Veterinary College—I believe I was originally the Privy Council governor.
The role of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in this matter is obvious, because of its remarkable record of more than a century. It has tended to draw on home-grown talent, but it increasingly attracts people of worldwide distinction to do their research there. A splendid example of that is the present director, Peter Piot, who in the 1970s played a major role in identifying Ebola, and in the 1980s in helping to combat HIV/AIDS in Africa.
The reason for the inclusion of the Royal Veterinary College may not be quite so obvious, but the institution has done a great deal of work on the health of animals, particularly farm animals, in developing countries. That work has focused on improving those animals’ resistance to disease and thus helping to counter poverty, malnutrition and poor health. In more recent years, the college has put a huge amount of effort into zoonotics, which concerns the possible transfer of diseases from one species to another, and particularly from various other species to ourselves. The Royal Veterinary College has developed an expertise in avian flu that is unrivalled anywhere in the world.
Recently, Professor Dirk Pfeiffer and Dr Guillaume Fournié, in collaboration with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the university of Queensland, have started on a project on the zoonotics of poultry in Bangladesh. Professors Javier Guitian and Jonathan Rushton have started to do some immensely important work on brucellosis, also in collaboration with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, in west and central Africa. Together with Professor Eric Fèvre of the university of Liverpool and in collaboration with the universities of Edinburgh, Nottingham and Nairobi, Professor Rushton has been doing a lot of work on zoonoses in livestock in Kenya. All that is soundly based research, in the field, with practical application.
If there were outbreaks of diseases caused by zoonotics, the poorest and least healthy people in the world would suffer most, but we too would suffer. Having looked at Professor Pfeiffer’s work, I have come to the conclusion that although we hear a lot of talk about weapons of mass destruction, both nuclear and chemical, in terms of worldwide death the most likely weapon of mass destruction is going to be an infected chicken. We must take the matter extremely seriously.
Along with Birkbeck college, the Institute of Neurology and the School of Pharmacy at University college London are doing important work in this sphere, and they are soon to be joined by the Crick Institute. He takes a lot of stick, but I must say that the institute will be there because of the drive of the previous Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who battled through all the bureaucracy that was obstructing it and used his authority as Prime Minister to secure the site and the funding. It is to the credit of the current Government that they took up that baton. We must keep up and extend our research in this sphere, particularly university and public funding.
The question then arises—it has already been mentioned and I am sure it will be mentioned by others—as to whether such work will be worth while for drug companies. It will not. It is no good pretending: in certain circumstances it will not be worth their while, so we must find a worldwide mechanism to find the funds and create the practical application worldwide. The G7 and the G20 need to turn their attention to this issue. They are very good at globalising capital flows, but they need to be concentrating on globalising medical flows. Perhaps we could link the two together with a worldwide Robin Hood tax on financial transactions, but not just for the money.
We need well-organised, practical projects, the best example of which was the World Health Organisation’s commitment to eliminate smallpox. Edward Jenner did his work in 1798; the last person to be treated for smallpox that was caught in the wild was treated by my late good friend, Professor Richard Madeley, who was subsequently at Nottingham university and treated a child in Bangladesh 200 years after Jenner first did his work. We clearly have to ensure that technology transfer speeds up. We do not want it to take 200 years—we do not want it to take 200 weeks. When things are discovered that work and will improve people’s health worldwide, we need the world institutions to put in place a mechanism that will ensure that everyone gets the treatment, not just us privileged folk in the developed countries.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I am grateful to be able to take part in this debate and I will speak briefly. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on securing the debate. I am very proud to co-chair the all-party group on global tuberculosis, which he and I co-founded with our Labour co-chair, the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma). I am also very proud of the report that we have just produced, to which my hon. Friend referred, “Dying for a Cure: Research and Development for Global Health”, which covers precisely the issues he has raised in this debate.
May I say in parenthesis that there is much debate about the support provided to all-party groups. Our report simply would not have been possible without our all-party group’s first-class secretariat, which is funded by Results UK and other organisations and has enabled our excellent researcher, Matt Oliver, to help with the drafting of the report. That goes to show that not all external support for all-party groups is bad—far from it. Without that support we simply would not have been able to produce the report. It is important that Members speak up for legitimate all-party groups that have important work to do.
I want to focus particularly on tuberculosis, which still kills 1.3 million people a year—quite unnecessarily, given that it is a treatable and curable disease. There is a particular new threat because of drug resistance, which is a serious problem and a concern not just globally but in this country. I commend the Prime Minister’s stance on the significance of drug resistance as an issue that this country has to address in future. Our all-party group was reminded of that recently when we travelled to Bucharest in Romania and visited prisons and clinics around the country where TB is prevalent—not just TB but drug-resistant TB. In Romania, as well as in other developing and underdeveloped countries throughout the world where TB is a serious problem, the issue is not just access to drugs, which can of course be corrected by the west making significant interventions through the global health fund and other means to provide drugs where they are available; it is also a problem of availability.
Our report seeks to address the simple fact that there is insufficient availability of diagnostics and treatments for tuberculosis. I have mentioned this in a previous debate on the same issues in this Chamber, but I want to repeat myself because it is important: it is sobering that if TB had resurged in the west, pharmaceutical companies would by now have found the investment required to produce significant new tools for its diagnosis and treatment, as has happened for HIV. Amazing new cures and treatments are available for HIV. Why? Because HIV has been a disease of the west as well as cruelly affecting the developing world.
Although it has made something of a comeback in the west, TB has not been perceived in the same way. It has continued to claim the lives of millions, but only in developing countries, so it has not received the attention. Nor are there the straightforward financial incentives for pharmaceutical companies to develop the necessary tools. There is still no vaccine for TB. People believe that there is, but there is not: the BCG vaccine is partial and relatively ineffective for adults.
The first-line drugs that are used to treat TB were developed decades ago, must be taken over an extended period and are part of the reason why drug-resistant TB is a problem. The diagnostics for TB are old-fashioned and inadequate. All this is not the fault of drugs companies; in a free market they simply do not have the commercial incentive to develop new tools because there would be no market for them to sell to.
Mr O'Brien
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way to me, particularly on my second intervention in this debate. I have just returned from Papua New Guinea, where, given my interest in malaria, it was impressive to see Oil Search—to refer to his point about delivery—delivering across extremely difficult and hostile territory, in the complete absence of any other form of provision. Multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis was its main challenge. Often, pharmaceutical, distribution and oil and petrochemical companies are becoming part of the solution as they extend their provision, whether that includes GSK considering the pricing of its malaria vaccine or Novartis distributing malaria drugs. Equally, on TB, Oil Search is becoming part of the solution as part of its extended corporate social responsibility, as well as ensuring research and development for non-purchasing-power markets. I thoroughly endorse where my right hon. Friend is taking this debate.
Nick Herbert
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. I think that corporate social responsibility can be part of the solution, but it will not be a sufficient solution. What we have here is significant market failure. Where there is market failure, there is an imperative for Government intervention. One can still believe in markets—the power of markets, and pharmaceutical companies’ freedom to do all the wonderful things that they do—yet understand that where there is market failure, there must be intervention. That is what we need. Given that it can cost about £1 billion to bring such drugs to the market, intervention is necessary, whether in the form of product development partnerships or an adjustment to tax credits for research and development. We make that particular proposal in our report, and I commend it to the Minister. That sort of intervention and Government support for research and development will be essential if we are to beat those diseases.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
I declare an interest: I went numerous times with Results UK to see its work on the GAVI fund and other matters. I thank the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) and his co-chair for outlining the problem that we face in R and D for global health. An estimated 13.7 million people die every year from or in connection with a group of diseases known as poverty-related and neglected diseases, including TB, HIV, malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever and many others.
As has been said, there has been a market failure in developing drugs, diagnostics and vaccines for diseases that predominantly impact low and middle-income countries. Significant improvements could therefore be made, as the co-chair of the all-party group said, in co-ordination, financing and the policies of public sector donors. The World Health Organisation has been the focus of efforts to develop a globally binding convention on R and D for nearly a decade, but has not made much progress. Progress has been dishearteningly slow, and given the figures that I just quoted, every year that passes without globally co-ordinated efforts to remedy the R and D market failure results in the unnecessary loss of millions of lives. However, despite that massive figure, we do not seem to get any progress.
One of the core proposals is for countries to contribute a fixed percentage of GDP to R and D for global health, as we have done with international development generally, in recognition that such diseases represent a threat to global human, social and economic development, just as the matters on which the Department for International Development focuses its contributions do. The percentage called for is 0.1% of GDP, which could be spent bilaterally or contributed to a central fund that would apportion money for key projects and programmes to develop the new drugs, diagnostics and vaccines that are missing.
What are the challenges of reaching such a consensus? Among donors, there is a general reluctance to support a global R and D convention; the push for it is coming from developing countries. The countries that conduct the majority of research and host the biggest pharmaceutical companies want to maintain their sovereignty over their research programmes. Countries have competed over scientific research for centuries, and it is important to developed economies. Many Governments even direct money from their aid agencies directly to domestic research only. The UK can be proud that it does not do this, meaning that DFID’s contributions and aid are spent on the best research, wherever it is carried out. Nonetheless, co-ordination of funding and priorities is extremely important to ensure that there is no unnecessary duplication between research in different countries. I see the sense in that, but of course it is not how the capitalist market works.
Why should the UK back such reforms? First, they are ultimately in our own self-interest and that of other developed countries; I always like to appeal to self-interest when a Conservative Government are in power. We will not eliminate TB or HIV unless we find quick, safe and effective cures for those diseases. They have a small but significant presence in the UK: HIV treatments alone, for example, cost the NHS more than £630 million every single year.
Frank Dobson
Is it not also the case that in order to protect blood products and blood transfusions, this country has been spending the best part of £1 billion for the same reason?
Michael Connarty
I know that when my right hon. Friend, a former Health Secretary, speaks, he tells only the truth, so I accept that £1 billion figure. It is a frightening sum, and it could be used in other ways. If we return to a situation in which TB and HIV are essentially untreatable, the cost of handling those diseases in the UK could become more costly than investing in finding further cures.
The second reason is that UK academic institutions are some of the best in the world, as my right hon. Friend the former Health Secretary outlined. It would therefore lead to more money, not less, being devoted to UK research establishments. Thirdly, the reform process could lay the foundation for new mechanisms and new systems of developing drugs, diagnostics and vaccines that would otherwise never be brought to market under the competitive capitalist system. The co-chair of the all-party group mentioned antibiotics, which have recently been brought to our attention. A global convention could implement new approaches and prevent microbial resistance, which has been discussed by the Government and the Chief Medical Officer.
Fourth, as a major funder of global health programmes and with their stated 0.7% commitment, the UK Government must acknowledge the enormous benefits of accelerating progress against HIV, TB and other diseases. From treating diseases, we could turn to preventing them. In Cambodia, Kenya and Rwanda, I have seen the cost of treating diseases once they have caught hold in a country. Driving those diseases back will result in savings for country health programmes, improved health and educational outcomes for children, increased work productivity for adults and overall reduced dependency on preventive foreign aid, which is the model that we want. We want to raise people out of complete dependency so they can generate their own futures.
A WHO convention, bringing new money and new resolve to global health R and D, is the best way to develop a new intervention that will accelerate our progress against global diseases. I have a question for the Minister, although I must apologise for the fact that I cannot remain in the Chamber for his reply, as I will be trying to speak in the debate on the Modern Slavery Bill, with which I have been engaged for the last couple of years. Will DFID and the UK Government commit to supporting a WHO convention on R and D in 2016 and lead the world towards the eradication of some of mankind’s deadliest diseases?
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on securing this important debate on the future of global health, and specifically on the current position of research and development. I call Members’ attention to my trip to Ethiopia in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter.
I will focus my comments on the diagnostics aspects of research and development, which I was fortunate to witness and learn about at first hand during my time in Ethiopia. As part of our trip, we were taken around a hospital and shown an incredible set-up for diagnosing tuberculosis. The incidence of TB in Ethiopia is 274 cases in every 100,000 people, which ranks the country at approximately 20th in the world. That ranking is extremely good for a low-income country, thanks to its excellent diagnostic skills.
Diagnostics are often the forgotten third in the trilogy of drugs, vaccines and diagnostics. We need to change that thinking radically, as failure to diagnose diseases quickly is one of the key factors in the continuation of major epidemics. As Ethiopia has shown, excellent diagnostics can have a dramatic impact on reducing the incidence of infectious diseases. Shockingly, as many as half of those with HIV worldwide are undiagnosed, and one third of those with TB are not officially diagnosed or treated. We desperately need to rectify that, because the lack of diagnostics and of swift care and treatment can exacerbate endemics and heighten immunity to vaccination.
Specific diagnoses are extremely stilted, so it is imperative that doctors take the time to ascertain which strain of the disease the patient has. For example, TB can be drug resistant, but it can take months for tests to determine which drugs a strain of TB is resistant to. In the meantime, doctors often put patients on a standard regime of drugs, which can be disastrous, because some TB drugs unfortunately have severe and often permanent side effects, with several patients being left permanently deaf as a result.
DFID money has helped to develop GeneXpert, a machine that can diagnose TB in two hours and that can also diagnose certain strains of drug resistance. It is because of GeneXpert that patients are being diagnosed and starting treatment within hours, instead of weeks or months. GeneXpert machines have helped to oversee a transformation in some local health services. Owing to services’ increased capacity, health workers can collect samples, take them back to a central area for diagnosis, return to the patient and treat them at home. I actually saw that in the bush in Ethiopia. Such an approach reduces stress on the patient and on the health system, and it is much more efficient. Furthermore, battling TB worldwide has knock-on effects on TB in the UK. For example, the DFID-funded development of GeneXpert is now paying off, as the machine can now be used in UK hospitals.
Maximising the effectiveness of diagnostics requires intensive research in the field after a product has been developed, to ensure that the systems are in place to diagnose as many people as possible. In closing, I would like to ask the Minister whether DFID will commit, in future budgets, to supporting operational research programmes such as TB REACH to maximise the impact of new interventions.
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. Colleagues have been very disciplined, so the last two Members to speak before we get to the winding-up speeches can be a little more relaxed. [Hon. Members: “No!”] I’m sorry.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Streeter—it is a delight to see you in the Chair. Like others, I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on securing the debate and on the work that he, along with others in the room, has done with the all-party group on global tuberculosis, of which I am a member.
As I declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I visited South Africa in February 2012 with the charity Results UK, which does such important work on one of the most important questions in global health today: how do we move from struggling to control the world’s deadliest diseases to eliminating them? We can control diseases such as TB and HIV, but they continue to represent a terrible burden on individuals, families and communities across the world. In the 90 minutes of this debate, nearly 500 people will lose their lives from just those two diseases.
I am the chair of trustees of a remarkable charitable organisation called the Donald Woods Foundation, in Nelson Mandela’s impoverished homeland of the Transkei, in the Eastern Cape, in South Africa, where it is battling to control the twin epidemics of TB and HIV and to strengthen health services in remote, rural communities. It works closely with the South African Department of Health, and it has screened 150,000 people for TB. It also has nearly 10,000 people on HIV treatment, and it supports outreach to those who would otherwise not be reached. In addition, it has pioneered clinic design for infection control and TB testing.
Despite the huge and highly commendable efforts of the South African Government and of civil society organisations such as the DWF, South Africa continues to battle enormous health challenges, one of the most significant of which is drug-resistant TB. In one small sub-district last year, the DWF reported 49 cases of extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis. XDR-TB has evolved to be resistant to our best drugs, and the few treatments that remain are old, toxic and associated with terrible side effects. Treatment success with XDR-TB and multidrug-resistant TB—MDR-TB—is rare. The drugs involved, taken over years with daily injections, steadily destroy quality of life, often leaving patients with permanent disabilities. The burden of treatment is so heavy that many patients choose to default—to give up—and they discharge themselves from hospital rather than continue with what are, essentially, useless drugs that are causing them pain.
I have met people with XDR and MDR in South Africa, and their examples are tragic. I remember the story of a girl who had been confined in a hospital ward for more than two years. The drugs made her physically sick practically every day, she was losing her hearing because of them and her liver was being destroyed by the disease—TB ruined her life. Before the disease, she was doing well in school, and she had a bright career ahead of her, as well as close friends and a good family, but then the disease struck. Eventually, I am sorry to say, she discharged herself from hospital, knowing that, in doing so, she was most likely surrendering her chances of surviving. She returned to her family home, but it was empty—both her parents had died from the same disease. Soon, she also passed away—pale, sick, deaf and alone.
Sadly, that is not an isolated story. South Africa has the highest rate of TB in the world, and behind the statistics are thousands of tragic, grim stories. The worst cases are in gold mining. The deep gold mines are a source of a tremendously lethal form of TB, with all the consequences that brings.
Progress is being made against TB and HIV, but it is far too slow. The diseases continue to ravage health systems across southern Africa. Only 2% of South Africa’s TB burden is drug resistant, although that number is increasing, but that 2% accounts for fully 32% of the national budget for tackling TB.
Our weapons against these diseases are becoming less effective with every passing day, and I am struck by the similarities between drug-resistant TB and antimicrobial resistance, which was such a topic for conversation last week, with the Prime Minister launching his own special commission. We need new drugs that the TB bacteria have not already encountered, and we need a vaccine that kills or prevents infection so that resistance never gets the chance to develop. We need to remember that we have TB here in the UK and that a small but growing percentage of cases in the UK are drug resistant.
When drugs are developed, they must be affordable. Of course, commercial sector organisations must generate a profit, and developing a new drug can cost hundreds of millions of pounds and take years of sustained effort and research. None the less, while we want to find a way to unlock a new generation of drugs for diseases such as TB, we must not find ourselves in a situation where the poorest people cannot afford treatment or where the cost of buying drugs cripples local health services in poor countries.
What is required, then, is an alternative model—one that separates the requirement to generate a profit from the direction of research and that separates the cost of research from the price of the final product. Such a model, which is often described as de-linked, is the only way we will be able to encourage research and development for diseases for which there are no significant financial markets and to ensure that the products that are developed are accessibly priced. Will the Minister therefore commission a report examining the costs and implications of commercially driven development, as against de-linked development models, and use the findings to make the case to other Governments? Perhaps he could respond to that request in his reply.
We know that the system is not working; we know that the imperative to act and to find solutions to these problems is as strong as ever, and we know that the challenge of correcting market failure will dictate the future of efforts to control humankind’s deadliest infectious killers, yet we are no closer to breaking the deadlock. For the sake of the world’s poorest, our own national health service and, ultimately, our health in this country—these diseases are very infectious—I ask that DFID champion alternative, non-commercial models of development and thus help to develop the new drugs, vaccines and diagnostics that will help us to see the end of TB, HIV and malaria in our lifetimes.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for securing this important debate.
It is extremely important for the UK, and indeed the whole world, to take seriously the question of research and development for global health. I want to outline why it is also important for it to play, as it does, a major role in the work of the Department for International Development. I believe that to be so for five reasons, the first of which is that the aims in question are global public goods. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) talked about institutions that grew out of a desire to give treatment, including the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, which I believe was for seamen. The Seamen’s hospital was at the royal docks, and seamen from all over the world who had contracted diseases went there. The hospital that eventually became the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine was set up to help them. The Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine was founded by a ship owner who saw that if he and his colleagues in Liverpool were to engage in trade around the world, there was a need for treatment for diseases that might prevent their trade from continuing. If half of a crew who had been sent overseas succumbed to deadly diseases, it would not be possible to continue to trade. Thus the school came from a compassionate interest in people’s lives, and a commercial interest linked to compassion.
Secondly, the work in question is a matter of global public goods; the diseases are not diseases of far away people in far away lands. My right hon. Friends the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) and for Eddisbury (Mr O'Brien) have already said that they are the diseases of the poorest people on earth. I declare an interest as chairman of the all-party group on malaria and neglected tropical diseases. Those diseases—some 17 of them—affect well over 1 billion people a year who are among the poorest on earth. Malaria is similar, although like TB it can affect anyone. Those of us who travel to countries where it is endemic catch it, as I have on several occasions. When we invest in global research and development for global health we invest in tackling poverty and helping economic growth and prosperity. When people are sick they cannot engage in economic activity.
Thirdly, there is a need for long-term funding. That is why the role of DFID, development organisations and private foundations is so important. We are not talking about a budget for one, two, three or four years, but about long-term commitment. That is why I applaud schemes set up with the influence of, or sometimes by, the previous Government, such as the International Finance Facility for Immunisation, which I believe committed UK funds for up to 20 years, to develop vaccines. It is not possible to develop them over the short term. The Government have committed up to £500 million a year to tackling malaria. That is not just for research. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) mentioned, diagnostics are key. The money will go on diagnostics research and delivery, as well as bed nets and drugs, but a substantial part of that £500 million a year will go towards research. So will part of the £40 million a year that the Government have rightly committed to tackling neglected tropical diseases.
Fourthly, there is a question of partnership and leverage. We must work with others. As so many right hon. and hon. Members have said, the task is not one that can be carried out by the commercial sector alone, although it has an important role to play; by Government alone, because Governments do not really do research; or by the foundations and NGOs alone. I have found from my work on malaria and neglected tropical diseases, as I am sure colleagues have, that it produces some of the finest examples of people working together—the commercial and private sectors, NGOs and Government —to tackle a common global problem.
The final reason I want to outline is one that was eloquently pointed out by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs: resistance. We sometimes think that the problems are solved. They are not. I know far less about TB than the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend, but they pointed out the problems of increasing resistance to TB drugs. The same is being experienced with malaria, although the problem is perhaps not so advanced. Already the artemisinin combination therapies that have been a life saver for malaria around the world are facing resistance in places such as Myanmar. That is of course where resistance to chloroquine started, before it spread across Africa, resulting in the drug’s becoming almost useless. We must take the situation seriously, and I welcome DFID’s work in Myanmar to help to counter the spread of artemisinin resistance there.
Resistance develops not only against drugs, but against the insecticides with which bed nets are treated. Increasingly the mosquito is becoming resistant to some of them. That is why we must begin to use combinations of insecticides, or develop new ones. There is no doubt that insecticide-treated bed nets in the past 10 to 15 years have dramatically reduced malaria incidence and the death rate.
The debate is incredibly important because investment in research and development for global health is not an option but a necessity. I am proud that the UK takes a lead in research and in development. As the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras has said, there is much of that concentrated in the UK. Also, NGOs and foundations in this country take a lead, and a huge amount of work is done by DFID. I welcome what has been done, but the problem is a long-term one and we need long-term commitment. So far we have had that from DFID, and I urge the Minister to say that the issue remains at the heart of DFID’s work and will do for years to come.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful, Mr Streeter, for your chairmanship and for your maths, which has allowed a good period of time in which to express the Opposition’s support for the work of the all-party group, and for the Minister’s response.
The debate has been well informed and well attended, and there were welcome speeches by people who are hugely knowledgeable about the field. I want to refer to the disease that is predominant among those we have been discussing, and some of the recommendations in the report. I also want to consider structural and systemic issues about the delivery of effective care.
It is crucial in such debates to avoid becoming too fixated on high-level statistics and market processes, or too absorbed in the clinical mechanics of disease prevention and control. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) pointed out, in his hugely passionate speech, that absorption can cause us to forget the lived reality for the many people who have those terrible diseases. Death from tuberculosis, and life with it, is horrible. Cavities form in the lungs, causing bleeding, or resulting in pus-filled infection, blocking vital airways and causing difficulty in breathing. Each breath becomes a battle, because tuberculosis weakens the body and causes weight loss so extreme that, to the outsider, it can appear as if the body is literally consuming itself. When it affects children, it can mean that a child of six weighs 8 kg, which is barely the weight of a newborn baby. Long-term pulmonary damage, collapsed vertebrae, brain damage, lesions so severe that they change the structure of the body: that is the reality. Those are just some of the complications that survivors of the disease face, in addition to the stigma that besieges this disease of poverty and proximity.
As many right hon. and hon. Members have said, tuberculosis continues to ravage the lives of millions of people worldwide. There were 8.6 million new infections in 2012 alone. There are regions of the world
“teetering on the brink of a tuberculosis epidemic”.
If it is left unchecked over the next 20 years almost 1 billion people will be newly infected with TB; 200 million will develop the disease; and 35 million people will die of it. Given that it is curable, that is an unforgivable tragedy. That situation—alongside malaria, HIV, dengue, yellow fever, rabies, sleeping sickness, river blindness, leprosy and many others on the World Health Organisation’s list of neglected diseases—is a spur for our timely, if not overdue, debate.
As Members have pointed out, fundamental market failures have meant that the development of affordable and accessible treatments has simply not been prioritised in the way it should have been. In the past 40 years, just one Food and Drug Administration-approved TB drug has been introduced to market, compared with 15 FDA-approved products introduced for hay fever. Yes, hay fever is debilitating and it is certainly an uncomfortable irritation for many people, but it is not a global killer.
The inquiry and report that sparked today’s debate offer a number of pragmatic solutions that could underpin the currently failing commercial model or support the development of alternative structures and models for product development. It is crucial that these recommendations receive the attention they deserve.
The Department for International Development is already a world leader in research and development for global health, which this Government have prioritised in their parliamentary term, just as the previous Labour Government did in their last parliamentary term. It is vital that DFID’s reputation is maintained and further enhanced if the threats of pandemic proportions posed by these neglected diseases are to be abated.
The Prime Minister’s welcome recent announcement on antibiotic resistance and the £1 billion UK commitment to the Global Health Fund must also be celebrated, but such leadership must be shown across the board. A focus on research and development must not crowd out other important health care considerations. For example, the World Health Organisation’s recommended approach to tuberculosis—commonly known as directly observed treatment, short-course, or DOTS—requires daily supervision by a qualified health professional. That is an impossibility for the 2 million Somalians who have no access to health care services, or even for the 8 million Somalians who have access to such services but for whom it takes an average of four hours’ travel to reach them.
Moreover, research and development alone will not address the issue of those people who might never be diagnosed. They are prevented from accessing basic medical assistance because of poverty, stigma or discrimination. They are also isolated from the respite that decent health care can offer and, in the case of communicable diseases, they are unknowingly or helplessly infecting those around them. For these people, the urgent need for universal health care coverage is clear.
The UK death rate for TB is admittedly high in some areas. As many Members have highlighted in today’s debate, TB is a disease that shows no respect for national boundaries. Nevertheless, the reason the UK death rate for TB is low in comparison to other nations is down to the progress made by our NHS, which is undoubtedly my party’s greatest legacy. The NHS is a world-leading health care system built on the principles of fairness, providing high-quality and accessible health care that is free at the point of use.
In addition to responding to the specific recommendations of the report, I invite the Minister to set out how the UK will ensure that the laudable goal of universal health care coverage, which this Government have signed up to, will remain on the post-2015 development agenda, because it is only when we achieve universal health care coverage that the links between disease, poverty and inequality can begin to be broken.
If the main earner in a family becomes ill, the family can be driven even deeper into poverty; disease destroys their ability to earn money, or even their ability to subsist through work. That problem is compounded by the direct medical costs that patients face—such as consultation fees, drugs, diagnosis or hospitalisation—or by the indirect costs associated with ill health, such as travel to the nearest health centre, or increased nutritional or heating needs. Children miss out on school because of illness, or have to earn money to compensate family incomes that have fallen when parents or siblings become sick. So, in considering what support to give, it is essential that we not only look at the specific diseases that have been mentioned but at the mechanisms for delivering treatment.
The gendered impacts of ill health must not be ignored either. Women and girls are not only less likely to seek help, but are often saddled with caring responsibilities on top of their existing work loads. Frequently, they are even expected to give up their own work or education, undermining their chance to reach their potential, which traps the most vulnerable in cycles of poverty, disease and poverty again.
The ability to enjoy free access to health care services as envisaged by universal health care coverage would not only ensure access to treatment but would increase medical visits, which would raise the rates of diagnosis that the report makes clear are crucial in the fight against communicable diseases.
A holistic approach to health requires going beyond even universal health care coverage to include consideration of water and sanitation, inequality, housing and education, so it is clear that the challenges faced by the world in responding to the needs identified in the report are massive. However, it is only in adopting such an approach that we can be clear about the true impact of the neglected diseases that we have been discussing today, and about how we can address them.
We face some of the gravest global health care challenges of our time. Addressing them will require a co-ordinated international effort, and I am sure that the efforts of the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who I congratulate on securing this debate, will go a long way towards holding our feet to the fire and ensuring that we do address them.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)
I thank the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for securing this important debate—indeed, I thank all those who have contributed this afternoon. Thanks to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), it looks as if the Chilcot inquiry will have to make a study of infected chickens.
I also thank and commend the hon. Member for St Ives, and the rest of the all-party group on global tuberculosis, for the publication of a thorough report. We all appreciate the group’s tireless work in keeping our collective focus on global health—particularly research and development, which we are discussing today. As I am sure the group will appreciate, as the report was made available to us only last night, I have not had a chance to read it in detail. However, an initial scan shows that there is much in it that we welcome.
The report seeks to answer two fundamental questions: why are diseases of the global poor so badly neglected in research efforts, and what potential solutions are available to unlock the puzzle? Following a cursory reading, I am delighted to say that the Department for International Development is widely praised for our commitment to research and development in global health, and I am also pleased to learn that our willingness to provide flexible and untied support is particularly valued. The Department will consider the report and its recommendations during the next few weeks. However, let me now say just a few words about how DFID’s approach to research and development will proceed more broadly.
In the last two decades, tremendous progress has been made in improving the health, and preventing the deaths, of those living in poverty around the world, particularly women and children. For instance, between 1990 and 2011 the mortality rate among children under five fell from 84 deaths to 53 deaths per 1,000 live births, which is a very positive and encouraging statistic. In fact, as was recently reported in The Economist, it is an astonishing result.
Africa is currently seeing some of the fastest falls in child mortality ever seen anywhere, and one of the ways in which the UK has contributed is through its outstanding research. UK Government funding and UK scientists have contributed to the development of long-lasting, insecticide-treated bed nets, which were mentioned a moment ago, and new diagnostic tests and drugs for malaria. However, the progress has not been evenly spread; more than 7 million women and children still die every year, many of them during pregnancy and birth, and the great majority from easily treatable or preventable conditions.
We need to do three things in our research for health: to develop new technologies, such as drugs, vaccines and diagnostic tests; to test them through trials; and to keep abreast of growing medical challenges such as drug resistance, which has been mentioned this afternoon. I assure the House, including all Members here today, that DFID is funding research in all those areas.
Let me highlight a few examples of what we have been doing recently. The first area of our work is about developing new technology. We know what the problem is, but we lack the technology sometimes required to fix it, so research is required to create innovative solutions. For instance, DFID support has helped the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics to develop GeneXpert, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) mentioned earlier. GeneXpert is a new diagnostic test for tuberculosis that gives fast and accurate results. She said the results come within two hours; I might say within four hours—if we split the difference, the test is quick and that is what matters. Importantly, it also identifies drug resistance. The test is revolutionising the care and treatment of those suffering from this appalling disease.
Another example is that DFID supported the drugs for neglected diseases initiative to develop a new safer drug for sleeping sickness—one of the world’s worst diseases. The old drug, implicitly referred to by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), was highly toxic, killing around 5% of those treated. The new drug, which is now available in 90% of the places where sleeping sickness exists, is a better drug that reaches more people.
Both those examples also demonstrate the importance of securing private sector support through product development partnerships, which hon. Members mentioned. These partnerships act like virtual pharmaceutical companies, where a small, central group of staff co- ordinates the development of new drugs and technologies, drawing on the strengths of academia and industry. The UK is a leading investor in PDPs—with the Gates Foundation, for instance—and we continue to champion their role in global health research and development.
Let me turn to some questions that I spotted being put to me in a co-ordinated way. I have to say, in all honesty, that lifting our research expenditure up to 5% of our budget is unlikely within the competing claims of a tight resource allocation round for the next three years. If one added up the many requests made to us to meet certain percentages for various causes, one would soon find that they are close to, or perhaps even beyond, 100% of our total budget. We have to be honest and should not pretend that we can meet the 10% here and the 5% there, or the nought point this or that everywhere else. We will, within the 0.7% to which we do adhere, try to apportion our budgets rationally and openly.
I hear what was said about tax credits, but hon. Members will appreciate that those are primarily a matter for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Treasury. On collective action, we agree that better co-ordination should almost invariably be welcomed and pursued.
The second area of our work concerns using research to test new ways of doing things, including through the use of clinical trials. Much of what is done in international development has not yet been properly tested by rigorous methods. The fact that many experts agree that an intervention should work does not necessarily mean that it will. Proper trials allow us to do new things, but they also allow us to call a halt to old, costly and sometimes dangerous things.
DFID helped fund research in Kenya recently on the treatment of children with severe infections, including malaria. While accepted medical wisdom suggested that one should rapidly increase fluids in children affected by these diseases, research showed that that course of treatment was actually detrimental to the health of the children and, in some cases, resulted in death.
Similarly, in Uganda, research has shown that the accepted practice of using expensive tests to monitor the progression of HIV in patients simply did not work. By stopping the tests, a third of the normal cost of treating someone with HIV can be saved, with no impact on mortality. That means that for the same amount of money, the Ugandan Government can effectively treat a third more people with HIV. That is all down to effective research. DFID is currently supporting more than 40 clinical trials under the joint global health trials initiative, in partnership with the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust. We are funding new trials in TB, HIV and malaria, as well as other poverty-related neglected diseases.
There is a slight misconception that we do not fund UK research directly. We will fund the best research wherever it is located, through global, fair and open competition. However, as it happens, the largest proportion of DFID research contracts are won by UK institutions.
The Department is also breaking new ground in testing public health interventions in humanitarian crises—for example, through its partnership with the Wellcome Trust and Save the Children in the research for health in humanitarian crises project. This innovative partnership enables high quality health research to be carried out rapidly as acute emergencies unfold.
Andrew George
The Minister originally discounted the possibility of looking at the notional cap on research and development within DFID’s budget, but at the same time he has announced the doubling of economic development assistance to £1.8 billion. Given that we are talking about market failure, will he consider that budget as a route by which his Department can engage with the private sector, to enable further research and development that will achieve both the research and development gains and the economic development goals that his Department is seeking?
Mr Duncan
There is a lot that is constructive in what the hon. Gentleman has suggested. Whereas the money might not go into long-term research, there can certainly be work with private companies along the partnership lines that we already have, perhaps to extend activity in areas such as these. We are open-minded about the nature of the economic development activity that will emerge from this new approach—this refreshed emphasis—in private sector development, and I am pretty confident it does not rule out proposals such as the hon. Gentleman’s.
Mr Duncan
I do not lead on this topic, but my understanding of the Department’s approach at the moment is that we are not wholly convinced about the solution that simple de-linking would offer for the problems that the right hon. Gentleman has identified. Pharmaceutical markets are much too complicated for us to be able simply to segregate a research budget and the price at which a product is sold. The competitive structure has to be considered. Is a new drug competing with something, directly replacing something or marketing itself into a completely new field? There are many more aspects to the pricing and distribution of drugs than the simple de-linkage proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.
We do not have a closed mind on anything of this sort. The least we can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that we will get our very clever people working on it, although I do not think we will commission a great report at this stage. However, we are happy to engage with him in further detail, if he thinks that we are missing something.
Mr Duncan
We will, of course, write to the right hon. Gentleman, as requested, with our thoughts and views on his proposal. I have no doubt that officials will be happy to discuss with him, in person, what he thinks should be done, should he so wish it.
DFID is also utilising research and development techniques to understand better the environment in which we operate and it is working out how we can anticipate future trends. One example is in antimicrobial resistance, which has been mentioned today—a future threat on which the UK Government are taking a leadership role globally. DFID is supporting an initiative to track drug resistance to malaria in south-east Asia as it potentially spreads through the region and, critically, towards Africa. That will help target new antimalarial drugs, the development of which is also being supported by DFID.
Research alone will not alleviate poverty, which is why DFID also invests heavily into putting research into practice. Our programme, Research into Results, which is designed to convert theory into practice, is a perfect example of that. In my recent visit to Edinburgh university, I saw the good work being done in setting up small-scale businesses able to take the best research ideas coming out of universities and get them into widespread use. So many of the development challenges we face today rely on solutions from research, and solving many of the challenges we will face tomorrow will rely on the research and development investments that we make today.
Nick Herbert
I am grateful. I welcome everything that my right hon. Friend has said, the commitment that DFID has shown to this area and his undertaking that the Department will look carefully at the report. Does he think, in the overall scheme of things, that the global response to these diseases, many of which are pandemics, is equal to the task? It has taken an enormous global effort in other respects to tackle these diseases, such as with the establishment of the global fund. Only one TB drug has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the past 50 years. It was developed by Janssen Pharmaceuticals, by doctors who were not authorised to take it forward because they knew it would not be commercial. Finally, the company allowed the drug. Unless there is a step change in the response in the developing world to this problem, I wonder whether we will deal with it.
Mr Duncan
I agree with my right hon. Friend. We had a passionate debate on TB just a few months ago, in which he spoke on a subject on which he commands the House. The scale of the activity is not yet equal to the task, and it needs to be. That is why I urge all developed countries to match the 0.7% commitment that we have made. We, having taken the lead, should be followed by others. We can be proud that we are in the lead, and if others did what we did, we might well be up to the scale of the task that he illustrated. On that purposeful note, I say that we are committed to maintaining our record of funding high quality, high impact research and to putting that knowledge into use, so that we all, in the work we do, can save many thousands, if not millions, of lives.
UK Media (Welsh Rugby)
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I am looking forward to a debate on an intensely personal topic that I hope will inspire a great response from the Minister. On reflection, I could have asked for a short debate on the status of Wales in the world or defending the Union of the United Kingdom or “Wales, a proud nation, like England” or some similar title. Instead, I chose the UK media and Welsh rugby. I chose to take one specific example of how Wales is sometimes sidelined because she lies alongside the much larger and dominating presence of England. That is not a negative comment about England, which, like Wales, is also a great nation. In fact, my speech is more observation than criticism, even if it was born of deep frustration.
My favourite newspaper has for many years been the Telegraph, especially at the weekend. I derive great pleasure from reading Charles Moore, Boris Johnson, Geoffrey Lean and Fraser Nelson’s occasional columns.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
My hon. Friend describes the Telegraph as his favourite newspaper, but surely he means that it is favourite after his local newspaper, which he may want to take the opportunity to name.
Glyn Davies
I am always so grateful to the Minister. My local Montgomeryshire County Times & Express, the Cambrian News and various other local newspapers would probably qualify as my favourite papers, but the Telegraph is my favourite national newspaper.
Over the past month, I must also say that I have enjoyed the new columns from Isabel Hardman and others. On Sundays, I particularly enjoy the outstanding writing of Matthew d’Ancona, Janet Daley, Christopher Booker and others. Two weeks ago, however, my Sunday reading was completely ruined when I turned to the sports section to read about the two big rugby games that had been played on the previous Saturday. New Zealand had totally smashed England while Wales had come within a whisker of beating South Africa—many people’s favourite for next year’s rugby world cup—and winning in South Africa for the first time ever. In a truly magnificent performance, Wales dominated most of the match. I was able to read extensively in my newspaper about the England game with two full pages plus a good chunk of the front page. The Wales game got a few lines on page 14. I felt so let down, so disappointed, so frustrated. I know many other Welsh rugby supporters who felt just the same.
Over the last two weeks I have cooled off, and my reaction has been downgraded from seething anger to realistic observation. I accept that newspapers should be free to publish what they want—within the law of course.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. What assessment has he made of how the national Welsh media dealt with our near achievements in the rugby? Mindful that the Minister is here, what about S4C, the Cambrian News, which serves my constituency as well, Wales on Sunday and the Western Mail?
Glyn Davies
I entirely accept that the Welsh national newspapers gave full coverage to the Welsh rugby, but I want to make a point about the promotion of Wales across the world, and I do not think that the reach of Welsh papers is anything like those that are London based.
No MP is more committed to freedom of the press than I am, and I know well that newspapers have to respond to their market. They are in the business of selling newspapers after all. At the same time, however, I also believe in the freedom of MPs to express their unhappiness about things, which is what I have just done, and I must say that I feel much better for it.
I want to approach the subject of Wales’s status in the world from three distinct angles. The biggest issue facing us is the retention of the unity of the United Kingdom. While I believe and fervently hope the Scottish people will vote to remain part of the United Kingdom when they vote in the independence referendum in September, it is worth asking what has driven so many Scottish people not to value the Union. My sense is that at the root of Scottish disenchantment with the Union is resentment towards a larger, richer, altogether more powerful neighbour in England. That is the basis of my antipathy to a federal Britain as a response to the West Lothian question. No federation can work when one member is as dominant as England would be in a federal UK. I repeat that this is not in any way a criticism of England. It is not her fault that she is big. It is not England’s fault that the majority of UK media coverage relates to England.
Over recent months, it has been great to watch our Prime Minister, other Ministers and Opposition politicians going to great lengths to tell the Scottish people that we love them and that we do not want them to leave. If the Scottish people vote not to leave, we should continue to tell them afterwards that we love them. The same resentment exists in Wales, nothing like to the same extent, but it exists. It matters that England—great nation that it is—loves Wales and makes that clear. I would hope that every part of English society, including our London-based media, would want to play a part in that.
Another crucial angle to the issue of Wales’s status in the world is how we promote Wales overseas as a place to visit and to do business. I remember when 20% of foreign inward investment into the UK came into Wales; when Wales had a close, symbiotic relationship with the great motor regions of Europe, and when the Welsh Development Agency was the best business promotion vehicle in the world. It was a time when the Welsh can-do spirit made anything seem possible. At present, the Welsh Affairs Committee is taking evidence from various bodies in order to produce a report on promoting Wales abroad, and it is already clear to me that there is a problem. The Wales division of the Institute of Directors says that UK Trade & Investment has “failed dismally” to promote Wales abroad. It is also clear that the relationship between VisitBritain and Visit Wales is poor. I was astonished to learn that VisitBritain has never met the Welsh Minister responsible for tourism. Those organisations are funded by the UK and Welsh Governments to persuade overseas visitors to come to Wales and perhaps establish businesses in Wales.
The third angle concerns the Welsh language and what I consider to be inadequate recognition of its importance here at Westminster.
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. It may help if the hon. Gentleman refers back to the topic of UK media and Welsh rugby from time to time in his now quite wide-ranging speech.
Glyn Davies
Thank you, Mr Streeter, for bringing me back to Welsh rugby. There is an important link between Welsh rugby and the Welsh language. The great things about Wales that make it distinctive are, probably above all else, the language and the national game. More people play football, but rugby is linked to the Welsh language and to our culture. I hope that that satisfies your requirements, Mr Streeter.
About 20% of the population of Wales speak Welsh, but the language underpins Welsh identity and cultural distinctiveness. It seems wrong that the Welsh Affairs Committee does not encourage witnesses to speak in Welsh, and I can see no reason why the Welsh Grand Committee should not allow speeches in Welsh. Most people in the world are bilingual or even trilingual, and most Parliaments can accommodate bilingualism. Huge efforts have been made to maintain and restore yr iaith Cymraeg in Wales. Nowhere do we hear the language spoken more than at the great rugby matches that take place in Wales. Major investment in preserving and promoting Welsh continues to be made in Wales, and many Welsh people have a great love for the language and for singing the national anthem at the Millennium stadium. We should, however, create opportunities for Welsh to be used at Westminster, strengthening the link between Wales and the United Kingdom, of which Wales is a key member.
I continue to enjoy reading The Sunday Telegraph; its great writers still make it an absolute must for me to read at the weekend, despite its failure to cover Welsh rugby as I would like it to.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I share his concern about the lack of coverage of some of the rugby matches this summer, but is that a symptom of the London media in general ignoring Wales? Is that not reflected, for example, in the fact that 52% of the people of Wales still believe that the health service is run from Westminster?
Glyn Davies
I moved away from the central point of the debate for a small part of my speech, but the issue is a wide-ranging one. My hon. Friend makes that point, and I chose to refer to one specific aspect of the whole issue today—how Welsh rugby was covered two weeks ago—because it makes that point as well. We can reach out across the world only if the national media—the media read outside Britain—cover Wales. That is how the name of Wales will go out into the world, and there is no better vehicle than Welsh rugby.
I look forward to reading reports of the great games that will take place at the Millennium stadium in the rugby world cup in 2015. It will be a great occasion, but I look forward in particular to the great victory of Wales over South Africa in the final.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
It is a great honour to appear under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. This important debate has focused almost exclusively on the UK media’s coverage of Welsh rugby and an important subset of that—The Sunday Telegraph’s coverage of a particular match between Wales and South Africa that took place in South Africa a couple of weeks ago. I now have some 20 minutes to speak on the subject, at length.
It is important to focus on the issue. Had my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), who gave an excellent speech, used a title such as “Wales’s place in the world”, a different Minister would be responding on Welsh issues, whether they included the record of the Labour Welsh Government—other Members present in the Chamber may wish to comment—or Westminster’s record of support for Wales in exports and inward investment. Quite rightly, however, my hon. Friend has chosen me to respond to the debate, because he knows that I have a passionate interest in specific Welsh issues, none more so than the The Sunday Telegraph match report.
May I make a brief observation before returning to the main subject of the debate? It is good to see my hon. Friends the Members for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) and for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) in the Chamber. It will not have escaped their notice that not a single Labour MP is present. We have Prime Minister’s questions tomorrow and Tuesday is a busy day in the House; their absence cannot be explained. They may say that I am talking about them behind their backs, but I would be talking to them had a single one of them bothered to turn up to show their interest in Welsh issues. Far be it from me to say that some Labour MPs might take their support in Wales for granted, but in my experience over the past four years, in particular dealing with S4C, colleagues in the Conservative party have been active campaigners on aspects of Welsh media.
Guto Bebb
The Minister rightly alludes to the battles fought over the S4C budget. That is directly related to the fact that, for 30 years, S4C has been very innovative in its coverage of Welsh rugby, including in how it has extended the hand of friendship over the border into England by allowing people to choose their preferred language via the red button.
Mr Vaizey
That is true. One of the aspects that emerged during our many debates about S4C was indeed its coverage of Welsh rugby. S4C is very much part of the UK media, as I will go on to explain. It may be, should time allow, that other Members might want to comment further on S4C’s excellent coverage of Welsh rugby.
Some might ask what the problem is. Do we need better coverage of Welsh rugby? Welsh rugby stands as a legend for all people who follow international rugby. Here am I, an Englishman from the south-east, but the names of Edwards, John, Bennett, Quinnell and a man who can be recognised by just three letters, JPR, are part of my childhood and growing up, and they still define our understanding of the modern game.
In more recent years, the Millennium stadium—on the site of another legend, the Arms Park—has been one of the most iconic rugby stadiums in the world, it is so well known. It is absolutely right and proper that it will host eight world cup fixtures next year, including two of Wales’s home games. That is a great illustration of the sport and its Welsh tradition throughout the globe.
The influence of Wales in rugby extends to the women’s rugby world cup in France. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that the Prime Minister himself last week sent a message of good luck—interestingly, my own Secretary of State said last week that politicians wishing good luck could have the opposite effect, but he has also wished the Welsh women’s rugby world cup team good luck. Jokes aside, that shows the esteem in which the powerful Welsh women’s team is held. They have a chance to grab the headlines and do their great rugby- loving nation proud. I hope that the Telegraph gives their games the coverage that they deserve.
Frankly, it is not only in rugby that Wales has great achievements to its credit, and I hope that those other sporting achievements will also be recorded by the UK media. Who can forget that a Welsh football player commanded the highest transfer price on record? Gareth Bale is worth more than a Neymar or a Robben.
The importance of sport in our national identity and in keeping our nations together should not be underestimated. I happen to think that it is a great thing that Cardiff and Swansea have played in the premier league—Swansea is still in—because, were I to be indiscreet, it occurs to me that perhaps the majority of the population is more interested in and passionate about sport than politics. One of the things that will keep our country united is a shared passion for sport and the opportunity for all our nations to participate together in great sporting occasions.
I have mentioned rugby and football, but the great Commonwealth games are starting imminently in Glasgow. Again, I hesitate to place a jinx on them, but I wish good luck to Dai Greene in the 400-metre hurdles, Jazz Carlin in the swimming, Geraint Thomas in the cycling and the rugby sevens team. We look to the Telegraph to give suitable coverage to what will no doubt be great achievements in the games.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Simon Hart
I rather thought you might be.
The Minister has been mentioning a lot of the major sports, but will he spare a thought for those taking part in the Ironman competition in Tenby in the coming months—1,800 of them, I think? It is a global event, which is staged in only two places in the UK, one of which is Bolton and the other Tenby. It is a fantastic sporting event, which gets minimal TV coverage, but if anyone wants an indication of athleticism at its best, Ironman Tenby in September is the place to be.
Mr Vaizey
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Ironman Tenby is a legendary sporting event. History does not relate whether my hon. Friend is intending to take part—in terms of engagement with his voters, it would be a sensible thing for him to do. Perhaps in this Chamber today we could start the campaign for him to take part in that event, because he has three months left for training. I take his point and call on the Telegraph to give Ironman Tenby suitable coverage. It is an important event for the nation as well as for Wales.
We are discussing the UK media’s coverage of Welsh rugby; it is important to talk about the UK media as a whole, not just about the Telegraph. Our television and radio broadcasting are underpinned by frameworks designed to ensure that both regional and national content reach a wide audience, be that in coverage of sporting events, news coverage or in the production of drama and entertainment programmes.
We should note that the BBC should also provide suitable coverage for Welsh international matches. I have not done any research on that, and my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire did not mention it in his speech, so I am not aware of whether it is a particular problem, but I hope that those listening to the debate take note that there should be suitable coverage.
The licensing regime for the public sector broadcasters supports investment in the UK regions and nations, something from which everybody benefits. The levers that both we and Ofcom have are kept under constant review. For example, in terms of UK media coverage of Welsh rugby, Channel 4 has a quota for production of content outside England. That is going to increase from 2020 from 3% to 9%, which should be good news for Welsh content. The BBC has made an ongoing commitment since 2008 to grow its regional production, with 17% of network spend coming from the nations by 2016, which again should be good news for Wales and Welsh rugby.
The separation of the new ITV Wales from the current ITV Wales and West regional franchise will also give artistic freedom for that Welsh broadcaster to invest in high quality Welsh public service programming—I hope that includes suitable coverage of Welsh rugby matters. I know that Members from both sides of the House have strongly welcomed that important development.
Welsh broadcasting has had a lot to celebrate in recent years. Only last year we saw the 30th anniversary of S4C, an organisation that the current Government continue to fund, with the BBC, to the total tune of more than £80 million a year. We have already referred to S4C’s excellent coverage of Welsh rugby.
Guto Bebb
I would not like to be accused of correcting the Minister, but it is important to state that the cash funding for S4C is to the tune of £80 million, although the BBC also provides £19.6 million in funding in kind. The total funding for S4C is in the region of £100 million.
Mr Vaizey
I would like to say that I stand corrected, but I rather feel that I stand elaborated. Clearly, I was referring to the £82.6 million cash funding. My hon. Friend has elaborated on the funding in kind through provision in content from the BBC.
Although our subject is Welsh rugby, I hope you will indulge me, Mr Streeter, if I mention S4C’s fantastic coverage of the Eisteddfod and Royal Welsh Show, as well as its famous soap opera, “Pobol y Cwm”. I have taken part in many debates on S4C and have been challenged by hon. Members about my interaction with content from the channel, so I am genuinely delighted that the superb drama “Hinterland” has made a real impact on English audiences as well as Welsh ones. It has shown that the Welsh can play the Scandi game and produce great drama that can be sold around the world, regardless of its language of broadcast.
Mr Mark Williams
I am sure my hon. Friend would like to acknowledge that “Hinterland” was filmed in my constituency of Ceredigion, and so serves a double purpose as it promotes Ceredigion as a tourist centre for our friends across the world.
Mr Vaizey
Anyone who has seen “Hinterland” will have been incredibly impressed by the quality not just of the drama but of the filming of those incredible landscapes, which must now serve as a wonderful calling card for Welsh tourism and tourism in Ceredigion in particular.
As is the case for many cultural institutions, S4C’s successes have been delivered alongside significant challenges. I was therefore delighted that we protected S4C’s funding in the last autumn statement. Our commitments on regional and national programming are also enhanced by the new local TV services, which so far have been licensed in Cardiff and Swansea, with services for Mold and Cardiff due to come on air shortly.
In talking about the UK media’s coverage of Welsh rugby, it is also important to point out that the Government’s broadband programme will provide another potential avenue of access to content. We have provided about £100 million, I think—that figure is off the top of my head—to the Welsh Government to carry out a broadband programme. Something like half a million homes will be connected under that rural broadband programme, getting figures for Wales up to 90% and beyond. It is going extremely well and we have covered more than 160,000 premises so far. People can get television content on broadband and now that new competitors are in play—not just Sky, but BT Sport—one may well see enhanced coverage not just of Welsh international rugby but Welsh domestic rugby. Much of that will be down to the fact that infrastructure coverage is going so well in Wales.
We are going through a golden age of investment in sports coverage. In 2012, more than £2 billion was invested by all broadcasters in sports programming and sport became the most watched genre on TV. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire was so right to bring up the UK media’s coverage of Welsh rugby as a way of bringing to the attention of the House the broadcasting opportunities that now exist for Welsh sport and Welsh rugby in particular. [Interruption.] Given the leaning position that my hon. Friend has taken, I cannot tell whether he is fascinated by my remarks or about to make an intervention, but I will keep a weather eye on him in case he wishes to intervene at any point.
Glyn Davies
I had not intended to intervene, but I feel tempted to do so. Does the Minister agree that sport is probably the most effective way to take the name of Wales to the wider world, through the stars whom he has mentioned? One issue we have is promoting Wales across the world as an identifiable country that is not a part of England. Does he agree that sport is the best and most effective way to do that?
Mr Vaizey
I absolutely do. Let me elaborate. I was lucky enough to watch the end of the Tour de France yesterday—it was only up the road—and somebody turned to me and said, “That is soft power at work. That is the French making a bigger impact on the UK psyche. What is our equivalent?” I said that to a certain extent it was probably the premier league. We should think about the reach of the premier league and the opportunities that Swansea and Cardiff have to promote Wales when they are in the premier league.
The Welsh rugby team, of course, has an impact in South Africa, Australia and all around the world. We should also think of the stars of Welsh rugby and football, as I mentioned earlier. Gareth Bale will do a huge amount to promote Wales, as a passionate Welshman himself. Ryan Giggs was part of a squad that was probably one of the most successful football teams in the world. Their utter loyalty to Wales is impressive—they could perhaps have played around with their genealogy to get to play for other teams but they were loyal to Wales, a great international football team.
Sport is incredibly significant, which is why it is so important that my hon. Friend has brought to the Chamber’s attention the coverage that our own domestic media give to Welsh rugby and other great Welsh sporting achievements. Another point to raise—although it might perhaps be a bit late in the day to mention it—is that almost more important than the players themselves are the fans. The passion of the Welsh rugby fan is known all across the world, and it is Welsh rugby fans who are devouring more and more sports media content through the internet, including sites such as “The Bleacher Report”. I have mentioned BT Sport and Sky. Wales’s recent rugby tour to South Africa was covered on Sky Sports and the BBC’s online rugby service “Scrum V” enables viewers living outside Wales to watch live games on satellite and cable and via the internet.
I have more to say on this subject, but I see that time is running out so I must bring my remarks to a conclusion. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to our attention. I note that Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs have turned up in force to debate an issue that is important to Wales, to emphasise the importance of Wales’s place in our United Kingdom and to remind us all that, whether in rugby, at the Commonwealth games, in football or in cycling, Welsh sporting achievements deserve the full attention of the whole of this United Kingdom.
Learning Disabilities (Care in the Community)
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Mr Streeter, to serve under your chairmanship, and I am grateful to have been granted this debate. There are 1.4 million people with a learning disability in the UK and many require care and support to live full lives in their communities. Many do so, supported by families, friends, charities and funded social care. However, a small but significant number—just over 3,000—are far from their homes and communities, stuck in assessment and treatment units. They are some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Many display challenging behaviour and require skilled support from a range of professionals, but that is no reason why they should not be cared for and supported in their community.
In 2011, the BBC’s “Panorama” programme exposed truly horrific abuse and neglect of patients with learning disabilities at the Winterbourne View assessment and treatment unit. Many hon. Members will remember the deeply distressing images of people being hit, verbally abused, viciously restrained and thrown into seclusion. Some of the perpetrators were rightly sent to prison, but Winterbourne shone a light on the wider scandal of how the NHS and local authorities throughout the country have failed to give people the right support to enable them to live in the community. They had hidden that failure by sending people with learning disabilities to in-patient settings, in many cases for years and often hundreds of miles from their families and communities, isolated and alone. That was against Government policy and was a scandalous misuse of what assessment and treatment beds should be used for. It was estimated that the cost was around £500 million.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am glad that my right hon. Friend is raising this important matter this afternoon. Does he agree that the situation, far from improving, may be worsened as a result of the closure of the independent living fund if it means that more learning-disabled people who are currently able to live independently are forced into residential care?
Mr Clarke
My hon. Friend makes a valid point and was right to do so.
Some £500 million of public money was spent to pay for people to be over-medicated with anti-psychotic drugs and kept in seclusion at risk of assault and self-harm. In December 2012, the Government put in place an action plan with the objective of giving people with learning disabilities support to enable them to move out of places like Winterbourne View and to return to their communities. A joint improvement programme was also put in place, and the NHS and local authorities were given a deadline of 1 June this year to make that happen.
The result is nothing short of a scandal. Not only has the deadline been missed, figures from the NHS show that more people are going into those units than coming out. Not only that, there seems little appetite to move people. Recent NHS data showed 90% had no discharge date. Meanwhile the human suffering continues. The learning disability census showed that 57% had experienced self-harm, an accident, physical assault, hands-on restraint or had been kept in seclusion.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on this enormously important debate. Last Friday saw the first anniversary of the preventable death of Connor Sparrowhawk in the Slade unit in my constituency. One year later, we have not had the inquest or the serious case review, and his family are scrambling around to raise money so that they will be legally represented at the inquest where the public authorities will be represented at taxpayer’s expense. Does my right hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done to prevent such tragedies and, when they occur, to help the families and victims to see justice?
Mr Clarke
I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. It was important that he put that case on the record.
The picture we are seeing is clearly unacceptable. Mencap, the Challenging Behaviour Foundation and Enable in Scotland have campaigned vigorously with the families of those affected, and I thank them for their advice for this debate. Many of the families have experienced the sheer pain of knowing their son, daughter, brother or sister has suffered horrific abuse and in some cases died. They have battled in many cases for years to get their loved ones out of these dreadful places, but have been blocked by an uncaring system that is often more focused on money than high-quality care and the rights and dignity of people with learning disabilities.
To mark the passing of the 1 June deadline, the families came together to write an open letter to the Prime Minister asking him to take urgent action and to meet them. I understand from them that to date there has been no reply. That is unacceptable and I hope the Prime Minister will look again at their letter and take the opportunity to meet them.
I had the privilege of meeting many of the families some time ago prior to my Adjournment debate back in autumn 2012, and more recently at last week’s all-party group on learning disability which I chair with Lord Rix, who has of course campaigned vigorously in this area. In common with all my colleagues, I cannot praise Brian more highly. I pay tribute to the families’ determination in fighting to change things for the better, not only for their loved ones, but on behalf of the thousands of others trapped far away in these places.
I turn to the case of Josh. The Wills family have campaigned for their son, and #BringJoshHome has caught the public interest, which we welcome. Phil Wills, his dad, spoke at the all-party group meeting last week and I know how moved everyone in the room was. Phil and Sarah’s son, Josh, lived in his family home in Cornwall with his siblings until July 2012 when his self-injurious behaviour increased. As a result, he was sent to a unit 260 miles away. Phil and Sarah reluctantly agreed to that because they were told there were no local services and it would be for a six-month assessment period to give everyone an understanding of the support and services Josh needed.
Almost two years later, Josh is still in Birmingham, a five-hour trip for his family. The Kernow clinical commissioning group continues to procrastinate and refuses to commission the services needed locally. Meanwhile, away from his family, Josh grows more anxious and his parents fear for his life because of the severity of his behaviour. He spent both his 12th and 13th birthdays there and has never met his newly born little sister.
I am very grateful to the Minister for his address to the all-party group meeting last week. I understand that he has met Phil and Sarah on more than one occasion and, to his great credit, many of the other families. I know he shares my deep concern over what has happened, and indeed, what has not happened. At the meeting, he shared his feelings about the lack of progress and the work he has been doing with NHS England, which has powers to intervene and address local failings. I say to him today that his views were very much appreciated.
I also welcome to the debate the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), and I welcome the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith). I look forward to what the Minister has to say, and in particular, I would like him to answer the fundamental questions that every family affected wants an answer to. Given that the June deadline has passed, what are he and other Ministers now doing, and what will the new deadline be? Where will the leadership come from across health and local government to ensure that we make progress?
It would be beneficial if the Minister could clarify the status of the joint improvement programme originally tasked with getting people back within their communities. Patently, that has failed and it has been dealt a further blow with the resignation of its director only yesterday. Are we to see a second joint improvement programme? Who will it consist of? How will it be successful? Critical to the solution, in my view, is also how we refocus money away from these high-risk units and into good-quality, locally based provision. If he could comment on that as well, I would be extremely grateful.
With regard to Scotland, it should be said that despite the Barnett formula, which means that 10% of the money spent in England is allocated to the Scottish Government, the widespread concern that is here in England also applies in Scotland. It is not helpful that Scottish data on these matters are poor, and that the £34 million allocated on the basis of the Barnett formula—arising from the committee that I chaired on disabled children and their families—was not spent on that purpose, but was used to keep council tax static. Scottish decisions on such placements can mean that placements out of area can also lead to placements out of Scotland. In one case, a man was sent to Carstairs, an NHS hospital for the criminally insane. He was later dispatched to Newcastle, where his elderly father finds the greatest difficulty in visiting him.
According to John White, the positive behaviour support adviser of Enable Scotland:
“The issue with assessment and treatment units can be that such environments can become the ‘setting conditions’ for people developing the challenging behaviours they are meant to be assessing and treating in the first place. We know from experience that people who had to live in NHS institutions for many years developed challenging behavioural repertoires in response to the experience of living in such environments and so it is logical that similar environments with similar institutional features are likely to encourage the development and maintenance of similar challenging repertoires.”
I would add that, important as it is, positive behaviour support is not a panacea and should be available as a part of a multi-agency health and social care collaborative approach. We need services to be designed around people, who along with their families, should have as much choice and control as possible. We need strong local crisis supports, staffed collaboratively by the NHS and local providers working in partnership, preventing hospital admission in the first place for all but those few people with a significant mental health problem that requires treatment.
For many years, we have been talking about care in the community, and there have been great strides. But the 3,250 people we are talking about today have been failed, let down by poor-quality or non-existent local services and then placed in high risk in-patient settings, where we have seen abuse, and tragically, loss of life. This is a national disgrace, and one that I hope right hon. and hon. Members from both sides will agree must be addressed decisively now.
I look forward to the Minister’s reply. I thank him for his presence, and I know he will share my view that these issues are crucial to the services that we provide, particularly in social services, remembering the rights of every individual citizen of this country.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) on securing the debate and thank him for doing so. I do not think I disagree with a single word he said in his speech today. The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) also talked about the scandalous case of Connor Sparrowhawk. I have met his mother and what happened there should shock us all. There was acknowledged negligence in the care and these things simply cannot go by without a proper and effective response to stop repeats of this sort of thing ever happening again.
One thing that the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill focused on was the families, to whom I pay enormous tribute for their campaigning. What is most shocking when one talks to them is the sense that they are not listened to—that they raise their concerns with public bodies and get no effective response. They are ignored and that should shock us all.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that it is an ongoing scandal and a scandalous misuse of public money, and I completely agree with him. This has now gone on for very many years. It is an unacceptable remnant of the previous system of institutional care that has to come to an end. The thing that has depressed me in this job, more than any other aspect of it, is the extent to which it is so difficult to change the culture that allows this sort of thing to carry on. There is the sense that those commissioning care seem, it appears, to be willing to carry on with business as usual, when we know that the outcomes for those individuals are not acceptable, and that very many of these individuals are able to live a better life in supported living in their communities. The imperative to achieve change is as strong as ever, and for as long as I am in this job, I will do everything I can to try to change things.
Because of my total frustration about the way in which commissioning has happened, I chose to go out to visit one 17-year-old girl a couple of weeks ago in an assessment and treatment centre to see it for myself, and to see the barriers that that family are up against and the problems that they have had engaging with the commissioners of care, which, in that case, is NHS England. Indeed, with regard to the case of Josh that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, I have invited the clinical commissioning group to come into my office on, I think, 22 July, together with NHS England and with the family, so that we can get to the bottom of what has gone wrong and try to achieve a solution. I am prepared to intervene in this way if necessary, to force change to a situation that I regard as completely unacceptable.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to focus on the needs of people who, as the right hon. Gentleman said, are among the most vulnerable in our society. Many of us share the concern that people with learning disabilities and their families are still getting an unacceptable raw deal from the health and care system, from other public services, and from society in general. People with learning disabilities have exactly the same rights as anyone else, yet they continue to experience discrimination, abuse and a basic lack of respect for their fundamental rights. That should shock us all.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
I am most encouraged by my hon. Friend’s remarks, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) on securing this important debate. Has my hon. Friend come across the organisation based just outside my constituency, Changing Our Lives? It was founded by Jayne Leeson, who was awarded the MBE for her services in this area. It is doing such innovative work that demonstrates clearly the potential of people currently in residential care with learning disabilities, who can live a most fulfilling life outside, in the community, through supported living.
Norman Lamb
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I would be interested to hear further information about the organisation to which she refers. It is clear that sometimes a leap of faith is required to give a person the chance of a better life outside, and the system is horribly risk averse. We know that the main cause of decisions to keep people in assessment and treatment centres is the clinical judgment that the person needs to stay there, so that needs to be challenged. I want to give people the right to a second opinion and I am in discussions with Simon Stevens, the chief executive of NHS England, to give people that right, because we have to find ways of giving a voice to people who hitherto have felt that they are ignored and not listened to and that nothing ever changes.
I pay tribute to the two organisations mentioned by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill: Mencap and the Challenging Behaviour Foundation, which have continued to make the case on behalf of people with learning disabilities.
Winterbourne View and the appalling abuse of people there reminded us that there is still a massively long way to go to ensure that people are safe and get the right support—the support that they need. The Government’s review following the Winterbourne View case looked at the systemic issues facing people with learning disabilities and their families. At the end of the review, we published the concordat—the right hon. Gentleman referred to that—bringing together all the national organisations to commit to change. In a way, the most distressing thing is that I felt that organisations committing to the concordat and the change set out in it were doing that with a seriousness of intent that they would deliver on. The lack of change that there has been since then is really shocking, given that they committed to achieving that change. Eighteen months on, we all need to remind ourselves that progress so far has not been nearly good enough and that we all need to continue to work in partnership to deliver on the commitments solemnly made at the start of all this.
I have said recently, and the information that we have shows, that far too many people with learning disabilities are still stuck in hospitals, often hundreds of miles from home and in many cases for years, with serious questions about whether they are getting the right care and support.
I have also met Mike Richards, the chief inspector of hospitals, and Paul Lelliott, the deputy chief inspector for mental health, to ensure that the Care Quality Commission challenges organisations. If someone is living in an assessment and treatment centre, which is there for assessment and treatment, not for long-term living, surely it is not delivering the right model of care. That needs to be challenged by the Care Quality Commission and not simply accepted and tolerated.
Collectively, we need to be honest and say that the system has so far completely failed to deliver on the commitment made in the concordat significantly to reduce the number of people with learning disabilities who are in effect living in hospitals—for whom hospital is their home.
Jim Shannon
I want to say just one thing. Is the Minister saying that this Government are committed to partnership relationships with housing groups and those who are committed to facilitating supported living for people outside these homes? I think that, if he is, he will find that many outside bodies are prepared to take him up on that.
Norman Lamb
I very much agree and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Providers of supported living care need to be much more central to the task of changing this culture. Indeed, I have asked for a meeting to be arranged that will bring in some of those providers, with Simon Stevens and the chief nursing officer, Jane Cummings, who I am pleased is now in charge of this programme, to demonstrate how they can play a part in effecting change.
I also want to acknowledge the work that has been done from the concordat and what has been achieved by NHS England and other delivery partners.
It is appropriate for us to start by looking at the people who were in Winterbourne View before it closed. I am pleased to report that NHS England’s Improving Lives team, who include senior clinicians, social care staff, third sector partners and family members of people with learning disabilities, have now reviewed the care of all but one of the 47 people who were in Winterbourne View, and the care of the one remaining individual will be reviewed by the end of this week. Those reviews have resulted in some people moving out of hospital into circumstances that are more appropriate for them as individuals.
The Government have provided funding so that the people who were in Winterbourne View can have additional trauma assessments where the need has been identified and they have consented to those assessments. We are providing additional funding to support families through a telephone helpline, regular telephone counselling and family support days. The funding will also support other people with learning disabilities—including the 17-year-old girl whom I visited a fortnight ago—who have experienced institutional abuse, and help their families.
Involving people with learning disabilities and their families is key to ensuring that the work that we are doing means that they have a better experience and better outcomes. We have provided funding to organisations to allow people with learning disabilities and their families to share their views with us, so that we can listen to them and respond to the concerns that they raise.
We have also made progress on other Winterbourne View concordat commitments. For example, guidance has been developed on commissioning advocacy for people with learning disabilities so that, again, they get a voice and they get access to information, advice and support when necessary. It is vital that local commissioners ensure that people have proper access to high-quality advocacy where they need it.
Mr Tom Clarke
I am very grateful for the Minister’s tone and I know that he feels deeply bound to respond to the problems that we are discussing. I welcome the fact that he mentions advocacy. Will he assure us that his Department will do everything possible to insist that advocacy remains at the heart of all our discussions?
Norman Lamb
I very much will do that. I have specifically talked to Simon Stevens about that. I am conscious that time is tight, so let me just mention one or two specific things. First, there is now movement on people getting plans for leaving institutional care. NHS England expects that clinical commissioning groups and its area teams will discharge or transfer 35% or 892 of the 2,615 people currently in in-patient settings within the next 12 months. That is 385 within three months, 266 within six months and 241 within 12 months. That is what they have come up with in terms of going through individual plans. We now have to ensure that it happens, and there is no guarantee in my mind that it will happen, so we have to hold the system to account.
I have mentioned that we have to unlock barriers wherever they exist. For me, one of the barriers is this. When someone transfers from the responsibility of NHS England to the local authority, the responsibility for the funding transfers to the local authority. That creates a disincentive for the local authority to take responsibility for that person, so the money has to flow with the individual. We have to ease the transition and not make money a barrier to an appropriate transfer to supported living in the community.
I have also mentioned that we have to address the question of the clinical judgments. That is not to say that in individual cases a clinician will not be making their best judgment about an individual’s need to stay in a particular setting, but surely the family need access to a second opinion to be able to challenge that judgment. I am conscious—I say no more than this—that the clinicians who are making the judgment are often employed by the organisation that is receiving payment for providing the bed to the individual. Whether it is in the state sector, the independent sector or the voluntary sector does not matter. The right to a second opinion is essential.
In the moments left to me, let me say that I remain totally committed to getting the culture change that we are all after. What has happened so far is not acceptable.
Written Statements
Student Loans Company
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
I would like to update the House on the use by the Student Loans Company (SLC) of letters under the trading name of Smith Lawson and Company.
Since 2005 the SLC has been issuing letters to graduates that fall into arrears when repaying loans or grant overpayments under the trading name of Smith Lawson and Company. The company has sent out letters to an estimated 309,000 customers under this name. These letters were sent to graduates who had failed to respond to several attempts to contact them by the SLC, and were used as a low-cost alternative to referring those graduates to third-party debt collection agencies. The practice was approved in late 2004 by the company’s board of that time and Ministers in the previous Administration. The use of this approach had not been brought to my or the Secretary of State’s attention before the recent media coverage.
In February this year, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) contacted BIS and SLC to express its concerns about the practice and particular wording of these letters. It considered the letters to be misleading because they created the impression that debts had been escalated for collection by transfer to a third party. The OFT recognised that SLC was not now collecting debt governed by the Consumer Credit Act, but advised that the letters be brought into line with its guidance. The company agreed to change the letters to change one misleading reference to “our client” and increase the size of the reference to the SLC in the letter but decided to continue with the use of the trading name. The company has a strategic objective to collect every pound that is owed and this was a factor in its decision. These changes were due to come into effect in early July.
The company has now stopped the use of Smith Lawson letters and trading name. It took this action on 27 June following the recent decision by the Financial Conduct Authority to sanction Wonga, the payday lender, for its aggressive and misleading practices. Although the SLC did not break any rules or charge graduates for receiving these letters, it was clear that a public body should be holding itself to the highest standards in the treatment of its customers. No further use will be made of the Smith Lawson trading name. The only exceptions after 27 June were two letters sent manually in error and a small number of automated follow-up emails.
Christian Brodie, the chairman of the SLC made a clear and unequivocal apology on behalf of the company in a discussion with the Secretary of State on Thursday 2 July. I also spoke to Mr Brodie on Thursday to investigate what had happened. Mr Brodie tendered his resignation as chairman to the Secretary of State but this was not accepted. The Secretary of State and I have confidence in his leadership of the Student Loans Company. We see Mr Brodie having a very important job to do at the SLC to oversee the significant investment BIS is making in the company to enable it to transform its products and operations and overall levels of customer service. We are both clear that it would be unfair for Mr Brodie to take the blame for a practice that was nearly 10 years old, particularly as he had only been chairman since he joined in February of this year.
He has proposed the following plan, which I endorse:
The suspension of the use of these letters will be permanent and future dealings with customers in arrears will be fair and transparent.
The SLC will seek assurance from its legal advisers that the company is fully compliant with the spirit as well as the letter of consumer credit protection and financial services legislation and related regulations in the light of the Smith Lawson experience.
The first task of the soon to be appointed executive director for repayments and fraud will be to conduct a review of SLC’s repayment and collection strategy to give assurance to the board that the company is treating people fairly, while at the same time ensuring that SLC continues to collect outstanding debts.
As part of a review of the SLC board’s effectiveness, which Mr Brodie had already commissioned, the SLC will specifically review the Smith Lawson experience, the events of March/April 2014 and the negotiations with the OFT and their aftermath.
I had already begun the process of appointing two new non-executive directors to the SLC board by the end of this year. Mr Brodie had indicated to me prior to recent events that he would value candidates with strong track records in customer service and repayments to add to the expertise of the existing board members.
It is important that the Government recover taxpayers’ money, but it must do so in a way that is fair. It must not use misleading tactics to get people to do the right thing. The SLC has apologised and now stopped issuing letters under the Smith Lawson trading name. I will be working with the company to ensure that lessons are learned to ensure there is no repeat in future. The company is now ensuring that its procedures and correspondence adopt the high standards of customer service expected of it as a public sector organisation. The company’s new approach to debt collection will be cleared by the SLC board and BIS Ministers.
ECOFIN
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nicky Morgan)
A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council will be held in Brussels on 8 July 2014. Ministers will discuss the following items:
Level 2 legislation on bank contributions under bank recovery and resolution directive and the single resolution mechanism
The Commission will brief the Council on the preparation of implementing legislation that will determine the contributions to be paid by banks to resolution funds established under the directive on bank recovery and resolution (BRRD) and the regulation on the single resolution mechanism (SRM).
Presentation of the Italian presidency work programme
The incoming Italian presidency will make a public presentation of its work programme for ECOFIN.
Review of the EU2020 strategy
Council will hold an initial discussion as part of a mid-term review of the Europe 2020 strategy.
Savings taxation: update on negotiations with third countries
Following agreement on the amended savings taxation directive, the Commission will update the Council on third country negotiations on the directive between the EU and Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Andorra, Monaco and San Marino.
Azerbaijan (EU Programmes)
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I wish to inform the House that the Government have opted into the following measures:
Council decision on the signing and provisional application, on behalf of the Union, of a protocol to the partnership and co-operation agreement between the European communities and their member states, and the Republic of Azerbaijan, on a framework agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Azerbaijan, on the general principles for the participation of the Republic of Azerbaijan in Union programmes.
Council decision on the conclusion of a protocol to the partnership and co-operation agreement between the European communities and their member states, and the Republic of Azerbaijan, on a framework agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Azerbaijan on the general principles for the participation of the Republic of Azerbaijan in Union programmes.
Azerbaijan and the wider south Caucasus region are of strategic importance to the UK and the EU. The UK is the largest foreign direct investor in what is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Continued stability in this region is key for the UK’s prosperity and energy security goals, and it is therefore in our interests to promote EU-Azerbaijan engagement.
Azerbaijan’s access to Union programmes provides an opportunity for closer engagement with the EU and to promote continued reforms towards European standards. More broadly, the UK remains a strong supporter of Azerbaijan’s progression towards closer ties with the EU as part of our long-standing support for strengthened ties in the eastern neighbourhood region.
These Council decisions relate in part to the Republic of Azerbaijan’s eligibility to participate in the Fiscalis 2020 Union action programme and the Customs 2020 Union action programme, thus triggering the UK Justice and Home Affairs opt in. I believe it is in the UK’s interest to opt into these measures, as we have already opted into the internal EU instruments establishing the Fiscalis and Customs 2020 Union action programmes.
Modern Slavery
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Modern slavery affects people from all over the world, including here in the United Kingdom. The Government are committed to stamping out this abhorrent crime, building on the UK’s strong track record in supporting victims and tackling the perpetrators. That is why we have introduced the Modern Slavery Bill, which will have its Second Reading in the House of Commons later today. The Bill will give law enforcement the tools to tackle modern slavery, ensure that perpetrators can receive suitably severe sentences for these appalling crimes, and enhance support and protection for victims. However, we recognise that legislation is only one part of the solution. The Government are also taking forward a comprehensive programme of activity, which includes:
trialling child trafficking advocates;
establishing safeguarding and trafficking teams at the border;
working with the private sector to address modern slavery in supply chains; and
reviewing the national referral mechanism.
This programme of activity will be set out in a new modern slavery strategy which will be published in the autumn.
Today we have published a document setting out our activity on modern slavery, which is available on the gov.uk website, a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House. Copies will also be available in the Vote Office.
Victims' Commissioner's Annual Report
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Damian Green)
I am pleased to announce that the Victims’ Commissioner, Baroness Newlove of Warrington, has today published her annual report. I have placed a copy in the Library of each House.
The role of the Victims’ Commissioner, as set out in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, is to promote the interests of victims and witnesses, encourage good practice in their treatment and keep under review the operation of the statutory victims’ code.
The report outlines the impressive work undertaken by the Victims’ Commissioner and her team during the Baroness’s first year of office. In addition, the report highlights the priorities she has identified to improve services and support for victims and witnesses during 2014-15: monitoring compliance with victims’ code; complaints and redress for victims; restorative justice (RJ); putting victims first when cases are dealt with out of court; giving victims, including vulnerable victims, a voice. The Victims’ Commissioner will continue to ensure that the views of victims are represented to Ministers.
The role of Victims’ Commissioner has been full-time since 2 June 2014. This will enable Baroness Newlove to spend more time focusing on her priorities; undertaking the important role of supporting victims of crime; continuing her work with victims of antisocial behaviour and holding the Government and criminal justice agencies to account for providing victims with the service to which they are entitled under the victims’ code.
Aviation Security
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
On 2 July the Department for Transport announced that some of our aviation security measures would be stepped up in response to potential threats to aviation from terrorist organisations. The House will be aware that the United States Government made a similar announcement on the same day regarding flights to the United States.
In conjunction with our international partners and the aviation industry, the UK Government keep aviation security under constant review. The UK has some of the most robust aviation security measures in the world and it goes without saying that at all times the safety and security of the public is our paramount concern.
As a result of the changes we are implementing, some passengers may notice additional security measures on some routes, both to and from the UK. Passengers on some routes may also be required to show that electronic devices in their hand luggage can be powered up or face not being allowed to bring the device on to the aircraft. Passengers are therefore advised to make sure electronic devices being carried in their hand luggage are charged before they travel.
This advice is in line with that issued by the United States and we have updated our official advice to passengers accordingly. For obvious reasons we will not be commenting in detail on the measures or the routes affected. We will work with the aviation industry to minimise disruption as far as possible.
I would reiterate that there is no change to the threat level, which remains at substantial.
I know the whole House will recognise the fact that we face a constantly evolving threat from terrorism and must respond accordingly to ensure the protection of the public against those who would do us harm. The update we are making to our security measures is an important part of that process. While we do everything we can, where possible, to minimise the disruption to people’s journeys, we will continue to take all the steps necessary to ensure that public safety is maintained.
HS2 Phase One: Property Consultation 2014
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
Further to my commitment in the 9 April decision document “Property Compensation Consultation 2013 for the London-West Midlands HS2 route”, I am today announcing to the House the launch of a consultation on additional assistance for people near the route of phase 1 of the proposed high-speed railway, between London and the west midlands.
The “Property Consultation 2014” sets out two proposals:
An “alternative cash offer” that would give rural owner occupiers within the rural support zone a choice between selling their home to the Government for what it would have been worth had there been no plans for HS2 and remaining in their home and receiving 10% of that value. We would apply a minimum payment of £30,000 and payments would be capped at £100,000. This scheme would launch by the end of 2014 and last until one year after the trains start running; and
A “homeowner payment scheme” that would give rural home owners outside the voluntary purchase area but within 300 metres of the line the opportunity to share in the benefits of HS2 as it would run near them but will not provide them with a direct benefit. We are proposing to taper payments as follows: owner occupiers between 120 metres and 180 metres of the centre line of the railway would receive £22,500, those between 180 metres and 240 metres £15,000 and those between 240 metres and 300 metres £7,500.
The Government are committed to assisting those who are impacted by HS2. These proposals build on the comprehensive package of compensation and assistance which I set out in April.
This consultation will close on 30 September 2014.
Grand Committee
Infrastructure Bill [HL]
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, as is usual on such occasions, I must advise the Grand Committee that if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 13: Transfer of additional functions
Amendment 32
Lord Davies of Oldham
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 32 is designed to probe two issues: the motivation behind the move to a strategic highways company and the extent to which the Minister will be able to affect its day-to-day operations. We are concerned about the cost implications of putting the Highways Agency at arm’s length because doing so could result in significantly increased managerial pay. In fact, there have been comments by informed individuals to suggest that that is certainly one of the attractions of the proposal. It will free the company from the constraints of Civil Service pay. We are also concerned about the issue of additional VAT payments. At present, considerable sums are returned on the basis of the role played by the Highways Agency, but as a company, of course, it will not receive such concessions and will have to meet its VAT obligations in full. We are concerned about fines because we are not at all sure about how any fines would be levied, and on whom. We are concerned about poor value cyclical investments, and we are concerned about the reduced flexibility of the Government in the area of spending in the future.
We recognise that the point of this attempt at improving the infrastructure basis of the Department for Transport as far as roads are concerned is about guaranteeing that certain sums will be spent in the future so that infrastructure projects which clearly need a long time-line of assured expense will have that guarantee. However, we also need some assurance from the Minister that the absolutely critical issue of ensuring that the necessary flexibility, either when situations change or the perspective of Ministers alters, is available. According to the transparency page on the Highways Agency website, at present the top five jobholders all make significantly more than £100,000 a year. One would have thought that in the context of pay in the public service and the other advantages of being in the public sector—the oft-quoted security of pensions, although that is becoming less advantageous as time goes by; job security, although by heavens one cannot talk to many civil servants and get the impression that they feel they enjoy job security—people on salaries of over £100,000 could be expected to discharge a significant area of responsibility. Let us consider whether the pay at the top of the strategic highways company will be boosted by any additional income streams. The Government have quite clearly indicated that these proposals have nothing to do with a long-term perspective on road pricing; we had that discussion at the end of our sitting last week. However, if there are no additional income streams, the taxpayer will be paying those potentially increased wages of the staff.
The impact assessment lists pay and remuneration under the heading “Institutional constraints under central controls”. I want to know what central controls those are, or yet again is a model being followed that we know all too well, in fair weather and in foul, of creating a non-governmental body and seeing its salaries inflate so that they match the private sector, which can always be relied upon to have a significant differential between the top few and the very many who do a great deal of the work and are responsible to them? Is that what we are going to see again prior to privatisation? I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friends on this amendment. It may well be that in her reply the Minister will refer to more than one of the five documents that she referred to in last week’s Committee sitting and kindly e-mailed to us the next day. I have now read them but they do not tell me a lot about the questions that we were asking. I hope that before we get to Report we will have the detail—I think that the Minister suggested that more would be forthcoming—of the relationship between a strategy, if there is to be one, a licence for this company, directions and guidance, articles, duties, governance and things such as that. However, in the case of this amendment, who is going to decide how much the staff of the new company are paid unless it is the Secretary of State?
As my noble friend said, it is beginning to look as though the only reason for making this change is so that the staff can be paid more than they are at the moment. It may be that the people who proposed this looked longingly at the remuneration and bonuses received by the senior staff at Network Rail in recent years without seeing that that is changing quite dramatically to a lower figure. Of course, once Network Rail is fully owned by the state, it may change even further. It would be interesting to hear how we are going to know who is in charge of remuneration, management, financial arrangements and staffing if it is not the Secretary of State. Therefore, I think that this is a very good amendment and I fully support it.
Lord Jenkin of Roding (Con)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend and her private office for the help that we were given after last week’s sitting with the supply of the documents to which she had referred and to which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has also just referred. I am very grateful. I, too, have read them, and the draft licence in particular, with all the caveats surrounding it, which I totally understand, is a very helpful indication. It might have been helpful if I had known about it when we were discussing the purposes of setting up this body and what its objectives would be.
I would have expected a remuneration committee to be the sort of thing to be covered by the articles of association. Indeed, the paper that the Minister has circulated, entitled Strategic Highways Company: Approach to the Articles of Association, makes reference to the,
“Model Articles for a company limited by shares”.
Of course, this company cannot be the same as that because, in a sense, it is rather different with all the shares owned by the Secretary of State. However, I would have expected the whole question of a remuneration committee to be covered by the articles when they are finally drawn up and issued.
It is absolutely within the powers of a board of directors to decide how that is going to operate, but I think that it is not unreasonable that the Secretary of State should keep a very close eye on this issue. Some of the remuneration that has been paid—not only in the private sector, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, implied, but sometimes also in the public sector—has been a bit absurd and given rise to a good deal of criticism and uneasiness. I should have expected the Secretary of State to want to keep a close eye on what the company is doing. As I understand it, it will primarily be for the articles of association to spell out this sort of thing, and I would be most grateful if my noble friend would be willing to confirm that.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment because it raises wider issues. Although I do not want to go over much of what was said in our previous sitting, the Minister gave some unsatisfactory answers. Since then, like my noble friend Lord Berkeley, I have read the draft licence agreement, which does not answer most of my points or, indeed, the points regarding this amendment. Before we get to Report, we need to be clear—either through draft articles of association or through some greater management guidance for the proposed, hived-off company—about what the company can and cannot do.
On reading the impact assessment, it appears that the alleged benefits of this hiving-off arise almost entirely from the certainty of funding. They do not seem to arise significantly—the £3.8 billion over 10 years arises almost entirely from the certainty of funding on maintenance and schemes within that timescale. Very little of it seems to arise from better management, novel forms of contracts or technological improvements. If that is the case, all that the Treasury and Secretary of State need to do is ensure that there is firm funding from Parliament. Admittedly, a Parliament lasts only five years, and the aggregate period we are talking about is 10 years; but, nevertheless, the institutional change of itself does not seem to deliver a significant contribution to that alleged net benefit.
The questions on how the company runs its staffing, and how it recruits and pays the management, could have a bearing on that, but it is never explicit. It is certainly not explicit in the documents to which we have referred. The anxiety of the rest of the staff and the PCS union is that, although moving away from the Civil Service may mean that the Government can pay the senior management significantly more—if they are going to go the way of HS2 and pay the 23 senior managers, the chief executive or anyone else, more than the Prime Minister, that will be difficult for anyone to accept politically—the rest of the staff will face greater insecurity, as my noble friend has said, as well as the possibility of changes to all their terms and conditions.
Therefore, for the morale of the existing Highways Agency staff, unless we are explicit about what the advantages of better management and a better situation for the workforce will be, it will be difficult to envisage a wholehearted endorsement of this proposition from the staff. Unless there is a reflection of some improved management in terms of the benefits of the hiving-off, as distinct from the substantial assumptions about what the certainty of funding delivers, the case for going through all this change begins to look a bit thin.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)
My Lords, let me deal with a couple of issues. I will be talking about fines under the next grouping, so if the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, will indulge me, I will leave that conversation until that point, so as not to be repetitive. He asked a question about paying VAT. The SHC will not be required to pay VAT, which is exactly the same as for the HA now. That should clear up that issue. To pick up on discussions in the Committee’s previous sitting, he asked about funding certainty and whether that impacts on future flexibility. It must impact on future flexibility, but we have been very clear that we have been making sure that we strike a balance between providing long-term certainty of funding and recognising the democratic right of any new Government to come to different decisions. As the noble Lord will remember, we are making the process highly transparent and consultative, so that any change in the RIS will have to be through a very clear process, which means that it is explicit and all can see what is taking place. I think the noble Lord understands how that balance is being struck.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, the Minister has produced the best reply possible while giving little hard information which the Committee really needs. She made one point that I am pleased to see on the record, as long as she stays consistent with it—that there is no change to the VAT arrangements for the new company. We on this side of the Committee are still struggling to see where the significant gains from the new company are coming from. We are meant to top up towards £2.6 billion in due course from these arrangements. I and several of my noble friends have difficulty in reaching such figures, but I guess that the Minister is seeking to counteract what has been expressed as a general hope and intent outside the House with what can be said in Committee and inside the House, on which the Government can be questioned much more closely. I have listened very carefully to the Minister’s comments. Of course I shall withdraw the amendment, because it was meant only to probe. It did not probe very far, so we may feel that we have to table an amendment at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bradshaw
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
This brings us to another clause and concerns the payment of fines, to which reference was just made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham.
The clause refers to the “Secretary of State” in successive subsections, and I believe that that might be wrong. One of the advantages of the Office of Rail Regulation is that it is independent from the Government. It is the Office of Rail Regulation that sets fines for Network Rail when it does not comply with the official standards that the regulator has approved. It may be a question of semantics, and it may be relevant to ask whether the ORR should not become the “Office of Transport Regulation” to stop comments such as those we heard this afternoon of something being done to roads by the rail lobby. I totally disagree with what was said, but to stop this bickering between both sides it might be better to make it the office of transport regulation.
There is a process with the railway. As it approaches the control period, which is a five-yearly period, the industry says what it would like. The Government then say how much money is available and the regulator decides how much an efficient undertaker—Network Rail in that case—needs to carry out the job that it has to do.
The Office of Rail Regulation has just issued a fine to Network Rail because Network Rail has failed to live up to the punctuality targets that had been set for it by the regulator. The money from the fine—this is very interesting—is going to be spent on providing wi-fi access for railway commuters; it is not going back into the maw of the Treasury. I believe that this might be behind the wording in Clause 5 saying that the fine will be levied by the regulator. If it is the intention that the fines will go towards the benefit of the user—in this case, the motorist or people running lorries—it needs to be carefully thought through how that will be achieved. I fully applaud the principle, but in order to get satisfactory separation from the Secretary of State it would be much better if the Bill said “the regulator” or “the Office of Rail Regulation”, whichever was the case.
I am not in any way denigrating the work done by the Office of Rail Regulation; in my view it is one of the most effective regulators, although perhaps it does not have to meet a very high standard when you think of Ofgem, Ofwat and Of-everything else—some of them are doing a very poor job. The ORR has driven up standards in the industry quite considerably, and it is a safety regulator as well. If the Minister can give me reasons why the alterations to the wording that I have suggested cannot be agreed, will she give me a view as to whether it would not be better to change the title of the Office of Rail Regulation to something like the office of transport regulation? I beg to move.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has said, but of course the problem with the Bill is that under the Government’s current proposals the Office of Rail Regulation—perhaps with a better name—will be not a regulator but simply a monitor. There is no equivalence between the ORR’s relationship to the railways and what is currently proposed. We will come to one of my amendments later on that would allow some degree of regulation of quality, standards, the performance of the road network and road safety. At the moment, though, that is not what the Government envisage, and I would hope that the Minister would explain why. As the noble Lord has indicated, equivalence in our strategic network would appear to be common sense.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I also support these amendments. It is very difficult to see how the Secretary of State can fine himself, which is effectively what will be happening. As we know, that actually would not happen because long before it got to that stage—not that we know how it will get there, because that appears in Clause 5(2) and we have not seen the documents yet—the people running the SHC will get the sack, they will be told to change their policy in order that they comply with the road investment strategy or they will comply with the directions and guidance. So to some extent I think that this clause is a complete waste of time, although it would be nice to see what the Secretary of State said about the circumstances that may require the payment of a fine.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and my noble friend Lord Whitty that we need to debate in more detail why this is not done by an independent regulator. Independence is the answer, and the independent rail regulator has the trust of the industry and, I think, of government; I am not sure about the other regulators, but we are talking about the ORR today. If it had those powers and it could use them, everybody would feel very happy that it had looked at the expenditure, efficiency, safety and everything else to do with the highways and come to an independent conclusion.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I have sufficient sympathy with these amendments that I hope we will be able to attract the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, to our later amendments, which are concerned with regulating the industry, as opposed to being just a monitor. I noticed that he left out Ofsted in his list of Ofgem and the other “Ofs”. I guess he did not want to plunge the Committee into a debate about the efficiency of a regulator that changes its mind about the categorisation of certain schools in Birmingham in the space of a month or so. We are not going to deviate from transport and particularly roads at this stage. However, I hope he will recognise that our sympathy with his amendments will become much more apparent when we discuss the real issue of regulation.
Baroness Kramer
I thank your Lordships. I want to make clear that the Office of Rail Regulation in its role as a highways monitor would advise the Secretary of State on these issues. Perhaps it would be helpful if I took your Lordships through the thought process that took us to the current arrangement of enforcement, because we recognise that there are different ways to approach enforcement.
In looking at the system of fines we followed quite a usual practice, which is to keep the setting of performance standards and objectives together with the enforcement of that performance regime. That tends to be the line most experts in this field would recommend, because it means the enforcer, having been involved in setting those standards, has confidence that the regime as a whole is fair and that enforcement is justified. It is quite difficult for a body that is not setting those standards to then enforce them. Given that the company’s funding will come from the Secretary of State, it seemed to us right that he should be the one to set the performance expectations for the company and consequently to enforce them, following the general principle that I just described. That is the role that we have set in place here.
There have been other views. For example, I note that the report of the Transport Select Committee in the other place recommended giving greater powers to the monitor, closer to the functions discharged by a regulator. It is quite clear, as we have discussed before, that the role that the ORR would play with regard to the SHC is, by definition, different from its role in rail. For example, it is clear that there are no passengers who are paying fares, as there are with rail; there is no equivalency with the roads that would be under the responsibility of the SHC. There is no competitive arrangement between the various operators. For example, there is not the relationship that exists between Network Rail and the operators, which obviously has its tensions. We looked at it as rather a different role, and that is why we came up with the structure that we have here.
I agree with the comments that have been made on fines. Any fines that are paid by the SHC—I hope that it would not get to the point of paying fines, but it happens—will come out of the money that the company can spend on improving the road network. We have always assumed that the fines would be much more reputational in nature, rather than a heavy punishment. They are much more aimed at signalling poor performance, rather than transferring large sums of money out of the company. Obviously we want constant improvements in the road network.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked again about changing the title to be used from the Office of Rail Regulation to the office of transport regulation. I think that we have said that one of the interesting things about the role that the ORR will have—a role in relationship to rail and a role in relationship to road—is that it may, over time, lead to more thought about how the various modes interrelate. However, at this point we do not think that we are at that stage. It will be interesting to see how this monitoring role evolves. We will need to see how the SHC carries out its work and how that process evolves, so there may be a point in the future when that name change is appropriate.
I also point out that there is nothing to prevent a name change. It is not provided for in the Bill because the body has an advisory role with regard to roads, but it is open to the ORR to use a different trading name if it so chooses. Therefore, if it wanted to call itself a transport regulator, it could choose that as a trading name.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I want to go back to the performance criteria that she mentioned in relation to fines and things such as that. She mentioned that there was a reputational issue, and of course exactly the same would apply to Network Rail—a fine on it would be significant in terms of reputation. However, can she give the Committee any idea of the sort of criteria that would be used? Presumably, road closures for maintenance is one of them, but might they include happy cyclists, happy motorists or happy pedestrians, or something like that? Is she able to expand on any of the criteria either now or in a letter if necessary?
Baroness Kramer
What we are doing now is basically setting up implementation vehicles. That is the purpose of this language. The content of the road investment strategy will undoubtedly lead to performance criteria. It is very hard to set performance standards without that document in front of us, and obviously we hope to see it some time in the autumn. I think that we have to pass the hurdle of having a road investment strategy before we can sensibly ask a Secretary of State to set those standards.
I am being reminded that it is very likely that breaches of the licence conditions would be the kind of standards used by the Secretary of State. It is possible that he might set standards so that there is a penalty, for example, for the failure to control costs or to achieve delivery. Quite a range of performance standards might be selected but I think that we are rather too early in the process, without having the RIS, to put sensible names to them.
Lord Bradshaw
I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I do not see the difference between the SHC and Network Rail in that they both derive their funding principally from the Secretary of State. I know that train companies pay track access charges but so do lorries and motorists—only they are not called track access charges. The Minister makes the point that people do not pay, but in fact, in the same way that season ticket holders pay once a year for their journeys, people pay once a year for their licence and probably once a week for their petrol, so they are paying customers. I do not see the difference there. When you talk about competition between operators on the railways, except in the freight sector there is precious little real competition for people to choose which train company they use on a day-to-day basis.
I am glad to hear the Minister say that the title might change. I also hasten to say that the Office of Rail Regulation does a very good job in holding Network Rail to account. I am rather sad to hear that we are going to see how the monitor role works and how the strategic highways agency works—that sounds to me like a bit of a kick into the long grass, rather than a radical experiment.
Lastly, the Minister has also passed to me today—thank you—a letter about the experience in other countries. I have read it. What comes out of it is the fact that people who use longer funding periods of up to 15 years achieve savings of 15% or more. I think that that only underlines the need for long-term thinking in getting away from this very short-term funding, which in both cases far outweighs the life of any Government or series of Governments.
I will beg leave to withdraw the amendment but, in this case, I intend to raise the issue again on Report.
Lord Whitty
“( ) In all enactments the Passengers’ Council shall henceforth be renamed the “Passenger and Road Users’ Council”.”
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I will be brief on this amendment because the main discussion of Passenger Focus is in the next group of amendments. My amendment is simply about the name. I prefer my formulation to that of my noble friends Lord Berkeley and Lord Judd, because my amendment makes it clear that it is actually the users—the consumers—of these services who are represented by the council. I think that that point is more ambiguous in the title they are proposing. We need a new name, so I commend my formulation and beg to move.
Lord Berkeley
I am going to confuse the Committee because my Amendment 42, which we will come on to shortly, suggests that the name should be the transport infrastructure and services council. However, after I tabled this amendment I had a discussion with the chief executive of the Rail Passengers’ Council, who said that a much better name than anything anyone has suggested before, including the Government, was the transport users’ council. I will just throw that into the ring and see what the Minister and other noble Lords think of it.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
It sounds a very good name. However, might there not be some confusion with another body with the same initials—the TUC?
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I think that this amendment deserves full-hearted support. What has raised a great deal of concern is that roads should become the exclusive prerogative of drivers and passengers. Of course, they are serving the wider community, or could serve the wider community. If we are taking the opportunity for more strategic thinking about the future in transport, it seems very unfortunate inadvertently to work against that objective by limiting imagination in titles like this. Amending the title in the way suggested would begin to open up the responsibility of those who are administering roads and those who are driving on roads—passengers who are using or riding in cars—to think of the wider community. From that standpoint, I am very glad that my noble friend has moved the amendment.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I think that we may again be confusing a legal name and a trade name. For example, there has been a proposal that the watchdog should use the title “Road User Focus” to try to describe its activities, in order to make it clear that it represents the whole motoring community, including car drivers, passengers, drivers of commercial vehicles, commercial passengers and operators. People have said to me, “Don’t forget the motorbikes or the electric bikes”. This body will also look out for cyclists, pedestrians and other non-motorised users, and listen to the needs of those who have a special relationship with the network, such as disabled motorists and disabled people more generally who use the road network. It is an attempt to bring together all these voices, many of whom are represented as a sub-segment by an existing organisation such as the AA or RAC. This organisation would, frankly, draw them all together.
I fully accept that the title Passengers’ Council does not match this arrangement. However, the Local Transport Act 2008 already provides the legal powers to change the name of the council through secondary legislation. We are working with the existing council to develop a new name, and plan to bring forward the relevant orders to make the change once the legislation is ready. I am sure that your Lordships would be very welcome to contribute your various ideas for a more appropriate name. In addition, the Passengers’ Council is free to choose to use any branding name it considers appropriate on a day-to-day practical level, and may even operate under more than one name if that reflects its needs. For several years now, it has been known publicly as Passenger Focus rather than by its legal name. We do not think that this issue will give rise to any difficulties. Establishing the watchdog under the title “Road User Focus” should not inhibit coming to an ideal name for public use.
Lord Judd
I put it to the Minister that the purpose of having this kind of discussion in a Committee format is that it is, as it were, pre-legislative consideration. Otherwise, what is the point? We do not press matters to a vote. We are putting up new ideas and suggestions about how things can be improved. The Minister made some conciliatory remarks about the spirit of the amendment but if the Government are really that open-minded, why should they limit the concept from the start? Okay, we can change the title later, but why do we not say from the very beginning that roads involve a much wider community interest than just the interests of those who drive cars and ride in them? Right from the beginning, we want to give a signal to the whole community that this is about something wider.
Baroness Kramer
Perhaps I may just explain. We have had a number of conversations about the wider community who make up road users, and we have talked about the possibility of having lists. Such an approach would create problems because there are always additional thoughts about who should be included in the list. As noble Lords will see in Hansard, we started out with a discussion that covered obvious road users such as car drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. People have certainly come to me and said, “You’ve got to include Segways in it”, “We certainly need to include horse riders”, and, “What do you do about mobility scooters?”. Many potential issues arise once you start getting into list mode. What we have tried to do throughout this whole process is make it clear that we, and indeed the Passengers’ Council, have a very wide interpretation and intend to capture everyone who actually uses the road in one way or another. Just creating a detailed list gets us into more trouble than having just that broad understanding. That is why we have kept with this name.
As I said, there are ongoing discussions. Noble Lords have excellent ideas and are in frequent communication with the community. We would be very glad to share with the Passengers’ Council the names that have been proposed today to see whether it is inspired by them to identify what it thinks would be the most appropriate name for it to use. I do not think that we want to start making legislative changes at this stage, when there is so much flexibility provided for in the system we have.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, the Bill refers to the Passengers’ Council, which is clearly wrong, and we have all come up with different suggestions about what it should be. However, as the Minister is in discussion with various groups and the department, will she commit to coming back on Report with a suggestion of what it should be? Otherwise, every time we get to this point we will have an argument and say, “Well, it is not the Passengers’ Council because it does not represent trucks”. If we could move this matter on, it would be very good for everybody.
Baroness Kramer
I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that it is the Passengers’ Council today; that is its legal name. If we were to include a different name in the legislation now, it would not be clear to anybody which group of people it applied to. We are identifying the organisation. It might be appropriate for that organisation to make changes to either its name or its trading name to meet the new set of responsibilities that it will have. However, if I were to put in some other name today it would not be clear that it applied to the Passengers’ Council, a body for which everybody in your Lordships’ House has great respect.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Would it be open to the body to change its own name for popular use? I cite the example of the body that I set up when I was Environment Secretary and which is now known as English Heritage. It had some very dreary bureaucratic name—the National Council for Historic Sites and Buildings—and I appointed the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, as its first chairman. At his first meeting he agreed with the entire council that the name should be changed to English Heritage. That has been a huge success as it describes precisely what that body does. I have always been enormously grateful to him because he really got that body off the ground and made it a popular institution that attracts the loyalty of many millions of people. Would the Passengers’ Council be entitled to do the same thing?
Baroness Kramer
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, is exactly right. Passengers’ Council is the legal name of this body. It could be changed in secondary legislation but, as I said, it uses a trading name and calls itself Passenger Focus in the work that it does with the rail industry. It is perfectly able to choose what it considers an appropriate name. I have enormous respect for the Passengers’ Council, and for it to use its correct legal name. I am comfortable leaving it to decide on the appropriate trading name to use. I suggest that we communicate to the Passengers’ Council the various names that have been suggested today, but it seems to me that the council is best positioned to test the matter with various people to discover what the public think most clearly expresses the role that it wants to carry out, rather than for the Committee to come up with an appropriate trading name. Our skill, after all, is legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, provided an excellent example of a body understanding its role and coming up with a name that resonated strongly with the public by accurately describing its activities.
Lord Judd
Perhaps the Minister could clarify one point. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, gave a marvellous example of imaginative thinking by people who were given a task and who realised that fulfilment of that task was related to the public perception of what the organisation was about, and so the title should have conveyed the spirit of what it was about. However, I am not quite clear whether the Minister said that it would depend on secondary legislation or whether the power already exists. That point should be clarified. If it does depend on secondary legislation, it would be a pity not to have a wider concept at this stage. I should like to think that everyone working on the Bill is saying, “Here’s a great opportunity to open up the imagination about the responsibility of all concerned”.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I assumed that the Minister was indicating that of course there would need to be legislative change if the title of the Passengers’ Council were changed. I am reluctant to get too much involved in proposals at this stage because we have a fair legislative trail ahead of us. We have this stage of the Bill as well as two later stages to consider the matter. The Bill will then go to the Commons, which I think will be pretty articulate about the unsatisfactory nature of the present name and will propose changes. As I understand it, the Minister was saying that it is quite possible that the council will recognise the necessity for change, particularly if it is endorsed in the Commons, and that there would still need to be legislative change, but that it would be secondary legislation when we could all pile in again. I do not think that we need worry too much about the degree of definitiveness that we need to arrive at at this point, although there have been some very useful suggestions from those who have spoken to the amendments.
Baroness Kramer
So many of your Lordships have been really helpful on this point. I clearly have not been very clear. Passengers’ Council is the legal name. If the legal name were to be changed, that would require a change in secondary legislation under the Transport Act 2008, so that is entirely possible. However, the Passengers’ Council already uses a trading name that is different from its legal name; it uses the name Passenger Focus, just as English Heritage has a different legal name—I fear that I do not know what it is—but clearly its trading name is English Heritage. A body such as the Passengers’ Council can adopt one or more trading names. I suggest that we leave it to the Passengers’ Council to decide whether it uses “Road User Focus” or another name as its trading name for this role. If your Lordships have suggestions for a change to the legal name or for a particular trading name, I will gladly pass them over and make sure that they get to the right ears at the Passengers’ Council. I am sorry if I am confusing matters.
Lord Whitty
I think that the Minister has been very clear in her latest remarks, but the point that I would make is that both the legal name and what eventually becomes the brand name have to convey the scope of the body. I do not mind when it happens or whether it is done by primary or secondary legislation—although I would prefer primary legislation—but the legal name at the end of this process must reflect something broader than “Passengers’ Council”. I am happy to leave it to the Minister and her colleagues to work their way through what is, as my noble friend said, quite a long legislative programme before we get to that point—if necessary, leaving it to secondary legislation, but it would be nicer if it were in the Bill. It needs a comprehensive legal title. The Government must then go on to ask the organisation to find out what the best public name—brand name—would be.
If I may reminisce slightly, I was the chair of a quango which had to find a new name—unfortunately, the Government have abolished it now, but there we go. It was the old National Consumer Council, transformed by the 2006 Act. At the first meeting of the governing body, we had to decide what the new name would be. Two possibilities were advocated by my colleagues following a presentation by one of these branding companies—in those days, quangos were allowed to spend a certain amount of money. It came down to whether it should be called “Consumer Matters”—double entendre—or Consumer Focus. As chair, I said that I not like either name. “Consumer Matters” sounded as though it was an entry in a filing system and Consumer Focus sounded like a Lib Dem leaflet. However, noble Lords opposite will be pleased to hear that the majority of my board went for Consumer Focus. We went through a proper branding exercise. It is important to leave that aspect of it to the newly enlarged council.
At the end of this process, I would like the legal name to indicate the real scope and Passengers’ Council does not do that. However, for the moment I withdraw the amendment.
Lord Berkeley
“(1) In all Acts and secondary legislation the Passengers’ Council is renamed the “Transport Infrastructure and Services Council”.
(2) In this section “relevant activities” mean, in relation to specific highways, activities to—
(a) protect and promote the interests of users of such highways,(b) protect and promote the interests of communities impacted upon by such highways, and(c) promote the need to reduce impacts of such highways on the natural and historic environment.(2A) In this section, consideration of users of highways shall include consideration of—
(a) potential users, who, in the absence of safe infrastructure or convenient services, do not currently use or cross over such highways, (b) the potential for modal shift to more sustainable modes of transport, and(c) the potential to reduce the need to travel, including by making more efficient use of vehicles, such as through better logistics, and through better land use and travel planning along such highways.(2B) The Transport Infrastructure and Services Council must carry out relevant activities in relation to highways for which a strategic highways company is the highway authority.
(2C) Those activities may include investigating, publishing reports or giving advice to the Secretary of State on—
(a) how a strategic highways company’s exercise of its functions or achievement of its objectives under a Road Investment Strategy is relevant to the interests listed in subsection (2A),(b) any other matters which the Council considers to be of use in relation to relevant activities.”
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, in moving Amendment 42, I shall also speak to some of the other amendments in this group. The intention of this group is to discuss in more detail the role of the watchdog, what it might do, who it might look after and some of its objectives. We discussed this in outline during Second Reading.
We should start with Amendment 51, because that defines who the users of this road network are. One of these days I shall start putting pedestrians first, then cyclists and then motor vehicles to make people realise it is not just for fast cars. However, as other noble Lords have mentioned, there are also horseriders and perhaps in the future Segway users and all kinds of things. The monitor—Passengers’ Council or whatever we call it—should look after the interests of all those.
As to Amendment 42, it would be useful to expand some of the relevant activities to take into account the needs of not only the users but the communities that are affected by roads, and also to put in this objective to reduce their impact. There is then the issue of looking into modal shift, which I make no apology for coming back to again. Reducing the need for travel is something very few Governments ever look at. They currently look separately at forecasts for road, for rail and for air. Cycling does not really come into it, and neither does the thought of looking into the possibility of modal shift and what would be needed for that to be achieved. The end of proposed new subsection (2A)(c) covers this with reference to,
“land use and travel planning along such highways”.
Passengers’ Council produces some excellent data and reports on transport trends in the railway industry. I am sure that it would do the same thing on highways if it gets the chance to do so. It would be nice to think that some of its reports could then be used by either the Office of Rail Regulation or the Secretary of State in looking at the performance of the companies and whether they get fined, as we debated earlier. Again, it would be much better if it were done by the ORR.
This watchdog has an enormously important role to play. The Minister has already indicated that its role would be completely different from those of the organisations looking after the interests of current users, such as the British Horse Society, the Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association, the Cyclists Touring Club, the pedestrians’ association, the AA and the RAC. I have probably forgotten a few and the Minister will not want a list anyway. However, I would like her to confirm that these organisations will not see their roles changing very much. The passenger watchdog should produce something that is more strategic and detailed in its analysis while also looking at some of the wider benefits and disbenefits which I have tried to outline in the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I warmly support what my noble friend has said. I should say at the outset of our deliberations that I am sorry that I was not able to be here for the first meeting. I should also underline that I am a strong supporter of the CPRE and that I am involved in the capacity of honorary officer in a number of environmental agencies, not least those dealing with our national parks. All of that is relevant.
We should go back to the mainstream of the argument that we had on the previous amendment. The roads should serve the community. We are a closely knit island with a lot of complex interests to reconcile. Direct impacts and consequences can arise from a new piece of legislation which may quickly become unintended consequences. It is therefore terribly important to get right, at the beginning of a Bill, the approach and ground rules for any strategy that is to be established. An example is the realm of public health. We keep saying that we want more people to take up cycling and walking. It is perfectly clear to me that the role of any regulation in this sphere should be to ensure that not only are those objectives reconcilable with other policies in the public realm, but that they can be furthered.
But then there are all the people who do not use the roads because they are intimidated by and frightened of them. Their interests also need to be looked at very carefully. There are communities which have to contend with increased noise on roads arising from more feed-ins and feed-outs from strategic routes. We need to have some imagination and clarity of thinking right at this early stage about the wider social purposes which the regulator should be looking at in the fulfilment of the Government’s policy. At the moment, looking at the responsibilities of Government and quite apart from their aspirations as expressed for, as I have just said, public health, there is a conflict. We keep narrowing the scope down to, in effect, passengers and drivers, when the much wider community is involved. It is therefore sensible to make this clear at the outset in the tasks set out for regulation.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, we have major doubts about whether the Passengers’ Council will provide an adequate forum for the public response, so we want to take the opportunity in this new legislation of not just renaming the body, but of widening its perspective. I have tabled two amendments which seek to ensure that the interests of cyclists and pedestrians would form part of the perspective of the strategic highways company, and that the needs of local communities are taken fully on board. Major road schemes clearly have an impact on all communities. However, both of my amendments can more than safely be withdrawn because they are overwhelmed by the more extensive and detailed series of amendments which have been put down by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, and typically my noble friend Lord Judd has backed the winning side. I will certainly not move my amendments when we come to them, and I have a great deal of sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Berkeley has said.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, with great interest, and I have been pondering for a few minutes whether in fact he is right. My mind goes back, if I am allowed to reminisce, to when the then Government were planning the motorway network. At one stage this involved taking the M11 motorway from London up towards Cambridge and then to join the A14, and it went slap bang through the middle of my constituency, Wanstead and Woodford. Initially my constituents were pretty horrified by this, as indeed was I. This urban area was proposed to have, in effect, a four-lane dual carriageway going from Hackney Wick towards Epping Forest.
The Minister of Transport at the time was my noble friend—as he now is—Lord Fowler, and his junior Minister was my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke. I persuaded the Minister that they should come and spend a morning with me in Wanstead, which was the part of my constituency that would be most dramatically affected. They came to the perfectly wise conclusion that that part of the road should go underground. It would involve a cut-and-cover operation, which eventually happened.
Once that announcement had been made, though, overwhelmingly my constituents said, “Well then, get on with it”. They did not want constant delay. However, and this is the point that I want to make to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, it was held up for nearly eight years by a series of demonstrations supported by precisely the environmental bodies that he mentioned, and others. Some of them were quite clearly anarchists. They rechristened the area of Wanstead Green “Wanstonia” and declared independence, and all that sort of nonsense. The courts became bogged down with a series of cases to try to get them out, which held up the process for years to the increasing fury of my constituents, virtually none of whom took part in those demonstrations. The demonstrators were all from outside and were the kind of people who live for demonstrating. That is what makes them tick; it is their new religion. I can tell the Committee that that caused enormous irritation in the area. Now, of course, if anyone drives up to Cambridge by that route they go through the cut-and-cover and it is entirely sensible, and people say, “But why couldn’t it be done before?”.
I question whether it is possible that the monitor should regard, as it were, the CPRE and bodies like that as within its remit. It is monitoring the transport system. It is for the planning system to determine whether or not the environmental consequences are acceptable. I do not believe that the monitor should have anything to do with it. There are already enough obstacles. We are debating in another Bill the question of judicial review, because that can also be a great obstacle to getting a transport system properly up and running because of local nimbys and so on. When one is dealing with road and rail—look at what is already happening with HS2—there are enough obstacles in the way already. What we should be arguing about here, in an infrastructure Bill, is ensuring that what we want to produce actually happens without undue delay.
I hope that we shall never see anything again remotely like what happened in my constituency and indeed in other areas around the country, as plenty of former Members of Parliament will be able to testify. That has been one of the biggest obstacles to getting a modern road and rail network, and it does not seem to me that the monitor can have anything to do with that at all.
Lord Judd
My Lords, if this Committee is doing nothing else, it is giving us a wonderful opportunity to hear a series of very real, illustrative and important anecdotes from the noble Lord about what actually happens and what happened in his direct experience. I find that valuable in our deliberations. However, I am a bit puzzled as to why he thinks that he and I are on different sides of the fence; we are not. Of course the monitor’s job is not to make decisions in this field. A monitor’s job is to ensure that the procedures have been properly followed. All that I am arguing is that the monitor should therefore have a responsibility in the Bill to ensure that the consultations have been as wide as they should have been.
The noble Lord gave a beautiful example of how, by using good sense, imagination and contacts, he was able to persuade the relevant Ministers to come to see the situation and why his constituents felt so strongly. Unless I misheard him, he went on to say that the Ministers agreed that that particular section of road should be put underground. All I want is a situation in which the monitor has a responsibility to ensure that that kind of consultation has taken place and that it is not just up to the personal relationships and contacts of certain Members of Parliament and certain Ministers.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I do not want to prolong this, but is that not the function of the planning system rather than of a body that is monitoring the strategic highways company and the railways? There is a separate planning system, which is going through Parliament at the moment with regards to HS2 and which has nothing whatever to do with the Office of Rail Regulation. It is a planning system and I think that these two things should be kept entirely separate.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I, too, have memories of motorways. The M25 went around the north of the constituency that I represented, in Enfield. The only tunnel constructed on the M25 was there, in order to protect the interests of my constituents. Subsequently there was an additional tunnel in order to protect a great deal of Epping Forest, which I also greatly supported. However, our negotiations and discussions were nothing to do with planning authorities; we had to deal with the Department of Transport and the excessive, terrifying costs of what is involved in tunnelling. That is why the M25 is a circular route 125 miles long but has only one tunnel, which is constructed as far as the immediate neighbourhood’s interests are concerned. It was nothing to do with planning; the Department of Transport had to answer.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I do not want to prolong this discussion for much longer, but some of us, in setting out a role for the Passengers’ Council, are trying to ensure that it produces the right data and looks at alternative options before the company goes ahead and develops new roads. With regard to the planning system, I do not believe that the Passengers’ Council should have a role at all, but I believe that it has a role in producing the data to justify—or not—what gets done and to look at alternatives.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I have tabled two amendments but I want to comment briefly on what has been said. I find myself slightly between the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and my noble friend Lord Judd. As Roads Minister for three and a half years in the last days of Swampy, I know what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is talking about. We have to separate out the planning process from the monitoring of the operational process. On the other hand, I agree with my noble friend Lord Judd that when we are talking about users of the road network, we are talking not only about the people who that day happen to be driving a car or a lorry on that network, but also about all the people who depend on that network or whose premises and lives are affected by it. We therefore need to interpret “road user” in the broadest possible sense. Without straying into the planning system, I think that some of what my noble friend said should be reflected in the Bill.
My two amendments deal with different issues. Amendment 47 refers to the setting up a complaints system. One of the most effective jobs of Passenger Focus in relation to rail, and latterly buses, has been in dealing with a complaints system. Its effort has pushed the responsibility for dealing with complaints back on the railway and bus companies. It is there to pick up what those companies failed to do in terms of complaints. Similarly, we have never had the equivalent system in relation to strategic roads. It is important that a complaints system is seen as one of the responsibilities of whatever we eventually call the Passengers’ Council.
My second amendment is a probing amendment, which I will not press. It relates to Clause 8(6), which refers to a relationship between the Passengers’ Council and local authority rights. It says that the new consumer body could have responsibility for matters relating to local authority roads if the local authority asks it to. That is a bit cock-eyed. Either we make it responsible for complaints about all local authority roads, which I do not really want to do, although my amendment would have that effect, or we leave it as the user body for the strategic road network, which would be tidier. After all, complaints about roads for which the local authority is responsible need to be dealt with largely within the local authority context. There is plenty of scope for complaints to local councils about local authority roads.
If some local authorities want the Passengers’ Council to be there for consumers but others do not, there will be confusion. My local road, the A30, in 10 miles goes through Wiltshire, Dorset and Somerset. If only one of those councils agrees that the Passengers’ Council should be the consumer body, we would have to pinpoint exactly where the complaint arose—over a traffic jam, police incident, or whatever—and we would end up with a patchwork of bodies. Some councils would say that the Passengers’ Council was responsible and would shove off all complaints to it, while others would continue to deal with the complaints in their highways departments. Subsection (6) extends the Passengers’ Council’s role into local authority roads, which may be a step too far. My amendment should probably have been worded differently, but I want to hear what the Minister says in her summing up.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, in this set of amendments we are dealing with the watchdog. We will come on to the monitor in the following clause, so I shall try to narrow what I say to the watchdog role and the body that legally today is known as the Passengers’ Council, or whatever name it chooses for the future.
I think that we have made it absolutely clear that the Passengers’ Council, or “Road User Focus”, or whatever name it chooses as its trading name, will deal with the role identified in the Bill. It anticipates having to represent and to be a voice for that very wide range of users that we have described in the past few minutes of our discussion. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and others were suggesting that we apply it to non-users and to surrounding communities. We are then back in the territory where it is hard for a group to be a voice for users. That is necessary in the kind of structure that we have here with the SHC. In other parts of the Bill, it is clear that there is an important role for the SHC itself to be working closely with local authorities. That was reinforced in some of the agreements that have been drawn up and were announced on Monday between the Highways Agency and local enterprise partnerships, which will carry over into the role of the SHC. We have all kinds of mechanisms, including a great deal of detail, about how environmental issues will be addressed and how the SHC will relate to local authorities. There will undoubtedly be implications that come out of the RIS.
Therefore, I see the role of watchdog as being very much a voice for the road user. As I read the clauses here, if there were issues such as modal shift, I think that that would be an area that the Passengers’ Council, in whatever guise it has for these services, could, if it chose to do so, explore and advise on, but very much from the perspective of the road user.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked about complaints. At present, complaints go to the Highways Agency, and our concept is that that will carry on and pass through to the new SHC. When a body acts as the SHC will be doing, it is important that complaints go directly to it. It must hear those complaints, it must be aware of them and it must take them on board. It must not be allowed, as it were, to offload that responsibility to a watchdog. “Road User Focus”, or whatever it is called, will be able to see through to those complaints so that it can access the data and use them in its work. However, I very much want to see the complaints going directly to the SHC because that will be one of the most important ways of ensuring that it provides the service that is needed.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, perhaps I may just clarify that. It will certainly be the company’s first responsibility to deal with complaints. In the case of the railways, you complain to South West Trains and, if it fails to deal with your complaint effectively, you can complain to Passenger Focus. It is the equivalent of that that I am looking for.
Baroness Kramer
My understanding is that “Road User Focus” will be able to see right through to the complaints to see what they are and whether they are being appropriately handled. At the moment, complaints are not a large issue for the Highways Agency. Of all the letters sent to it last year—I do not have the total number, unfortunately—only 16 needed outside help in resolving them, which represented about 2% of the letters received. So it has a good complaints system in place and a good track record on resolution, and that will pass over to the new company. However, as I said, it is important that the watchdog should be able to see all the way through that process. I am sure that it will choose how it engages with that—it is not constrained by the language in Clause 8.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I wonder whether I may probe the Minister a bit more. With the railways, on most trains there is a notice in each coach that says that if you do not like what is going on and want to make a complaint, first, you contact the train operator and, if that does not work, you can go to the Rail Passengers’ Council. The users of the railway service read this every day and the Rail Passengers’ Council will pass a complaint on to Network Rail if that is appropriate. On the highways, you are sitting in your car or your truck or on your cycle and there are not the same opportunities for knowing whom to complain to. Therefore, to some extent, it is not surprising that the number of complaints is probably a great deal lower than it is for the railways, but the principle needs to be there, which is why the comments of my noble friend Lord Whitty are so important. If you do not get the right answer from the SHC or the passenger train operator, you need to have an independent body to appeal to who you know will guarantee to give you a decent answer within a reasonable time.
Lord Judd
My Lords, just as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was quite right to emphasise the importance of the functions that are attached to a particular terminology—I do not dissent from his argument at all—it is also important to recognise that we are dealing with a watchdog here, something that the Minister has herself made plain. We are debating what the responsibilities of that watchdog should be and on whose behalf it should be working. I am convinced that I will go to my grave saying that one of the things that has gone wrong in the public perception of successive Governments is that in road policy you can somehow separate out the interests of drivers and passengers from the interests of the communities through which they are driving. Of course, when the planners have had their say and so on, the road will be built. One of the things the watchdog can do is say, “Hang on a moment. What is happening to the people who live here as distinct from the people who will drive through?”. I think that that is an imaginative concept which we need to take hold of, and there is an opportunity in this new legislation to acknowledge the interests that go wider than just those of drivers and passengers. I have a concept of cohesive society and community, not of the interests of one group of people prevailing willy-nilly over the interests of another group.
Baroness Kramer
I would say first to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that the watchdog is just one part of the total family of entities here, which include the monitor, the Secretary of State and the SHC. It is therefore right that it should have a very specific role, which is to represent the road user. I have underscored over and again that it is not the car driver and the passenger but the whole body of people who we understand as making up “road users”. That is important. I rather object to lists because they tend to miss various categories of road user, which would be neither fair nor, frankly, right. That is why I prefer the broader term of “road user”, and I repeat that it is not meant to be confined to the driver and the passenger; it embraces a much broader group.
Secondly, we must make sure that the watchdog has a manageable job of work that it can do effectively. It is meant to be a voice for road users. If we give it a much wider breadth of responsibility for local communities and other kinds of objectives that we want to achieve, it will struggle to provide the voice that is needed to ensure that the road user is heard. I think we can say that historically many road users do not feel that they have had a voice, and they want to make sure that it is there for them in the future because that is appropriate.
Let us look at the equivalent on the rail side of transport. We do not ask Passenger Focus to explore the needs of communities through which our railways pass. The body is focused very much on the needs of the passenger, and that is why it delivers. I therefore disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. Passenger Focus is a highly respected body that is considered to be doing an incredibly good job and is very effective. We want to try to replicate that effectiveness over on the road side of transport.
The issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about the relationship between roads and communities, as well as the issues raised by others about roads and the environment, are entirely legitimate and important, but they should be handled using strategies other than through the particular role of the watchdog. It is important to make sure that the road user defines the tasks of the watchdog. For those reasons, I resist this proposal.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this very interesting debate. We have covered a wide range of possible roles for the watchdog. I shall read what everyone has said and we may come back to this issue on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Whitty
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 45. Amendment 43 deals with the role of the Passengers’ Council—however in future designated—and the fact that it had initially dealt solely with railways. There was once a proposal to extend it to air passenger transport, which was dropped, but it has been extended to buses. It has developed expertise in those two areas of public transport. It is now dealing with a much wider user group, even if the Minister is reluctant to go down the route of widening it to the whole community, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Judd. It will have to develop capacity to deal with a whole different user group, and that needs to be reflected here. It is also important that the Government commit to finding a way to finance that extension.
Unusually, when the railways were privatised, the taxpayer paid for the user representative body. That was also extended when its remit was extended to buses. In other industries, consumer bodies have an allocation via the licence fee or otherwise. I do not mind which way the Government fund it, but it seems to me important that it is required in legislation, and that it is done over a reasonably lengthy period—in other words, that the new, broader organisation does not have to wait each year to know what its allocation will be next year. There will need to be an allocation at least every three years either by requiring a payment from the licence fee or whatever else, which would be the equivalent of the situation in water or in energy, or by making an allocation out of general taxation. That requirement should be in the Bill, as should be the Government’s preferred method of funding. That will give the conceived stability to the representatives of road users. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is absolutely right that Passenger Focus also works on buses, coaches and trams. In my enthusiasm I think I said it focuses on rail, but of course all those passengers are part of its work. However, I point out that all those activities are funded in non-specific terms.
Passenger Focus is given sufficient funds to discharge all its responsibilities and we expect it to do exactly the same for roads. It is not usual for government to make commitments of this kind in statute and we struggle to see why this should be a special case. To assure your Lordships in more practical terms, officials in the department are already making arrangements for a long-term funding settlement. I would expect sufficient funds to be made available for “Road User Focus” to represent road users of all types effectively.
With the assurance that the same kind of approach would be used as we already use for Passenger Focus and that it would be funded by the Government, not by the industry, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, at least we have on the record the assurance that it will be funded—and, one hopes, on a forward-looking basis. I will consider the implications of that but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Berkeley
“Network Rail.”
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 52A. This is to do with freedom of information. In Clause 8(8), I see that the Passengers’ Council is going to be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. I did not know whether or not it was at the moment but presumably it is not, otherwise that wording would not be there. I thought that it would be interesting to explore whether the infrastructure operators of rail and road would also be subject to FoI. Local authority roads must be subject to FoI at the moment because they are local authorities, as, I assume, is the Highways Agency, so it would be logical for the SHC to be in the same position. I believe that the Minister said that Network Rail would be subject to FoI after 1 September when it became fully owned by the Government. I personally think that it should be, for tidiness and transparency reasons, but it would be good to hear the Minister’s comments on this to see whether I have misunderstood anything. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. This is an opportunity to clarify some points on the subject of freedom of information. As he will know, on 17 December 2013 the ONS announced that under new EU statistical rules, which come into force on 1 September 2014, Network Rail will be reclassified to the public sector. The Department for Transport is working with Network Rail to decide on the details of how Network Rail will operate in the public sector. A framework agreement explaining these decisions will be published before 1 December—that is, well before the Report stage of the Bill.
The framework will address a number of issues, which are likely to include our intended approach to the Freedom of Information Act. It has been pointed out to me that there is a strong preference to announce the whole agreement rather than drip-feed announcements around individual measures, so all announcements associated with that will be part of a single package. As I say, they will come out on 1 September, so the Committee will know exactly what the position is on FoI before we come to Report. I confirm that the Passengers’ Council is not currently subject to the FoI Act, and we are correcting that by adding it to the Bill. The Office of Rail Regulation, however, has always been subject to the FoI Act. Following the publication of the framework agreement, which makes comments on this, if the Committee feels that its concerns have not been addressed then it may wish to return to this issue, but obviously there will be clarity around it before 1 September.
The strategic highways companies will be public authorities for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by virtue of being companies wholly owned by the Secretary of State. Public authorities are subject to the freedom of information duties under Section 1 of that Act. I argue that in the Government’s view the amendment is not needed, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply. With regard to Network Rail, I think that she said 1 September, rather than 1 December, is the date when the transfer will take place, if I understand it correctly. I am pleased with that clarification and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Whitty
“(c) proposing regulations and enforcement powers governing the activities of the Strategic Highways Company”
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 58 in this group.
The first amendment is to make clear that the ORR, or whatever we end up calling it, will be a regulator as well as simply a monitor. I said earlier that we needed something equivalent to the ORR, which monitors the rail network, to be applied to the road system. There are areas of a strategic road system that need to be regulated. They include safety records—I declare my interest as chair of the Road Safety Foundation. They also include environmental performance in relation to all sorts of things such as carbon emissions, air pollution, water runoff and so on. Someone needs to be regulating specifically the strategic network, which is seen increasingly as a system. It has hitherto been subject to either general regulation or specific regulation by the Department for Transport.
It is important that the new body, as it extends its role into roads, is seen to have as powerful a leverage in that area as the ORR does in rail, to achieve the excellent levels of safety that we have achieved in the railway system in recent years and to ensure that the strategic network continues to make substantial improvements in the safety record on the highways network. If the Government maintain their line that the monitor is not a regulator, then it is not just a question of symmetry between the different modes but a question of the effectiveness of the Government’s role in relation to the strategic transportation system within England. The ORR-plus needs to be given that clear role.
As to my second amendment, I suspect that I shall get from the Minister the same answer that I received in relation to the Passengers’ Council’s funding. It is important, though, to recognise that this situation is unusual. In energy, water and telecoms the money comes from the regulated industry. In her response on the issue of funding for the Passengers’ Council-plus, the Minister said that it would come from the Government. I assume that I am going to get the same answer in relation to the regulator/monitor.
It is important for the Government to recognise that this is unusual, and someone sitting in the Treasury probably realises that. On reflection, I still think that this should probably be a matter for the user organisation, the watchdog, if such a provision were to be written into the legislation. Some future Chancellor, of whatever party, may ask: “Why are we, the taxpayer, paying for this in relation to transport, when in all the other regulated sectors it is the industry that pays for it?”. In the great scheme of things, the Treasury, wearing another hat, regards all this as taxation because it is a mandated levy on the industry, but in terms of the impact on the general expenditure of the Government it is in a different category. It would therefore be useful not only to have on the record the Minister saying that that is how this body will be funded but, for added certainty, to put something like that in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I have amendments grouped with those of my noble friend Lord Whitty, and I agree with a great deal of what he has just said.
Amendment 54 is my chief amendment and is designed to ensure that the monitor focuses not simply on the financial cost of the strategic highways company’s activities—that is, the bill to the taxpayer for the SHC—but on its wider non-monetisation impacts such as landscape, biodiversity and social distribution. We need breadth to the monitor’s analysis of the performance of the company. The text is based on guidance in the Treasury Green Book on appraisal, so I am merely suggesting that where the Treasury thinks that the proper appraisal of an activity should include these features, I want them to be included when considering the SHC.
The other amendment in the group is a minor one about removing all exemptions in documents. We do not see why these powers should be restricted in the documents that are made available, but that is a relatively minor aspect. Amendment 54, however, is of considerable import.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I have tabled two amendments in this group, but I shall speak to the whole group because all the amendments consider the role of the monitor—the Office of Rail Regulation or whatever it may be. I get the feeling that Ministers are rejecting any comment that might enable the SHC, or the government policy that surrounds it, to climb out of its roads silo. There is probably a rail silo because that is the way the railways work. There is also clearly a road silo, so what these and several previous amendments are trying to achieve is the ability to look at cross-modal choice and to consider the issue of sustainability, which seems to be forgotten about for much of the time. The ORR would have the opportunity and the capability to look at the alternatives and it would be able to consider the costs, which of course it is meant to be monitoring.
Monitoring something is not quite the same as pushing for greater efficiencies, a point I made when speaking to a series of amendments that we considered last Thursday. What the ORR has achieved with Network Rail is a reduction in its costs by 60%. If the new construction and maintenance costs of the highways were to be reduced by 60% in a period of 10 years, either we would have quite a few more roads that were in better condition or the Treasury would be very happy—or both. It is an opportunity that will be missed unless the regulator is given more powers. That is the point of Amendment 57. The compromise would be that the ORR would report to the Secretary of State within three years with ideas on how it might do its job properly.
There are several other issues. My noble friend Lord Whitty mentioned safety. During a Question for Oral Answer earlier today a noble Lord talked about road safety and the issue of HGVs. Safety on the roads may have got better, but it is still disastrous compared with safety rates on the railways. It is not just about people being run over; it covers a multitude of different issues for which I believe the ORR could come up with some new ideas. I have separated out two amendments related to level crossings so that they will be considered later, though I am not sure when. However, level crossings are a major safety issue for the railways. There is really no reason that I can see for not putting all these together under one safety rule—based, in my book, on the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. I know that that was being debated in the Deregulation Bill yesterday and some rather distressing issues were brought to the fore.
Safety is one thing but pollution is another. Recently we were told that the pollution measurements in Oxford Street are three times the EU limits. There would not be any harm if the ORR were able to look at that as well.
Finally, on funding, the Office of Rail Regulation is funded by the industry: 50% by Network Rail and 50% by the train operators. I cannot see why the ORR’s monitoring of road activities should not be funded partly by the company running the infrastructure and partly by the users. That would be a good balance. There is absolutely no reason why that should not happen except, I suppose, that Ministers would be frightened of the road lobby. However, there would be a consistency between road and rail, and there is an opportunity here for at least getting the funding for the ORR on a consistent basis between the two.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to lend strong support to Amendment 56 in the name of my noble friend Lord Berkeley. In the phraseology of the Labour Party, paragraph (b) in his amendment contains an injunction to think in a joined-up manner and to envisage road and rail as parts of an integrated transport system.
The perspectives from which our party views matters of transport policy differ greatly from those of the Conservatives. We envisage an integrated system. The Conservatives, by contrast, tend to place road and rail in quite different categories. The railways were regarded by them as a prime example of a loss-making nationalised industry that required to be privatised. The roads have been regarded as a means whereby our citizens have been able to exercise a fundamental liberty to come and go as they please throughout the land, and for this the road users have been heavily subsidised.
The consequence of this dichotomy—or should I call it a schism?—has been a failure to envisage how these different modes of transport might interact or have a clear idea of their relative advantages. For example, the damage inflicted on the roads by HGVs has not been properly taken into account, and therefore the benefits of transferring road freight to the rails have been largely ignored.
We have before us an Infrastructure Bill that is liable to make joined-up thinking in respect of our transport system even more difficult to achieve. By putting the strategic highways company at arm’s length from the ministry, it will be out of mind and out of sight as far as the Secretary of State is concerned. The only respect in which the Bill proposes to join the roads with the rails is by asking the Office of Rail Regulation to monitor the highways company and by giving the oversight of road users’ interests to the Passengers’ Council, which is ostensibly a body that was intended to serve the interests of rail passengers.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, frankly, I am not very optimistic about the messages that are being put forward from this side of the Committee being taken very seriously by the Minister because she seems to be completely preoccupied with drivers and passengers as the paramount interests at which we should be looking.
If one were looking at the United Kingdom from another galaxy, the first thing that would be said is, “My God, look at the size of the population of that country. Look at the different, complex dimensions to that society. Look at all the issues that arise, the different groups of real communities and real industry and commerce. How can all that be reconciled?”. From that standpoint, where is the evidence of a strategic approach? This talk about being in silos is exactly what frightens me. It is a mad way to look to our interests as an integrated, complex, interdependent nation; it is crazy. We should be looking at what strategies are required, what the interests of the community are as a whole and how to bring them together to maximum effect. That must mean a closely integrated approach towards our railway and road development—but we just do not have that. Successive generations at the Ministry of Transport and the Department for Transport have completely failed to grasp that it is just not in the interests of the British people to go on operating in this way; we have to bring it all more closely and constructively together. From that standpoint, I applaud the amendment.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I thank your Lordships for a wide range of amendments that address the monitor at the Office of Rail Regulation. If I understand the comments that I have heard correctly, I think there is great respect for the body and the work it has done on rail; obviously, we intend that the same expertise and focus should now apply to the road infrastructure, the strategic highways company.
From the Government’s perspective, there is tremendous value to be had in subjecting the costs and performance of the new SHC to serious external scrutiny: that is what the monitor is meant to provide. At last week’s sitting, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, mentioned some of the challenges that he faced in his time as a Transport Minister in keeping down the costs of road schemes, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has referred to the success, in which the ORR has played a part, in bringing down the cost of rail schemes. We recognise that this is an ongoing challenge that the Government have to face. Looking at what the SHC will do and comparing it against past performance or international benchmarks will be important. The monitor exists to provide that information. It has the power to require the company to provide data on its performance; it will have the capacity to maximise performance and see where the company has excelled and where it has fallen short; and the Secretary of State will be obliged to listen to what it says.
We are also absolutely determined to ensure that the monitor is a transparent organisation, so its advice will not be quiet, secret reports passed to the Secretary of State. We are clear that publication will be the norm for the work of the monitor. The public have a right to see what the monitor is saying about the performance of the company.
The questions today clearly go to how far the monitor’s role should extend. Before I go into the detail of specific amendments, let me address some points of principle. I see the obvious attraction to saying that in its work on roads, the ORR should match the role that it discharges on railways, but there are such fundamental differences between the two systems that I think that it is hard to continue that argument in depth. Regulation of the railway means regulating the track, the rolling stock and the operator. On roads, in effect, only the equivalent of the track will be covered. The monitor will not be regulating HGVs, cars or drivers, so those roles remain with the Secretary of State. It is as though it will have just one part of the range of tasks that the ORR has in dealing with the railway. On the railways, there are paying customers; on the roads, there are not. Yes, people pay vehicle duty and, obviously, fuel tax, but that money is direct to the Treasury; it is not a dedicated amount of money that goes through some direct channel to the SHC.
That means that the railways have a complex funding system that has to be orchestrated by an independent, impartial body. Roads are funded almost entirely by the Government out of general taxation. It seems almost impossible to apply the same system to roads and rail. If we did so, we would end up with a great deal of confusion rather than simplification and effectiveness.
Lord Berkeley
The Minister is absolutely right that there are differences, but a specific role of the ORR—its roles are specific; they do not quite have a barrier around them, but it is close to that—is to monitor the costs and efficiencies of Network Rail, which is the infrastructure manager, and then to fine it if it does not achieve its targets, as we heard last week. The ORR does things on capacity, too. When it comes to running the trains, passenger trains are run by the Department for Transport or are franchised out, while freight is independent, as we all know. However, when it comes to infrastructure, there are great similarities. There is the civil engineering of new build both on railways and on roads. On the railways, the ORR has a role of seeing whether the embankments stay up or the bridges fall down—one hopes that they do not. A similar thing could happen with the Highways Agency network. On the railways, the costs are to do with the quality of the track; on the roads, they could be to do with the quality of the road surface, which is just as important. There is also the question of the time during which infrastructure is closed for maintenance. Network Rail produces figures, which the regulator sometimes complains about. There are similar problems on some of the motorways when they are closed for maintenance. On the straight issue of infrastructure, therefore—if we leave out the train operations and everything else—I think that there are enormous similarities. I hope that the noble Baroness agrees with that.
Baroness Kramer
Clearly there are similarities, which is one reason why we turned to the ORR—it has a lot of expertise that it would be able to translate to the road side. However, I think that I have made it absolutely clear that the key benefit that the ORR will bring will be the ability to subject to real scrutiny the costs and the performance of the new company. That includes the asset management issues that the noble Lord has described. Its role will be to do that work and then to use it to advise the Secretary of State.
We are choosing that route because the Secretary of State remains at the heart of the system, as the Government are in effect providing all the funding. We think that that makes a fundamental difference in finding the appropriate structure. As I said in response to earlier amendments, those who have expertise in regulation consistently stress to us that the enforcement of a performance regime goes hand in hand with the ability to set that regime. That is a responsibility that we are putting on the Secretary of State, both because of the funding and because of the role that he plays in setting the road investment strategy. Since the policy and the RIS will be the Secretary of State’s and since he is providing the funding—pretty much wholly, in this case—we believe that this should be his decision. Therefore, the monitor doing all that work acts, in effect, in an advisory role. That will be a very effective arrangement.
Let me move on to some of the other issues that have been raised, such as whether the ORR should be promoting multimodal choice or increasing links with rail. I would argue that these areas should be part of the Secretary of State’s responsibility and I suspect that we will see them reflected in the RIS when it comes forward. It is at the government level that we are committed to developing a comprehensive transport policy that covers the whole range of issues that we have discussed today. The draft documents on the company’s governance, which we published on 23 June, and the licence condition make it clear that the company must abide by a continued commitment to deliver sustainable development, for example. Again, there is clear language on road safety and clear language on working with communities and local authorities. So the roles will work out in such a way that the Secretary of State develops the policy, and the role of the monitor is to assess the efficiency and performance of the company running the network. That revolves around judging delivery and capacity, principally by reference to the objectives to be achieved by the company, as set out in the RIS. The amendments propose a very different approach, whereby the monitor’s role involves much broader speculation on whether or not the company is following the right policy, whereas I would argue that it is the Government’s responsibility to determine the right policy.
We should give the Government the right to decide what balance of different transport measures is needed. At the very beginning of this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, expressed real concern that we would set up a system that would take away flexibility from future Governments, which would be unacceptable in a democratic society. This matter also reads into that issue. It is important for the Government to set transport policy, and I am somewhat concerned with the notion that it would transfer over to the Office of Rail Regulation. That responsibility is appropriately with the Government, and the Government are rightly accountable to Parliament for their decisions on issues such as prioritisation and allocating resources.
I want to strike a note of caution on the efforts of these amendments to link decision-making on roads with that on rail. Cross-modal integration is an important part of a successful transport network, and the thought periodically passes one’s mind that here is the ORR acting as a regulator for one transport mode and a monitor for the other, and whether this is not an opportunity to integrate them. However, there are fundamental differences. I come back to the point that rail has a full system of price regulation. If we think through the consequences of bringing the two closer together, we could end up with the ORR’s road advice having to account for rail but not vice versa. There would be a one-sided thought process on modal thinking. However, forcing the ORR to take account of road matters when making decisions on rail matters would fundamentally change decision-making in the rail regulation regime. We are committed to introducing the new role of the monitor without disrupting the ORR’s existing work. I think that noble Lords would agree that the rail structure is working well. To disrupt that and suddenly force plans such as CP4, CP5 and CP6 to be adjusted to deal with road issues would undermine a lot of the good work that we are trying to do here and, frankly, put all the ORR’s current activities in flux, including the price settlement. I do not think that it is anyone’s intention to make a disruptive change. However, I take on board the overall issue, which is that we need to integrate our transport thinking, but that should happen at the Secretary of State level rather than at the level of the monitor or regulator.
If we are considering increasing the enforcement powers of the monitor, as proposed by the amendment, we end up with many similar questions. The monitor has a valuable role to play in assessing the performance and efficiency of the new company. We expect that to mark a radical improvement in the transparency and accountability of the people running the strategic road network. However, this does not go so far as to give the monitor the responsibility for proposing changes to the legal regime around the company. Again, that is the responsibility of Parliament and the Secretary of State. It does not mean that the monitor cannot take a view on these issues, should it wish to do so, but formally making this a role of the monitor that is equal to that of advising on the RIS seems to go well beyond this point.
Looking at parts of Amendment 56, I should note that we think that the proposal to allow the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the ORR on road matters, mirroring the provisions in the rail sector, has value. At present, we expect the monitor and the Secretary of State to have a fairly detailed working relationship negotiated through other documents—not necessarily on the face of the Bill—which will set out what the monitor is expected to do in day-to-day terms and what is agreed to be a proportionate level of oversight for the new company. However, there are a lot of ways of doing this. It may be, in the light of developments to the Bill, that this is a more appropriate way to set out the relationship between the Secretary of State and the ORR. We will continue to look at that.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I have found this discussion a little bizarre. Earlier, I felt that my noble friend Lord Hanworth—obviously very unusually for him—exaggerated the difference between the ideologies of the Government and of this side, but in fact, taking what the Minister has just said, he was understating the case. We are looking for a more efficient strategic transport system and the Minister is resisting any degree of integration of the different parts of that system, or even the application of the same criteria to the different parts of that system.
These amendments, and my amendment at the beginning, are about expanding the ORR. She is right to say that Ministers set the policy, but it is also the job of the regulator to ensure that that policy is carried out. Whether you call it a regulator or a monitor, that is its job. If we are looking to have the best outcome at the lowest cost, it is the job of the monitor/regulator to ensure that that is what is being achieved, and to do that you have to look at both modes. As far as possible, you have to have the equivalent approach to both modes, given the differences that the Minister rightly outlines in the ways in which the two sides operate.
If, for example, there is a proposition for expenditure on improving the A303—one of my favourite roads, as noble Lords know—and the M5 to the south-west, it is a nonsense to do that in strategic terms without also looking at the capacity of the various routes from London or Bristol to Exeter. If you are looking at the M6, it is daft to look at that without also looking at the west coast main line north of Crewe. If you are looking to make maximum return, from the point of view of a road user, a rail passenger or government expenditure on the rail network, then you ought to be bringing together both aspects. I thought that the Government’s logic in setting up the ORR to cover both aspects was exactly that, but I am now confused.
Baroness Kramer
For clarity, is the noble Lord saying that it is his advice to his party that those decisions should be transferred to the ORR rather than remaining with the Secretary of State and the Government of the day?
Lord Whitty
No, my Lords, I am saying that the policy has to be decided by the Secretary of State. I would query if the Secretary of State always has to be involved in deciding whether or not we are going to put another two miles on a particular road junction because that could probably be devolved further down the line, but leaving that aside, the Secretary of State sets the policy and the Treasury gives him the taxpayers’ contribution to that policy. However, an expanded ORR would see that it was carried out on both the rail side and on the road side, in corridors in both modes, and with interconnections between them at various key points on the strategic network. One of the things that is sadly lacking in our transport system is intermodal transfer. I would actually include access to ports and airports within that too, if we were doing a comprehensive job.
I thought that the whole point of hiving off the Highways Agency and giving responsibility for its regulation to the ORR was a move in that direction, but the Minister seems to be unravelling all that and saying, “We don’t need any of that. That is far too many steps too far. Railways are completely different from roads. We have to consider them in two different frameworks”. I would have thought that in terms of efficiency of return on taxpayers’ contributions, you would have to look at them together. There are different levels of policymaking and delivery, but this is actually an opportunity for increasing the degree of integration and of comprehensiveness, and therefore for increasing the return to the taxpayer and the transport user of expenditure on this area.
Lord Bradshaw
In the letter that the Minister sent me about practice in Europe, she makes reference to Sweden. Rather underlining the points that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has just made, reference is made in the letter to a thing called Trafikverket. The Swedish Government set the long-term aims and provide the funding, and Trafikverket is expected to deliver them. The point is that Trafikverket is located in Borlänge in the north of Sweden in the same offices as Banverket, which looks after and regulates the railways in Sweden. They work together to the same criteria.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, perhaps our Swedish colleagues can show us the way, and I bow to the knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, about the Swedish position. I have read the letter from the noble Baroness about the overseas experience, none of which seems to be entirely congruent with what is being proposed here, but nevertheless it is instructive in this particular instance.
My relatively humble amendment proposes that the two should be considered together, but clearly the Government’s thinking has not yet developed that far and is not reflected to that extent in this Bill. I can only hope that an alternative Government might take it a bit further, if that is the legacy we are bequeathed. For the moment, however, with some regret I will have to accept that the Minister is not going to be persuaded to go down that road, or indeed that railway, tonight.
Lord Whitty
“( ) Where a transfer involves staff or obligations and liabilities to staff, either the Transfer of Undertakings provisions shall apply or equivalent provisions will apply.”
Lord Whitty
I am sure that the Minister will have no difficulty in accepting Amendment 59 because I think she said in reply to one of the first of our amendments that for any transfer of staff out of the Highways Agency, the DfT remit to civil servants would be covered by TUPE or its equivalent. For reassurance to those who are involved in this, it would be jolly useful if that was reflected in the Bill. I say that because there is some anxiety and different situations have applied in a few—not many—as a consequence of the Public Bodies Act 2011. It should be made clear that that will be the criterion. It would provide a reassurance to the staff and their trade union if it were in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I will resist this being put into the Bill because it will be in the supporting documents. The transfer is an important stage of setting up the strategic highways company. Discussions with staff representatives relating to the transfer of staff have already begun and, subject to the will of Parliament and Royal Assent, it is envisaged that staff will transfer to the new company from 1 April 2015. The Government have already stated that the terms and conditions of employment of those staff who transfer into the company will be protected in accordance with wider Government policy and practice on staff transfers within the public sector through COSOP, under which the Government are expected to apply the principles of TUPE. I can therefore reassure the noble Lord that the terms and conditions of employment of any staff being transferred from the Highways Agency to the new company are protected.
Furthermore, under the Public Service Pensions Act 2013, public service workers who are transferred out of the Civil Service will be able to remain members of the civil service pension scheme. Most Highways Agency staff are in the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. I hope that that is sufficient reassurance for noble Lords and I therefore invite the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I thank the Minister for putting that assurance on the record so clearly. I never quite understand why Ministers resist putting such provisions in a Bill. This is a fairly substantial piece of legislation which includes all sorts of things, but the one thing which is to be omitted is an assurance for those people who will be most directly and immediately affected by the changes to the institutional structure. I regret the continuing resistance by Ministers to setting this out in the Bill, but I accept that that is the way things are at the moment. With the Minister’s assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
My Lords, if Amendment 61A is agreed, I cannot call Amendment 61AA due to pre-emption.
Amendment 61A
Lord Davies of Oldham
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, we come to a very serious part of the Bill. I doubt whether there is any Minister who does not quail at the thought that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee might offer a smidgen of criticism of a Bill that the Minister is setting out to defend. I see a no more trenchant onslaught of the Bill than the second report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I suppose that as soon as we all saw the report, we ought to have anticipated that there would be government amendments compliant with the requirements of the main recommendations in the report, but we were not certain. That is why we have tabled Amendments 61A and 61B, which are committee recommendations.
The committee expressed itself in very forthright terms indeed. It was quite explicit about the Henry VIII powers in the Bill, and its certain condemnation that that attempt should be successful. There is no need for me to read out the full report. Its indictment is clear enough. It says in its crucial paragraph 4:
“We draw these powers, and the deficiencies in the explanations for them, to the attention of the House. We recommend that, unless the reason for their inclusion and their intended purpose can be fully explained to the satisfaction of the House, the words ‘otherwise modify’ and ‘(whenever passed or made)’ should be omitted from clauses 13(5), 14(2) and 28(2); and that, if the words ‘otherwise modify’ are retained in clause 14 or 28, the same words should be inserted in clause 29(2)(c) so that regulations made under that clause in reliance on them will require the affirmative procedure”.
The committee seeks excision of certain parts of these clauses. In other respects, it is determined that it should be affirmative procedure. That is what my amendment seeks to achieve. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, most of these amendments concern the comments made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report on the Bill. I do not think there is any disagreement on the points that have been raised. The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies and Lord McKenzie, address comments made by the committee by providing that the references to modifying legislation should be removed, leaving the powers in Clauses 13, 14 and 28 as powers to amend, repeal and revoke legislation.
The Government prefer to take a slightly different tack, retaining the power to modify, but adjusting Clause 29 so as to ensure any modification of the application of an act is subject to the same affirmative resolution procedure as applies to the amendment of an Act. As the Select Committee report noted:
“Non-textual modifications of primary legislation are capable of making changes which are no less significant than textual amendments”.
We prefer our approach, simply because it can be preferable, in some circumstances, to modify the application of an Act so as to cover additional circumstances, rather than by making textual amendments. As the power will be subject to the affirmative procedure, Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise any use made of the power, which will include consideration of whether a non-textual amendment approach would be inappropriate in the particular circumstances.
The government amendments also address the point raised by the committee regarding future legislation. It provides that repeals, amendments and modifications of primary legislation under these powers can be made only in respect of Acts passed before the end of a Session. I am sure that is much the same as the intention behind the amendment laid by the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord McKenzie, which remove the words “whenever passed or made” from the relevant clauses.
Amendment 97, the final amendment in the group, addresses a different point. It adjusts the extent of a provision so as to ensure that not only do Clauses 13 and 14 extend to the whole of the UK, but Clause 15, which defines some of the terms used in Clauses 13 and 14, also does so. It was always our intention that the definitions in Clause 15 should apply to Clauses 13 and 14 in all jurisdictions. This technical amendment makes that slight correction.
I hope noble Lords agree that the government amendments are an appropriate response and will agree to withdraw their similar amendments accordingly.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, the Government have made a shot at giving a response, but I do not need to point out to the Committee the difference between compliance with what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee suggested and a dependence on affirmative procedure in crucial parts of the legislation. We all know the limitations on affirmative procedure. Of course it is an important dimension that gives a chance for effective reassessment, but it is not the same as getting the statute right. I am not going to press the amendment in Committee, but I am by no means sure that my colleagues in the other place will feel so inhibited. The Government will therefore have to work quite hard to establish the fact that they are not taking advantage of the situation in a way that is to the detriment of parliamentary scrutiny of the legislation we are considering. For the moment, and with some reluctance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Kramer
Baroness Kramer
“Powers of the British Transport Police to protect transport infrastructure
(1) In section 100 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (jurisdiction of transport police)—
(a) at the end of subsection (2)(b) insert “or to prevent damage to property”; and(b) omit subsection (3).(2) In section 172(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (duty to give information as to the identity of driver etc in certain circumstances), in relation to an offence involving a railway crossing, “chief officer of police” includes the Chief Officer of the British Transport Police.”
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 63, I remind the Committee that we in this House have debated the role, jurisdiction and effectiveness of the British Transport Police on a number of occasions over the past decade, and on each occasion the unanimous view has been that it does a remarkably effective job, not just in helping to keep the railways of England, Wales and Scotland safe and free from crime but also in contributing to the policing of our society as a whole. It has been around since the earliest days of the railway. Indeed, the officers employed on the Stockton and Darlington railway in 1826 predate the passing of the Metropolitan Police Act by three years.
The force deploys capabilities similar to Home Office forces in undertaking counterterrorism, firearms, public order, response policing and criminal investigations. It participates in joint operations such as the G8 and the Olympics and in cable theft operations. The force has ACPO officers in command, trains its officers to national standards and has a high degree of interoperability with partner forces.
The situation relating to its jurisdiction is, however, neither straightforward nor satisfactory, and the purpose of my amendment is to put right one or two of those anomalies. I believe that it has the support of the Home Office and a section of the Department for Transport. It certainly has the support of the British Transport Police itself, and I hope that it will have the support of the Minister.
I start with Section 100 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Subsection (2) states:
“Members of the British Transport Police Force have in any police area the same powers and privileges as constables of the police force for that police area—
(a) in relation to persons whom they suspect on reasonable grounds of having committed, being in the course of committing or being about to commit an offence, or
(b) if they believe on reasonable grounds that they need those powers and privileges in order to save life or to prevent or minimise personal injury”.
That is fine until you read subsection (3), which states that members of the British Transport Police force,
“have powers and privileges by virtue of subsection (2) only if”
—I repeat: only if—
“(a) they are in uniform or have with them documentary evidence that they are members of that Force, and
(b) they believe on reasonable grounds that a power of a constable which they would not have apart from that subsection ought to be exercised and that, if it cannot be exercised until they secure the attendance of or a request under subsection (1) by a constable who has it, the purpose for which they believe it ought to be exercised will be frustrated or seriously prejudiced”.
I shall describe to the Committee what that means. Let us imagine that a BTP officer is off railway jurisdiction—perhaps walking between one railway station and another close by—and the officer comes across an incident where a member of the public requests his or her help and there may be a need to arrest someone. First, the officer has to check whether the local force will make a request for the BTP officer to deal with it. If it does, the BTP officer has the power to arrest. That could result, however, in considerable delay and lead to the loss of evidence and, worse, loss of the offender. It also damages public confidence in the police service, bearing in mind that the public do not distinguish between police officers from BTP and other forces. They see a police officer in uniform and expect a responsive and effective service.
There is an exception where making those inquires or requests could frustrate or seriously prejudice the exercise of the arrest function. The crucial point is: how are the circumstances that will amount to a frustration or serious prejudice defined? Different officers and different bystanders will have different interpretations, and that can lead to uncertainty, confusion and delay.
There is also a requirement for the BTP officer either to be in uniform or to be in possession of documentary evidence that they are a member of the force, such as a warrant card. For Home Office forces there is no such legislative requirement in general for making an arrest. Although it may be good practice to carry a warrant card, there seems to be no justification for making this rule apply solely to the BTP. That could compromise criminal cases where an off-duty BTP officer who was acting in the public good made an arrest but did not have the warrant card on them. I am, therefore, proposing the complete removal of subsection (3) from the Act.
My amendment also suggests the insertion of the words,
“or to prevent damage to property”,
at the end of subsection (2)(b). This is important and necessary because it will authorise the BTP to take action to prevent or detect incidents in a suddenly escalating public disorder situation. Imagine that BTP officers come across incidents of disorder in a high street when they are passing by. The public and owners of businesses expect the police to protect their property when necessary, and they are not going to be interested in whether they are from a Home Office force or from the British Transport Police.
Lord Bradshaw
My Lords, I support all that the noble Lord opposite has said. I have been here for only 15 years, but I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, will vouch for the fact that I have raised this matter, as has the noble Lord opposite, on countless occasions. I have lost count of the excuses, all of which include the words “next year”. The latest one was the promise around three or four years ago of a quinquennial review. Although it is due, nothing has happened. This is a clear example of confusion and antipathy between two government departments: the Department for Transport, which owns, as it were, the British Transport Police, and the Home Office, which owns the rest of the police force, except in London.
The fact is that this absurd barrier between the areas where the police can and cannot go is not understood and leads to confusion. Almost every night at Reading station I see the constables of the BT police standing by the windows, and on a number of occasions I have seen fights and things happening in their view but they are not able to intervene. To the public, that is absolute nonsense.
I plead with the Minister this time to take the matter away and come back with a satisfactory solution. This is the result of jealousy over jurisdiction in the police service; I cannot think why. I remember going out with a Thames Valley police patrol one day—I was on the police authority for 13 years. We went out of the Thames Valley into Warwickshire, and they told me that they could not actually make an arrest until we had turned round and come back again. This situation is stupid, it is Victorian and it is not in keeping with modern society.
The reason why I believe this matter belongs in the Infrastructure Bill is that, when the public use railway premises, they expect the police to look after the bus stops, the car parks and the cycle racks. Some of those facilities are in private ownership and some in public ownership, but the journey that the person makes is door-to-door. At present it is being expostulated by the Department for Transport that it is doing a great deal for those journeys, but many people who use public transport but feel unsafe when doing so would be much reassured if they knew that the bus stops around railway stations and other facilities were patrolled by officers who were competent to deal with whatever happened to arise. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I have to say that this is the first time that I have heard the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and my noble friend Lord Bradshaw. My noble friend Lord Bradshaw told us that he has done this many times before; I have obviously been doing other things at those times. I have listened to both noble Lords with care, and I have to say to the Minister that I think they have made an incontrovertible case. I will listen with very great interest when she replies, but she will require some extremely powerful, cogent and convincing arguments if she does not respond in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has suggested and take this away, perhaps coming back on Report with an amendment that meets what seem to me to be totally absurd anomalies.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I also support my noble friend’s amendment. The situation is a classic case of restrictive practices or protectionism—whatever we would like to call it. I thought that this Government were against restrictive practices and protectionism—after all, they have several deregulation Bills—but, as ever, it seems that the Home Office is exempt.
During my Question on HGVs today, the Minister mentioned in reply the work being done in London between VOSA and the police to stop lorries that might be thought to be contravening some regulation or other. In fact, I was invited to witness one of these events a few weeks ago. They do it every day in different parts of London, and it works well; the number of vehicles that are stopped and the number of charges that the Minister told the House about are very impressive. However, there is one thing that has not happened. I said to the Metropolitan Police people and VOSA, “You’re doing all these things, but do you have one common database so that you can work out how to catch these people and do something with them?”. Very politely, the answer was, “Well, no we don’t, because the Met doesn’t allow it”.
The issue of whether the Met is above the law is a debate that we can have on a different day, but it is the same issue as the restrictive practice of saying, “Don’t set foot on my patch, otherwise—although I will not shoot you—I shall make sure that there is trouble”. Surely we should all be working on the same databases and sharing things. VOSA has made major progress here and it is about time that the Met caught up. If an amendment comes back on Report, either from the Minister or from my noble friend, it would be nice to think that a Home Office Minister could be here to answer on this issue and make a proposal.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, I have heard my noble friend Lord Faulkner wax lyrical persuasively on this issue, and I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw talk about it on many occasions. It is clear that the case stands—and stands mightily proud. We have had this argument long enough for a Government to see sense on this. All that I can say to the Minister at this moment of decision is that I shall be showing the utmost loyalty and commitment to my noble friend. The Minister has a noble friend on her side arguing the same case. I advise her to follow my example.
Baroness Kramer
I point out to noble Lords and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, that this issue appears to have been on the table for some 15 years. How interesting it is that the Government for most of those 15 years did absolutely nothing to resolve the issue. The noble Lord may wish to hesitate slightly in being critical.
Lord Davies of Oldham
I was not being critical at all. I was being anticipatorily hopeful.
Baroness Kramer
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, that we have a great deal of sympathy with the issues that he has brought forward. The question is whether, from an entirely practical perspective, we are able to resolve all the various policy implications and clearances in time for inclusion in the Bill—not least by working out whether we need legislative consent from the Scottish Government; obviously, there is that additional layer of complication over the BTP and devolution issues. That would all need to be resolved.
Given that situation, we have particular concern that the BTP has all the necessary powers needed to take enforcement activity at level crossings. I can say that we will give this issue careful consideration and will review the current arrangement to consider how best to address this anomaly, including whether amendments are required to the various Acts and sections that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, described. As I say, at this point, it is not clear that we can resolve all this in time for inclusion in the Bill, which is my primary concern. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, but we will consider it and see what is possible within the timeframe that we have to work with.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, and I shall come to what she said in a moment. First, however, I thank colleagues in all parts of the Committee of three different political parties who have supported this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and I entered the House at the same time 15 years ago, and we have indeed been consistent campaigners for the BTP during that whole time. The noble Lord will recall that when we started, there was a suggestion, particularly from some forces in London, that the BTP no longer needed to exist as an independent force. There was a mayor who, as I recall, was quite keen on absorbing the BTP within the Metropolitan force and for the BTP’s regional activities to go to county forces. We saw off that very misguided approach through argument and through the good practice of the force whose work and reputation has grown steadily over the past decade. It is now recognised as one of the finest forces in the entire country.
I am grateful for the Minister’s sympathy for this approach. The idea that this has to be held up because of some fear over what might happen in the Scottish independence referendum is a little depressing. I shall read very carefully what the Minister has said. I cannot say that I will not bring it back on Report because, with so much support in this Committee, it will be interesting to see whether the House as a whole takes the view that this is the moment when these anomalies—everybody accepts that they are anomalies—should be corrected. I am grateful for the support from my noble friend on the Front Bench because that will also be of great significance.
The force’s reputation is recognised. The Minister accepts that these anomalies have to be put right. I am willing to withdraw the amendment today, but I think we should come back to it for further debate on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bradshaw
“Review of the road network
(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must commission a body to review the funding and condition of the road network (“the review body”).
(2) The Secretary of State must instruct the review body to consider the following four matters—
(a) whether the heaviest users of the road network, in terms of wear and tear on the roads, congestion and pollution, should contribute a higher proportion than at present of the funding of the road network; and, if so, how;(b) whether the methodology for calculating the axle weights of vehicles, as used in calculating rates of vehicle taxation, should be changed;(c) whether organisations which undertake street works, including statutory undertakers, make an appropriate financial contribution to the remaking of the road surface on completion of the street works, and any necessary remedial work if that remaking is sub-standard; and if not, how the organisations could make an appropriate financial contribution; and(d) whether the part of the road network not under the control of the Highways Agency is in a satisfactory condition; and, if it is not, how it should be brought up to a satisfactory condition.(3) The review body shall report to the Secretary of State and to Parliament within 18 months of the passing of this Act.”
Lord Bradshaw
This is the last of the road amendments but it is not the least. There are great problems with our roads and the way that they are run. The amendment simply asks the Government to agree that within six months of the Bill being enacted, the Secretary of State commissions,
“a body to review the funding and condition of the road network”.
This body should consider four things, including,
“whether the heaviest users of the road network, in terms of wear and tear on the roads, congestion and pollution, should contribute a higher proportion than at present of the funding of the road network”.
We keep talking about the railway because that is in our minds at the moment, but people who travel at peak times have to pay higher fares than those who travel at off-peak times. The train operators who use congested parts of the network pay more, and it is time that a more rational way of paying for the road network was developed.
I am also asking that the methodology for calculating the axle weights of vehicles, used in calculating the rates of vehicle taxation should be changed, or re-examined, which might be better. The present methodology is based on experiments that took place in 1958 in America by the American state highways authorities. These experiments consisted of running a properly laden lorry, with a distributed load at 35 mph over perfectly level surfaces, and measuring the deterioration of those surfaces. The authorities came to the conclusion that it was reasonable to use the fourth-power function and the standard axle as a means of calculating load damage. Lorries do not go at 35 mph, they do not have perfectly distributed loads and the road network is not in perfect condition, as it was in 1958 when the Americans conducted the experiments. I suggest that it is perhaps time that we revisited this whole area and looked at the real position, not the theoretical position in the laboratory conditions in which experiments were conducted in America.
My third concern is whether the arrangements for the utilities, which dig up our roads to lay their pipes and cables, include them making an adequate financial contribution to the remaking of the road surface on completion of such street works. Is the remedial work of a suitable standard, and if not, how could those organisations make an appropriate financial contribution? I know that noble Lords will see, as I do, that outside their own homes the entire road is pockmarked by holes which have been dug by the cable companies, water companies, gas companies and so on. Most of the work is not properly finished and often the edges are not adequately sealed, allowing water to get in and break up the road surface, which is the primary cause of potholes. However, it is no good spending money on just filling up those potholes, the problem has to be attacked at its root cause.
My last issue is the question of the other part of the highways network that is not covered by this legislation. It is not in a satisfactory condition. The structural condition of the road is usually pretty terrible, and what is more, it is declining more and more rapidly.
Those are not issues that I expect the present Government to tackle, but they should be working on drawing up the terms of reference of a review that would look into how to address them. I have referred previously to why this is now urgent. The revenue from fuel tax will decline as cars and lorries become more efficient, which means that the Government will face a mountain of expenditure with a declining source of revenue. Moreover, very fuel-efficient cars are not eligible to pay much road tax. I have noticed since I acquired such a car that I am putting around a third of what I had been into the pot for the upkeep of our roads. That is a serious strategic problem and, while I am not expecting any answers, I am expecting some sympathy and a form of commitment that these issues will be taken in hand. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, these are interesting amendments which, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has said, cover a wide range of issues. It is definitely time to revisit the issue of damaged roads. Road vehicles are getting heavier and their tyre pressures are higher, but that may be balanced by improved suspension systems, making this a complicated calculation. Of course, higher speed incurs more damage to vehicles of all types. It is reasonable that vehicle excise duty, in the absence of any sort of road user charge, should reflect the different types of damage caused to roads as well as congestion and pollution. We need also to take into account something else which has come to the fore in the past few years. Worsening road surfaces are having a serious effect on cyclists. If the Government want more people to take up cycling, it must be safe for them to do so. A large pothole can cause a cyclist to fall off their bike and hurt themselves, and at night the potholes cannot be seen because they are so deep. It is a serious issue and now would be a very good time to address it.
On proposed new paragraphs (2)(c) and (d) in Amendment 64, we are where we are with the undertakers. I suspect that that is one reason why we do not do more with our roads. Constructing trams in cities is so expensive because the private sector undertakers take anybody to the cleaners if they want to build anything. I do not see an easy solution, except that they need to be kept up to the mark and ensure not only that the quality of the reinstatement is good but that the time it takes is kept short. Some emergency potholes and road works are there for weeks.
On new paragraph (d), damage to the roads in the past couple of winters probably reflects the same cause and effect as damage to the rail network: the weather has been very bad. The motorways mostly stayed open, as did the existing high-speed rail link because they have been designed and built in the past 50 years to cope with the current forecast weather conditions and using more modern drainage systems—slopes on cuttings and so on—which are appropriate. Most of the other roads and the classic railway system has suffered from being built 100 or 150 years ago. It is time to look at all that again, and it would be interesting to see the results. I hope that the Minister will look on the amendment with favour.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
I support the Minister looking closely at the amendment from my noble friend Lord Bradshaw for two reasons: first, because of the point he made that we need roads of good quality, whether you are the user of a car, a cyclist or some other person travelling on the road. We are facing far less revenue coming in to the Treasury to pay for them and need to find other sources of funding. That seems to be a reasonable proposal.
Secondly, I follow on from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about cyclists. I speak as someone whose husband suffered a serious cycling accident two years ago—the police do not know whether it was because he went into a pothole or was hit by a car and then hit a pothole, but potholes were clearly involved in that accident, and he still has no recollection of what happened. There is an increasing number of good reasons to encourage children on to bicycles. I speak as someone who cycles my youngest to school when I can. It is madness for us to want children to be encouraged to go out to cycle for the health benefits that that gives them if, by the time they are adults and cycling to work, the roads are in such poor condition that it is not safe for them to go on them.
We need safe and well funded roads, which means that the Government are going to have to be creative in how we find that money. I think that the amendment offers an opportunity for further discussion and debate.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bradshaw is nothing if not creative in his response to transport problems. I guess that this is a creation a little too far for the Minister, but we shall see from her response. I understand my noble friend’s arguments and agree with some of them very strongly. We do not have a real measurement of the impact on our roads of heavy vehicles. The most amazing thing that any road user has to come to terms with is looking at the carriageways which heavy trucks have been traversing and then at the other two which are used by cars. You are looking at what is virtually trench warfare. The impressions in the surface reflect the enormous impact of goods vehicles, so whether they pay enough is a challenging financial issue. I am sure that the Minister will be able to explain just how great that challenge is.
On the question of potholes, I do not deny that there are potholes on all our roads. They are a serious issue on our main trunk road networks because vehicles can become involved in desperately bad accidents either through hitting them or by seeking to evade them at the last moment. However, I venture to suggest that most of the problems of potholes are not on the strategic road network; they are on the local road network. That is where we have such a massive problem, which is partly a product of our perhaps not employing the best possible techniques when building them and partly because we have had some very severe weather in recent winters. We all know the havoc that that has wrought on our roads. However, that does not alter the facts. I know that the Government talk of extra sums being made available, but they look pretty thin on the ground for local authorities when it comes to the challenges they face.
I have considerable sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, not least because he sees yet another opportunity to articulate clearly an important dimension of our transport anxieties. I am just grateful that it is the Minister who has the task of allaying them.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, is quite right: this amendment is a creative step too far for the Government, although we very much appreciate that these are serious and important issues which have to be looked at, and that the appraisal methods that we use actually matter. I am always happy when my noble friend Lord Bradshaw talks to officials who specialise in this area, because that is an exchange among equals who have an understanding of the detail in a way that I cannot personally pretend to.
As I have said before, the Government are not minded to introduce road pricing. As far as I know, we are not looking at any kind of revision of the way in which the VED is levied on vehicles at this point in time, which would be the presumed outcome of the kind of study that is being recommended in these amendments.
There are also amendments that address the funding of local road maintenance. I suggest that they are not really appropriate to this Bill, although they may be matters of significance and ought to continue to be part of the general discussion that the Government undertake and the kind of work that the department always stays abreast of. Recognising that the Bill has a very different focus, I would ask my noble friend to consider withdrawing his amendment but to continue to engage with the department so as to ensure that we are using the best and most sensible methodologies in the work we do.
Lord Bradshaw
I drafted the amendment rather carefully so that it does not commit this Government to doing anything other than choosing a panel of people to look at some problems. If past experience is anything to go by, by the time the panel is assembled and comes to some reasonable conclusions, we are talking about the legislation of the Government not in 2015 but probably in 2020, because that is the speed at which things are done. I plead with the Minister to look very carefully at what I have said. I am not asking the Government to commit themselves to road pricing or to raising VED; I know that this is probably not the time in the parliamentary season to make such suggestions. However, these four problems are major ones. I did not even get on to the problem of the question of appraisal; as the Minister knows, it is absolutely barmy, but I thought that that was a step too far. In the light of what she has said, I shall withdraw my amendment, but the problems will not withdraw themselves; they will steadily get worse. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Parminter
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, after the destruction of habitats, the introduction of invasive non-native species is perhaps the most urgent threat to biodiversity. There are more than 3,000 non-native species in Britain today. Some are very familiar, such as the grey squirrel or the Himalayan balsam that clogs up our riverbanks. Others are less obvious, such as the signal crayfish or harlequin ladybirds, but their impacts can be just as serious.
The economic impact of invasive species on the UK has been estimated at £1.8 billion every year, which includes £1 billion to the agriculture and horticulture sectors and more than £200 million to the construction, development and infrastructure sectors. More personally, invasive non-native species impact on our sense of place—what makes our corners of Britain distinctive and precious. That is why it is important for the Government to act. I warmly welcome the principles behind Clause 16, which would introduce new powers to compel landowners to take action on invasive non-native species or permit others to enter their land and carry out those operations. However, I have introduced Amendments 64A and 65A to explore two apparent weaknesses in the drafting of the clause.
The Bill defines a species as non-native if it is listed in Part 1 or 2 of Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, or if,
“it is not ordinarily resident in, or a regular visitor to, Great Britain in a wild state”.
Both of these definitions seem to me to be rather problematic. Defining something as non-native if it is not ordinarily resident in Britain could end up rendering species that have gone extinct as non-native, just because they are not currently resident. As it is drafted, new paragraph 2(3)(b) of Schedule 9A effectively sets the status quo of British biodiversity in law—a one-way system for biodiversity loss, as once an animal ceases to appear in the wild, it ceases to be native.
Of course, this definition applies in the case of species-control powers, so I accept that it will be up to the environmental agencies when to use those powers. However, it would seem perverse to create a legal definition of “non-native” that could apply to species that return to our shores after becoming extinct, or that we wish to reintroduce. I am concerned that this definition could create a precedent or perhaps interfere with important future reintroduction programmes. Reintroductions help to enrich biodiversity in the UK, contribute to international conservation and improve people’s enjoyment of nature. Species that were once indigenous to the UK that have been reintroduced include capercaillie and short-haired bumblebees.
The second problem with the definition in the Bill is that it would define animals and plants listed in Part 1 or 2 of Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as “non-native”. Why would that apparently define several species that are currently resident as non-native? The schedule was last revised in 2010. Part 1 lists:
“Animals which are established in the wild”,
and currently includes 67 non-native species that are considered invasive, such as the grey squirrel. However, it also includes nine species or birds that are indigenous, two of which became extinct in Britain but have been reintroduced: the capercaillie, which I mentioned previously, and white-tailed eagles. Birds such as the barn owl, the chough, the corncrake, the goshawk and the red kite were added in 2010. Amendment 64A would exclude indigenous species from the lists in Schedule 9, so species such as the white-tailed eagle would not be wrongly defined as non-native. Amendment 65A would simply add the words,
“and has never been indigenous to”,
to the definition of “non-native species”. Ecologically, “indigenous” refers to the presence of a species in a region as a result of natural processes, without human intervention. My amendment would therefore exclude from the definition of “non-native” animals that were once naturally resident in the UK and have at some point gone extinct.
Clause 16 seems to define as “non-native” several species that are in fact indigenous to the UK. There is an important principle at stake here: that species that have gone extinct, often because of human actions, should not subsequently be considered non-native. My amendments are intended to help to improve the definition of “non-native”, and equally would help the Government to commit to enhance the UK’s biodiversity, as they have promised to do on numerous occasions. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I very much support my noble friend’s amendment, to which I have added my name. I was looking through Schedule 9 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act to see what sort of things were in it. There is everything from budgerigars to Egyptian geese, night herons and parakeets, so there is quite a bit there. The thing that struck me about the importance of this issue is that if we look at Cornwall not as a nation—which of course it is—but as a sovereign nation, its national bird, which features on its coat of arms with a fisherman and a miner, is of course a chough. It is widely known in Britain as the Cornish chough. Regrettably, it disappeared from Cornwall in 1947, but I am pleased to say that it reintroduced itself from Ireland in 2001 and since then has been fairly active in reproduction and has succeeded in west Cornwall. If we went back and passed this legislation in 2000 and looked upon Cornwall as an ecological area, we would now see the chough as an alien species, despite the fact that it is our national bird. I use that as a broad illustration of the issue. Having said that, it is an important issue. I absolutely support this part of the Bill and see this as a very important area.
We really should not mention Japanese knotweed, although that is in Schedule 9. If we are not allowed to talk about Japanese knotweed I could call it Polygonum cuspidatum.
This is an important area, but clearly animals and plants that have been part of the British habitat over a long period are native species and can return. We all know of important reintroduction programmes that have taken place. We should welcome them rather than outlaw them.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I, too, strongly support this section of the Bill. It was very encouraging this morning at the session that some of us attended at Defra to hear that the UK is ahead of the game vis-à-vis Europe in terms of trying to control and monitor invasive species. The more that we can do it, and the quicker that we can do it, the better. However, I am not certain about Amendment 65A; I am not sure that past claims to being native mean that they would not necessarily be invasive now. I agree about certain species—red kites are one, and perhaps the bustard will be another—but let us take a species that has been in the news recently: beavers. Actually, in spite of the newspapers saying that beavers have recently been discovered in the wild in the south-west, they have been running around in the south-west for some years now, as far as I am aware. They say that it is the first time they have around for 800 years but we do not quite know what effect they will have. Their habit of damming streams and blocking rivers—bear in mind that there have been floods recently in the south-west—might be a problem. I feel that that situation would need to be looked at.
Turning to my native Scotland, there is a suggestion that we might introduce wolves there. I have an interest to declare here: my ancestor Sir Ewen Cameron of Lochiel, who was known as the great Sir Ewen, apart from spending all his life in the latter half of the 1600s killing Englishmen, for which he got knighted by the English king as one tends to do—do not ask me why—also killed the last wolf in Scotland. I have always been led to believe that he swung it round his head and wrapped it around a tree, but that may be a detail too far.
The situation has changed dramatically for wolves in terms of both population density and livestock density in Scotland. So I do not think that you can put a provision like this in the Bill. Every species has to be judged according to its particular habits and interests in relation to the countryside today.
Lord Teverson
If I may interrupt the noble Lord, in Cornwall recently—last year, in fact—a company with which I have familial connections produced grey squirrel pasties, which were extremely successful, and there were no demonstrations whatever outside the shop.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
I am sure that the appetites of the Corns are something to be praised in this respect. My point is that I hope that this principle will not be too rigorously followed when dealing with invasive alien species in future.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I bow to the expertise of previous speakers because I am no great expert in species. The previous three speeches have demonstrated that it will be quite a challenge to decide what is in and what is out. The issue seems to be very subjective and no one is fighting tonight, but I expect that the experts will fight in the future.
I have two examples—and I do not know whether they are in or out; perhaps the noble Baroness can help me. I have a quote from the Western Morning News last week, under the headline:
“UK ladybirds are being eaten by their invading cannibal cousins”.
Ladybirds are now cannibals that are eating either the five-spot or two-spot ones—I could go on—and invade at the speed of 200 kilometres a year. Even though they came in 20 years ago, I do not know whether they have reached Cornwall yet. Maybe the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, will know. Are they included? Have they been here before? Where would it be?
My other example is from three or four years ago when a friend of mine discovered that the Duchy of Cornwall was introducing Japanese oysters into the Helford River in Cornwall—we seem to have been in Cornwall a lot, but I cannot help that—without doing an environmental study or getting permission. Oysters were put in the cages, which all looked very nice, and some people liked them and some did not. However, after a year they all died, which may have served right those who introduced them, but it killed every other oyster in the river—the native oysters. I do not know whether those Japanese oysters would come within the context of this part of the Bill. Those that came from Japan certainly killed all the local ones, and it was of some comfort when my friend took the duchy to court. Its defence was that it believed that, for all practical purposes, it was above the law. I do not know whether that was why the court found against the duchy because the matter is still sub judice. That is an example of someone bringing in a species and perhaps not following it through to see if it was the right one to bring in.
That is why I tabled my Amendment 71. When I was researching it, I thought, “What is a species?”. I looked it up on some web dictionaries, and the best definition seems to be the wording that I have put in the amendment. Does it cover things in the air, be they birds, insects or whatever? Does it cover animals, birds or whatever that walk on the ground? Does it cover things in the water? That is a pretty important place from which we should start. It would be very good if someone could give a definitive answer so that we knew what the context was and where we might go from here.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the main outline of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. I was a little less keen on the pasty that was identified as being available in Cornwall. I recall my brother-in-law, who is an expert on birds, arriving in Cornwall in the early 1990s and seeing a chough, which I did not see. He was certainly well versed in the significance of choughs to the Cornish position.
The purpose of the amendment that I have tabled is to get some sharpness of definition in the crucial area that we are concerned with. We all know that the issue of invasive species is of great significance. It is one of the causes of the loss of biodiversity and much of the world, and we have seen indications in this country of the extent to which that occurs. The annual cost of invasive non-native species to the economy is put at £1.3 billion, so we are not talking peanuts here.
I shall mention my own experience of this. I heard someone—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Teverson—suggest that we could not mention Japanese knotweed. I am going to mention Japanese knotweed quite often. My acquaintance with the problem of Japanese knotweed was to see a person lose the value of their house, in an ordinary suburban area with absolutely no suggestion of any threat at all except of Japanese knotweed. The plant effectively reduced the price of their house from £350,000 to £50,000 in value. They simply had to get out of that house as they did not think that they could afford the costs of controlling the knotweed.
That was my introduction to local difficulties, but when I was in the department I became acutely aware, and I am sure that the Minister is well versed in this, that whenever a group of people come together to discuss Japanese knotweed, the railway industry is going to be there in force, as indeed it was on every occasion when we discussed it, simply because of the sheer cost to the railway system in this country of keeping the wretched plant at bay.
We are not talking about trivial issues as far as the nation is concerned when it comes to certain aspects of non-native species in this country. For agriculture alone, the cost in England and Wales seems to be getting on for £1 billion. That is an awful lot of money being spent in seeking to control a plant. In the European Union, the annual cost of non-native species is €12 billion. We were gratified to hear at the Defra briefing this morning of the extent to which there was international movement and action on this, and that the European community was playing its full role in this. There were one or two interesting exceptions that we heard about, which raised an eyebrow or two; many of us thought that the Danish scarcely merited the kind of exemptions that we in this country could hardly get for particular products and local parts of the economy; nevertheless, the Danes had obviously put up a good case.
However, I want to emphasise that we have to get this right. I know when I say those words that it is not possible to get it right, because it is a continual battle against change, some of it produced by climate change, which accelerates the difficulties.
We support the clause. The reason we want to probe the Minister is obvious enough; the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, did the task for me. Red kites were reintroduced at Woburn, not far from where I live. The first arrival of a red kite on a tree, resting and then taking off in all its glory is something that I treasure. Of course I applaud the reintroduction of certain species, but I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said about his anxiety about beavers. That shows the differences there can be between different parts of the community. People I have been talking to thought that beavers might help to restrict floods because they build dams to do so, whereas the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, thought that beaver dams might accelerate the problems. There you are, you pays your money and you takes your choice on that.
Before the Olympic Games, an absolute fortune was spent on clearing the site of my dear friend knotweed. The site had to be cleared of a lot of other very noxious things indeed. One of the great expenses of the Olympic Games was getting the site clear, but Japanese knotweed featured in that and cost £70 million to remove.
We must not underestimate the challenges which such species present. My amendment is tabled in order to get, and I am certain that the Minister will oblige the Committee by giving, a clearer definition of what the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, asked for in the first place.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is absolutely right: £1.8 billion is the estimate of the cost, a lot of it falling on agriculture but a significant amount on transport, of invasive non-native species.
It is important to understand that this measure is one part of a much broader range of measures. It is particularly focused on tackling prevention, and then early detection and rapid response, so that we do not always find ourselves, as we have with the grey squirrel, for example, in a position where an invasive species has so taken hold that we are now able to consider only control. I think that every one of your Lordships would regard that as an important strategy.
The questions raised by the amendments centre on definitions. On the sensible advice of the Law Commission, the definition of non-native used in this part of the Bill is consistent with that already used in Section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Part of that is a list, and part of it is a broader definition. It is drafted to regulate the release of formerly native species. It is clearly not a list that matches what we are intending to do with control orders, because control orders give us the ability to go in to make sure that a species may be eradicated—that eradication is possible. There are also other lists, as noble Lords who came to this morning’s meeting will know, because the European Union will be creating a core list some time in 2015 and regional lists will follow. So we have a whole range of lists. The important element in all of this for the purpose of the control orders will be a code of practice that will overlay the lists. That should be available in draft form to your Lordships by Report.
The list in Schedule 9 referred to by my noble friends Lady Parminter and Lord Teverson contains species that we would not attempt to eradicate, with rhododendron ponticum being a good example. There are species on the list that we would attempt to eradicate, such as the monk parakeet, but a lot of the work under control orders would focus on species which have not yet arrived here and therefore are not on any list at all. The code of practice will provide the relevant mechanism for working out a complex situation where a number of lists are developed for a whole range of purposes.
Baroness Parminter
I thank the Minister for those comments. It is encouraging that the comments from around the Committee show just how supportive we are for the initiative that the Government are taking.
The definition of non-native invasive species is key not just to what the Government are rightly trying to achieve here but to the impact that it could have on future reintroduction programmes. I hear the Minister when she says that we should not be opening almost a blanket pass for what are now extinct but were once indigenous species. Given that this, for me, causes some problems, I would certainly want some reassurances before we get to Report about the processes for assessing reintroductions. Clearly, we need to give species as much support as possible to meet our biodiversity targets. There are plenty of people who will argue against reintroduction and I would not want that definition to give those people any succour. If this definition is to stand, there must be a very clear process with which we feel comfortable for the assessment of reintroduction so that biodiversity can be put at the heart of that process. On the basis that the Minister has said that there will be a code of practice for us to scrutinise before Report, I am more than happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham
“( ) The Secretary of State must publish an annual assessment of species control operations.”
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I have quite a lot to say about this next amendment so I shall speed up as I respect the fact that time is moving on. The clause centres round the sustainability of new species control agreements and orders. The Government’s capacity to take an intelligence-led approach to prevent non-native species becoming established in the UK has been significantly reduced. We valued the presentation at Defra this morning and the work that the department has done, but the cuts that have been sustained in some of the scientific establishments concern us, particularly the ecological science services at Kew. One should not underestimate the difficulties that flow from the reduction of that activity.
The Government have failed to implement the ballast water convention in spite of evidence that non-native invasive species transported in ballast water tanks pose a significant biosecurity risk. There is enough evidence for us to take these issues very seriously, and I hope that the Minister will indicate that there is a possible change in the Government’s perspective on their actions. The Woodland Trust has also raised concerns regarding the ability of environmental authorities financially to support species control agreements and orders. Many of the environmental budgets are already stretched but eradication control of invasive species is vital and needs to be adequately prioritised and supported. That is the burden of the opening statement made by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter.
The Government need to face up to the fact that the cost to agriculture and fishing is growing. Climate change is probably a key reason why the number of invasive non-native species arriving in the UK is increasing. The Government must reassess the work of the GB Non-native Species Secretariat in the light of this evidence. After all, the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee report made it clear that for an eradication campaign to be successful and cost effective it needs to be timely and informed by good evidence and sufficient funds to sustain it until complete eradication is achieved. None of us underestimates the challenge represented by that comment by the Environmental Audit Committee. The Government need to engage with the EU’s work in revising the plant and animal health regulatory frameworks to ensure that the result is a unified approach to biosecurity threats between these regulatory frameworks and the invasive species framework. Some of us were reassured this morning about the degree of co-operation within the European Union. It is obviously a germane time for us to take the fullest possible advantage of good will among the nations of Europe.
Prevention is definitely cheaper than eradication, and it is in the best interest of the environmental authorities to have annual assessments to put in place goals and objectives that would, in turn, allow them to plan their capacity to carry out species control operations. It is also extremely important that we continue to monitor the development of these species control orders and to analyse effectively their ability to hit their targets.
The Bill does not allude to the monitoring of this new scheme and how we can track its progress and achievements. We need that. Not all of us—certainly not many of our colleagues—will have the same kind of opportunities vouchsafed to those of us who went to Defra this morning. We need to ensure the wider public is well informed about progress. An annual assessment would look at which species have been identified, which would be subject to species control orders, how many have been carried out, the success of the scheme, and an evaluation of the scientific evidence surrounding invasive species, animal welfare and so on.
There is clearly a great deal to be done. The amendment seeks to identify the fact that the Government are not doing enough at the present time. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I need to be rapid in my response, so let me simply say we think an annual assessment of species control orders is too frequent, as we estimate there is only one control order a year. However, we agree that an assessment of how these provisions are working is required. The code of practice will make clear that this assessment should form part of the five-yearly review of the GB invasive non-native species strategy.
We do not accept Amendment 67, which states that there should be a requirement on the Secretary of State to ensure that the environmental authorities,
“have the necessary capacity to carry out species control operations”,
because, at the rate of one order a year, it is entirely feasible for this to be met from existing resources. The environmental authorities are already resourced with this kind of activity in mind.
We do not support Amendment 68, which would remove the requirement for agreements made in relation to a dwelling to be made only by the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers. We believe that this is an appropriate additional safeguard for the more intrusive use of powers under this regime.
I hope that that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, that reassurance is noted. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Kramer
“(2) Unless it is made under paragraph 9(2)(c) (emergency), a species control order—
(a) may not require an owner of premises to carry out species control operations, or provide for an environmental authority to carry out species control operations, before the end of the period in which an appeal may be made (see paragraph 15), and(b) must provide that if an appeal is made within that period, the owner need not carry out the operations, or the environmental authority shall not carry out the operations, before the appeal is finally determined.”
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, Amendment 69 clarifies that there is no requirement on an owner, or provision for an environmental authority, to carry out any operations contained in a species control order until the 28-day period for making an appeal has expired. It also clarifies that, where an appeal has been made within the 28-day period, the owner need not carry out the species control operations and the environmental authority will not do so until the appeal has been determined.
The amendment merely clarifies our original intention in the Bill. Without it, the order could potentially require an owner or allow an environmental authority to carry out the operations contained in a species control order before the period for making an appeal has expired, or before the appeal is determined by the First-tier Tribunal. However, the amendment does not apply to emergency species control orders made under paragraph 9(2)(c) of this Schedule. Where a species control order is made because it is urgently necessary, the environmental authority may carry out the operations immediately. However, the First-tier Tribunal has the power to suspend the order should an appeal be made by any owner.
Amendment 70 ensures that the environmental authority must notify all owners of the premises that it is aware of, and not just the owner specified in the order, that a species control order has been made. It is necessary because any owner of the premises has a right of appeal against a species control order within 28 days of notice being given that the order has been made. However, as currently drafted, there is no requirement on an environmental authority to notify all owners That could potentially lead to another owner of the premises being unaware that a species control order had been made and thus being unable to exercise their right of appeal. This amendment merely clarifies our original intent.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, it is fairly rare for the Government to produce amendments unless they have been prompted to do so by a critical opposition. On this occasion, we were not the critical opposition. I am happy to accept the amendment.
Baroness Kramer
“(a) all owners of the premises of whom the environmental authority is aware,”
House of Lords
Vehicles: Heavy Goods Vehicles
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to strengthen the enforcement of drivers’ hours and construction and use regulations with respect to heavy goods vehicles.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)
My Lords, the Government have plans to strengthen enforcement, including: continued targeting; introducing four new purpose-built Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency check sites; using the joint DVSA and police HGV task force in London set up last year; and a fixed-site automatic number-plate recognition camera network. We are consulting about proposals to use financial penalty deposits for historical drivers’ hours offences, developing plans for some specialised vehicles, and working to get more serial offenders to traffic commissioner inquiries more quickly.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that comprehensive Answer. I would like to know when some of these things are going to happen, but they sound really good. My reason for asking was that I recently met an HGV driver who had driven on trade plates from the south of England to Edinburgh, and then back to the south of England and back to Edinburgh, within 24 hours. I hope that these regulations will stop that kind of thing. Will the Minister confirm exactly how it could be stopped in the future?
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important issue about trade plates. Vehicles which have not yet been put into service are exempt from the EU drivers’ hours rules and so do not need to use a tachometer. However, drivers of these vehicles would need to comply with the GB domestic drivers’ hours rules, which restrict driving to 10 hours a day with a duty limit of 11 hours a day. Obviously, for enforcement, without the tachometer we are very much dependent on intelligence. I have passed the noble Lord’s information back to the various authorities to pursue. Intelligence is an important part of enforcement here. We also rely heavily on whistleblowers. Drivers are encouraged to report any breaches of these rules to the DVSA on its helpline, which is 0300 123 9000. All calls will be treated in confidence and driver anonymity is ensured. I will confirm to the noble Lord the various processes that follow on from the receipt of that information.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, is the explanation of the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the very powerful attraction of Edinburgh?
Baroness Kramer
I cannot deny the attractions of Edinburgh, but I suspect the answer is more nefarious.
Lord Snape (Lab)
Can the Minister tell the House how many people are employed countrywide in the enforcement of these regulations? How many prosecutions have there been under these regulation over the past 12 months? If she does not have that information to hand, I would be happy to read about it in Hansard.
Baroness Kramer
I will be delighted to follow up with any gaps. The noble Lord will be aware that an important task force in London, the new Industrial HGV Task Force, which is made up of eight officers from VOSA and eight from the Metropolitan Police, was launched in September 2013. That has been extremely effective in increasing enforcement. The task force is running a whole series of exercises. Between 1 October and 27 June, it stopped 2,798 vehicles: 764 were compliant—about 27%;—1,232 prohibitions were issued; 724 fixed-penalty notices were issued; and 35 vehicles were seized. Somewhere here, if I can find it, I have more general information; I will write to the noble Lord with that.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
Can the Minister tell the House whether she has information about how many people have been killed or seriously injured by drivers who were driving outside the limits, and whether for the latest year—if figures are available—she has any evidence of what happens to such drivers?
Baroness Kramer
Accidents that involve HGVs have been falling for the past five years, although slowly. In 2013, there were 6,524 reported accidents, of which 270 were fatal. That has fallen by 8% since 2009. Where evidence exists to show that an HGV driver is at fault, he is reported for prosecution. We do not hold the numbers of those prosecuted and the results of those prosecutions, but we will refer that to the Home Office to see whether it has further detail.
Lord Vinson (Con)
My Lords, 90% of goods in this country are delivered by road most efficiently. That is ever likely to be so because the alternative—to send them by rail—is a three-stage journey that is entirely uneconomic in a small country such as ours. Therefore, will the Minister resist any pressure to raise transport costs, which affect us all, particularly when advocated by members of the rail lobby?
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord’s question is rather out of scope. Safety on the roads is an issue on which we have to be both vigilant and effective.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness’s answers were rather too long for the House. However, they were not too long for me, because I agreed with them.
Baroness Kramer
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, for his support.
Baroness Sharples (Con)
Is my noble friend aware that I had a heavy goods vehicle licence during the war, and that there were no restrictions at that time?
Baroness Kramer
However, I am sure that there were also no accidents or breaking of the rules.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, the Question was about the use of trade plates and in what circumstances truckers would want to use them. Is there not a restriction on the amount of time they can run on trade plates?
Baroness Kramer
I will write to the noble Lord with more detail on that. This is about vehicles that have not yet been put into service, so the various restrictions are around that. I will send him more detail on that.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, at what point does the Minister think she will be in a position to mandate the use of sensors on HGVs to detect cyclists? It cannot be done immediately, but at some point we should be able to do that. When does she think she will be able to do that?
Baroness Kramer
The noble Earl is quite right that that will be an important safety development. At the moment the sensor equipment we have that reliably detects other vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists is still in development. Unfortunately, some of the systems treat a tree as if it were a cyclist, and of course, once you get wrong information, the driver begins to ignore it. Therefore we are pursuing these issues very rapidly, and the department will welcome any uptake of effective systems by vehicle owners. However, vehicle registration is at the EU level, and mandatory fitment will need to be agreed with the other member states.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister consider amending the construction and use regulations to remove the exemption for skip lorries and cement mixing lorries from the requirement to have a safety bar? These are the vehicles which are killing many bicycle riders now.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, there are constraints on some of these vehicles, but the noble Baroness is right to say that there are special vehicles which are exempt. We have been looking at reducing those exemptions, and I will be glad to keep her up to date with where that process is going.
Faith Group Relationships
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Carrington of Fulham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they plan to take to improve the relationship between the Muslim community and other faith groups in the United Kingdom.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)
My Lords, the Department for Communities and Local Government published its strategy Creating the Conditions for Integration in 2012. This sets out the work of the Government and other organisations in helping to create the right conditions for everybody in society to participate. The Government are supporting projects to break down barriers, encourage community cohesion and celebrate what we have in common.
Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. With some young British Muslims being radicalised, does she agree that it is very important that they are taught at a very young age, either in school or elsewhere, to understand the similarities between all religions, in particular the shared values of the Abrahamic religions, so they can understand that Christianity and Judaism are not the enemies of Islam? Can she suggest the best way to make this come about?
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, it is important that all people, especially young people, have an understanding of the diverse communities in which we live, including different faith communities. My noble friend may be heartened to know from surveys, including a DCLG survey from a few years ago, that 90% of Muslims agreed that people from different backgrounds get on well, as opposed to 87% of the general population; 89% of Muslims agreed that it is possible to fully belong to Britain and maintain a religious identity, compared to 72% of the general population; and 74% of Muslims believe that there should be more mixing between different communities and different ethnic and religious groups, compared to 71% of the general public.
Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister say what plans the Government have to work with the media to encourage them to stop publishing demonising articles about whole communities because of the actions of a handful of terrorists?
Baroness Warsi
As an ex-chairman of the Conservative Party, I wish I could get the media to stop publishing demonising articles. The noble Lord raises an incredibly important point. One of the strands of the work of the cross-government group on anti-Muslim hatred is looking at how we can work with the Society of Editors, among others, to ensure that headlines are, first and foremost, not sensational, but secondly, reflective of facts.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
Does the Minister agree that in many parts of the country, relations between Muslims and other faith communities are extremely good? This was true in the diocese of Oxford when I was there and continues to be so. Because of the good relationships between faith leaders, including Muslim leaders, it has been possible to dissipate many potential signs of trouble.
Baroness Warsi
The noble and right reverend Lord makes an incredibly important point. I am incredibly proud of the work that the Government have done in harnessing the power of faith groups to create that understanding. One flagship has been the Near Neighbours programme. The Government have invested £8.5 million since the start of this Government in the Church of England’s Church Urban Fund, using the network of the Church of England to create better understanding between different faith communities.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister tell the House if she thinks that the Government’s approach in dealing with the so-called Trojan horse issue is a help or a hindrance in the fight to tackle extremism in this country?
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point; everything that we do in tackling extremism must be done in a way that actually resolves extremism. Our language, our policy approach and our conduct must satisfy the end goal rather than the process.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, would the Minister take the opportunity to pay condolences to the family of the student Nahid al-Manea, who was brutally murdered on the streets of England? Does she accept that some of these very brutal attacks and the rise of Islamophobia are real reasons why some young people are resistant to working across different faith groups? I agree that an enormous amount of work has been done in this country. Would the Minister accept that England’s record in the arena of multifaith work is second to none?
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, the issue of anti-Muslim hatred and Islamophobia is something that I have personally championed. One of the first speeches that I gave in government was about Islamophobia. I used the phrase, “Islamophobia has passed the dinner-table test”—and probably still bear the scars of it. It is important that we fight this new form of hate crime and that the Government have, rightly, invested in projects such as Tell MAMA, to record and make sure the data on anti-Muslim hate crime are accurate and credible.
It is important to make another point; we have been here before. There have been moments in our history when we have not been entirely comfortable with a faith community and we have questioned the loyalty of faith communities, whether that was the Jewish or the Catholic community. But our trust in our institutions and values has got us through it—and we will get through it again.
Lord Scott of Foscote (CB)
My Lords, I have an interest on this Question because one of my two sons has become a Muslim and one of my two daughters has become a Muslim. I have 12 lovely grandchildren, seven of whom are little Muslims—or not that little now, because one of them is 21. And, of course, I have a Muslim son-in-law and a Muslim daughter-in-law. Family relationships since those events took place have been as happily familial, as close and as good as any parent or grandparent could wish. If an improvement is needed in relationships between faith groups, one way of promoting that might be to encourage interfaith marriages.
Baroness Warsi
First and foremost, my Lords, it is important that we allow people to marry somebody of their choosing, whatever faith they belong to. That is why I am incredibly proud that the Government have done so much work on the issue of forced marriages, including criminalising a practice that should have been criminalised many years ago.
NHS: Rural General Practitioner Dispensing
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lea of Crondall
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will hold talks with NHS England about steps that could be taken to slow down the closure of rural dispensing general practitioner practices, against the background of the operation of the one-mile rule covering new free-standing pharmacies, and the phased withdrawal of the minimum practice income guarantee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
I and my ministerial colleagues are in regular contact with NHS England. We are not aware of significant closures of rural dispensing practices. The “one-mile rule” is a long-established precept under NHS pharmaceutical services legislation, which determines whether patients in designated rural areas remain eligible to receive dispensing services from their GP. We have no plans to review or amend that precept. NHS England is asking practices that believe they may be adversely affected by the phased withdrawal of the minimum practice income guarantee scheme to contact their local area team to discuss their concerns.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that reply, but the British Medical Association, at its conference last week, produced a statement citing NHS England as expecting scores of closures of such dispensing practices. I have a supplementary question and a proposal, but I think that the House may find it useful if I give the background.
Lord Lea of Crondall
Given the loss of income from the double whammy of what is called the one-mile rule and the phased withdrawal of the minimum practice income guarantee, many practices will go below the red line of viability. Will the Minister therefore hold talks with NHS England and suggest that, when there is such a double whammy, the one-mile radius rule could be applied to new patients but not to existing patients—so numbers would be reduced through mortality over the years?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the phasing out of the minimum practice income guarantee is being gradually implemented over seven years to give adequate time for GP practices to adjust. In fact, most practices stand to gain under that arrangement. I would encourage any practice to take the matter up with the local area team at NHS England if it has particular concerns. The provisions governing whether a doctor can continue to provide dispensing services to eligible patients when a new pharmacy opens nearby, which is a separate issue, have been in place for a long time and are subject to a long-standing agreement. If an application for a new NHS pharmacy is made to NHS England that would affect, for example, the noble Lord’s dispensing practice, that practice is able to make its views known. There is an appeals process as well. If a new pharmacy were approved that does affect the practice’s dispensing patients, it is open to NHS England to phase in gradually the shift from using the practice’s dispensary to a pharmacy for those patients affected.
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that this agreement arose from the 1911 Act—well over 100 years ago—and that there is extreme unrest among patients who are forced to go to a pharmacy when they have been used to using a dispensing doctor? Does the Minister intend to continue subsidising what are known as essential small pharmacies and not give patients a choice?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I do not think that it is a question of opposing choice against the rules that we have in place. The rules are there as a result of very long-standing agreements between the medical profession and the pharmacists. I do not think that there is an appetite on either side to open those rules up for renegotiation. A balance has to be struck somewhere and the professions are content with the balance that has been struck.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, given that half of patients who use dispensing GP services include at least one person over 65 and that one in six is a disabled person, can the Minister tell us whether the one-mile rule makes sense in very rural areas, where public transport may be very sketchy, especially as the one-mile rule is as the crow flies, not via the roads?
Earl Howe
My noble friend makes a good point. That is why the rules contain an exception for those who find it difficult to travel and who may therefore wish to have medicines dispensed from their own dispensing GP practice. Those rules do apply to disabled people and to those whom my noble friend describes.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister not regard it as somewhat ironic that yesterday we had the Government trumpeting their Deregulation Bill but today he defends what essentially is an uneasy truce between the BMA and the pharmaceutical interest, in which often the public are the losers? Is it not time for that to be reviewed again?
Viscount Tenby (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for the assurances that the Minister has given so far in respect of possible closures as a result of the change in the financial arrangements and also, of course, of developments in towns, which inevitably result in the creation of new general practices and new associated pharmacies. On the question of rural practices where a proportion of patients are very old indeed, I ask the Minister to reiterate that great care will be taken that they will not be disadvantaged in any way by the future arrangements.
Earl Howe
Yes¸ my Lords. As I have described, there is a provision in the rules to take account of elderly and infirm people who find it difficult to travel and who may therefore still wish to have their medicines dispensed by their own dispensing GP rather than be forced to travel a longer distance.
South Sudan
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the concerns expressed by the Disasters Emergency Committee over the prospect of famine in South Sudan.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, the humanitarian situation in South Sudan is extremely critical and could get dramatically worse due to existing vulnerabilities and the unpredictability of the current conflict: 4 million people are at immediate risk of food insecurity and up to 7.3 million people are estimated to be at some risk. Should harvests fail, famine in late 2014 is a very real possibility in conflict-affected areas.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for a very comprehensive and encouraging analysis of where we are in South Sudan. However, in view of the grim predictions made by the Disasters Emergency Committee, does she agree that the international community has to do more, provide more funding to ensure that we can make a difference and act very quickly to avert a catastrophic famine? She will know that humanitarian access is a major obstacle facing relief agencies working in South Sudan. What are the Government doing to press for greater humanitarian access to be granted by all parties in the conflict in South Sudan, including cross-border access?
Baroness Northover
The noble Baroness shows great understanding of the situation in South Sudan. As she rightly points out, the key to this is the conflict there. That is at the heart of why there is a problem—and why there is a problem with access. She rightly highlights the difficulty of getting aid in. We are working very hard on logistics with the UN, the ICRC and international NGOs to try to get assistance in through air transport and other means but it is proving extremely difficult. Clearly, the cessation of hostilities would be the key to sorting this out.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, considering that fewer than half the pledges made at the Oslo conference in May have been honoured, should not the Disasters Emergency Committee write to the defaulters pointing out that, if they paid up, the shortfall of $1 billion needed to avert famine in Sudan would be cut by a third? Why are the BRIC countries and the oil-rich Gulf states missing from the list of 26 contributors to the crisis response plan?
Baroness Northover
First, I am immensely glad to see my noble friend back in his place and, as ever, fighting for the rights of the vulnerable.
Baroness Northover
The Oslo conference, at which my honourable friend Lynne Featherstone worked very hard to secure contributions, did indeed produce firm commitments from international donors. We entirely agree that the pledges should be honoured and we welcome any steps taken in that regard. As regards the one my noble friend has just suggested in relation to the DEC, we would certainly welcome it taking such a move. On his second point, he is right: we constantly seek to expand the number of contributor countries.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, given that the whole of South Sudan is mired in violence and, indeed, corruption, what confidence does the noble Baroness have that the aid will reach the people it is meant to reach and will not be subverted for other purposes? Will she also comment on the reports published yesterday that the situation in the north is also deteriorating, with 5 million people there now suspected of being at risk of famine?
Baroness Northover
The noble Lord is quite right to point to these challenges. He will probably also know that the EU should be bringing forward a sanctions regime shortly, which we support. The United Nations is also looking at that because it is extremely important that problems such as looting are dealt with and that anyone who is getting in the way of the delivery of humanitarian aid is properly challenged and tackled.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, the situation is dire. As well as the 4 million people in need of humanitarian aid, more than 10,000 people have already been killed and 1.4 million people have been displaced. When we are facing such terrible problems it is important not to underestimate the role played by various agencies already on the ground, including many Anglican and ecumenical agencies working with the Anglican Alliance. Indeed, Archbishop Daniel Deng has been a leader in the efforts to bring peace. How can Her Majesty’s Government support the churches working on the ground in their humanitarian and peace efforts and in delivering aid?
Baroness Northover
I too pay tribute to those who are working in these extremely difficult circumstances. The right reverend Prelate will know that the United Kingdom is a leading donor. We are meeting about 7.5% of the total appeal at the moment and working to support all the agencies that are managing to get in. We do not underestimate the difficulties.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Disasters Emergency Committee. Does the noble Baroness agree that it is essential to flag up and respond to these complex and developing crises, which can be just as devastating if not as instantly newsworthy as the sudden catastrophic natural disaster?
Baroness Northover
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Of course it is the fact that this is a very fragile state which leads to the problems that we are indentifying here. It is one of the reasons too why it is important to act early and to plan ahead, which the United Kingdom is seeking to do.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
Does the noble Baroness agree that the key players in this future operation will be Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia, which is receiving hundreds of thousands of refugees already? What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to back up those resources on the border?
Baroness Northover
We are concerned about not only those in South Sudan but obviously those who have been displaced into the neighbouring countries, who indeed have a destabilising influence. We are supporting both those within South Sudan and those in the neighbouring countries, and are very concerned about the instability caused by that.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I pick up a theme that has already been partly covered. People in this country respond generously to disasters when they happen. Here we know that a disaster is going to happen and that millions may die; they have not died yet. Can we have an assurance from the Government that they will act now rather than wait for a disaster to happen?
Baroness Northover
I assure the noble Lord that not only are we acting now but we were one of the leaders in putting into place plans in anticipation of what might happen. We took very seriously the advice that was put forward a year or two ago about being early responders, and are implementing that.
Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
That the draft regulations and order laid before the House on 3 April and 5 June be approved.
Relevant documents: 1st and 2nd Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instruments). Considered in Grand Committee on 1 July.
Jobseeker’s Allowance (Supervised Jobsearch Pilot Scheme) Regulations 2014
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4 June be approved.
Relevant documents: 2nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 2nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 1 July.
Serious Crime Bill [HL]
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, this is a tiddler of an amendment, which it is embarrassing to move if there are noble Lords waiting for enlightenment about the philosophy and underlying architecture of the Bill. I have succeeded in imprisoning a number of my noble friends up here, because I was unable to find anywhere closer to the front.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords—while my noble friend takes her seat—we are now in the second day in Committee on this Bill. Admittedly a smallish number of Peers are seeking to take part, but that number take the Bill very seriously. I am sure that, like me, they would like to hear from my noble friend Lady Hamwee as she moves her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. This amendment relates to an interpretation provision. In Clause 35, new subsection (6B) provides for what:
“References to property or a pecuniary advantage”,
mean in the context of the proceeds of crime. It seems to me that in that legislation and in the legislation that we are amending, some references to property or advantage would be to the whole of it—for instance, if the property is to be subject to confiscation—while some would be to the extent of what has been obtained by a criminal act, for instance the amount confiscated. My amendment really amounts to a question to the Minister as to whether to take it that we should read what is appropriate in the context. In other words, is what I have said implicit and am I worrying about something quite unnecessarily? The second of these examples—in other words, a limited extent—seems not to be provided for in the clause. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
Perhaps I may help my noble friend and reassure her because Clause 35 deals with a technical amendment to the Proceeds of Crime Act, which will expand the types of cases that UK authorities can deal with on behalf of their international counterparts. The Proceeds of Crime Act currently enables, among other things, requests and orders made by courts in other jurisdictions to be given effect in the United Kingdom. One such order is that allowing for the recovery of specified property or money where that property or money is believed to have been obtained as a result of, or in connection with, criminal conduct. The scope of the order is therefore restricted solely to the recovery of specific property or money.
Domestic law, by contrast, recognises that the proceeds of crime can include not just specific money or property but a so-called pecuniary advantage, such as not paying a tax that is lawfully due. The reason that pecuniary advantage was not originally included within the assistance that could be provided to other jurisdictions was due to the scope of international agreements at the time when the Proceeds of Crime Act was enacted. In recent years, however, the international approach has broadened but the law has not kept pace. As a result, law enforcement agencies are unable to assist those in other jurisdictions in recovering from a defendant convicted of crimes such as tax evasion amounts held in the United Kingdom.
I am sure that my noble friend agrees that it is right that we should be able to co-operate as widely as possible in such matters; this clause will help us achieve that. The clause does not affect the position with regard to domestic cases. However, it extends our ability to assist foreign jurisdictions with the recovery of any pecuniary advantage obtained as a result of criminal conduct. I hope that, with that explanation, I have satisfied my noble friend and she will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, this is one of those occasions when one wants to hold back and read the answer, which is not at all to suggest that I doubt my noble friend. Of course, I share the intention and I am grateful to him for that. I will read the answer but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) In section 97 (confiscation orders by magistrates’ courts), for subsection (1) substitute—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall by order make provision for enabling confiscation orders under Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (confiscation: England and Wales) to be made by magistrates’ courts in England and Wales.””
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, my amendment is concerned with confiscation orders in magistrates’ courts. Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, magistrates’ courts lost their power to make confiscation orders. They had previously had this power for appropriate offences under the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Magistrates continue to this day to have responsibility for the enforcement of confiscation orders.
Section 97 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 gave the Secretary of State power to make provision for magistrates’ courts in England and Wales to impose confiscation fines of up to £10,000. This would have to be done by means of an affirmative instrument. While Section 97 has been brought into force, it only gave the Secretary of State the power to make provision by order. In the intervening nine years, this has not happened. Given that magistrates used to have this power, and continue to play a role in the non-payment of confiscation orders, I can see no reason why this should not be taken forward.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, both my Amendments 31A and 31B would delete wording, but they enable me to ask a question. The Secretary of State, and in the case of Northern Ireland, the Department of Justice, have the power to make an order to substitute a different amount for the maximum amount of the confiscation order which can be made by a magistrates’ court. Can the Minister give the Committee an assurance that the Secretary of State will consult before such an order is made? I appreciate that it is not in his gift to give any assurance on behalf of the Department of Justice, but he might be able to make a comment, because I know that the Government have been in touch with the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, as the Proceeds of Crime Act currently operates, a confiscation order may only be made by the Crown Court. As a result, if someone is convicted of an offence in the magistrates’ court and the Bench considers the case is appropriate for a confiscation hearing, the matter must be referred to the Crown Court. This is clearly not the most effective use of resources for handling simple cases. As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, notes, there is already legislation on the statute book that would enable the Home Secretary to modify Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act so as to enable confiscation orders to be made in a magistrates’ court in cases where the criminal benefit did not exceed £10,000. The relevant legislation can be found in Section 97 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
I can fully understand the frustration of the noble Lord, as a sitting magistrate, in having to refer all confiscation cases to the Crown Court when it would be perfectly possible for straightforward cases to be dealt with in the magistrates’ court, subject to that £10,000 threshold. The noble Lord is all the more frustrated given that the legislation to allow magistrates’ courts to make confiscation orders has been on the statute book for almost 10 years, as he pointed out. The provision in Section 97 of the 2005 Act had, of course, already been on the statute book for five years when this Government came to office. Like the previous Administration, we judged that there were other priorities for improving the asset recovery regime and responding to serious and organised crime, including the setting up of the National Crime Agency. However, we are now working towards enabling magistrates’ courts to make confiscation orders, including putting in place the necessary judicial training from spring 2015.
Given that we are now actively working to implement a scheme empowering magistrates to make confiscation orders, I hope the noble Lord will agree that his amendment, which places a duty rather than a power on the Home Secretary to make such a scheme, is unnecessary. I would be happy to update the noble Lord in the autumn on progress in this area. On that note, I hope that he will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Turning to Amendments 31A and 31B, my noble friend Lady Hamwee indicated that her intention was not to remove the power to vary the £10,000 limit by order but simply to seek an assurance that there would be proper consultation before the order-making power was exercised.
Generally, our approach is that magistrates’ courts should be able to make confiscation orders only in less serious cases. However, there may be situations in which the defendant has been convicted in the magistrates’ court but is potentially liable to an order greater than £10,000. Such a case would still need to be sent to the Crown Court to be dealt with. The order-making power in the clause allows for the £10,000 threshold to be varied if the evidence following implementation shows that the limit is generally too low.
Once we have brought into effect the provisions allowing for confiscation orders to be made in magistrates’ courts, we will keep the arrangements under close review. I assure my noble friend that before any change is made we will consult with the senior judiciary, the Magistrates’ Association and other practitioners as to whether the £10,000 threshold can sensibly be raised.
I also remind my noble friend that this order-making power is subject to the affirmative procedure, so any change would need to be considered and approved by both Houses. I hope that with these comments I have been able to provide my noble friend with the assurance she is seeking.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that answer. I think we got half a step forward. She said that there would be training in 2015 but could not quite go all the way and say when magistrates would actually receive these powers. Nevertheless, as I said, this was a probing amendment. I have got a little bit more information so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, Amendment 31C is a small probing amendment. There is a definition in the clause of “a country or territory”, which provides that references to them include,
“the territorial sea adjacent to a country or territory”.
My amendment would change that to “territorial waters”. I simply ask how extensive is territorial sea that is adjacent? It must be less than territorial waters. The natural meaning of adjacent, I would have thought, is “very close to the land”. Why is there a limit and what is the limit? I would guess that this is relevant in the context of the clause about computer misuse to damage to such things as wind turbines and oil rigs, and perhaps, in a transport context, ferries and maybe fishing. I am sure there is a list of matters. I am fairly unclear as to what the clause means. If my noble friend can help, so much the better. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I hope I can clarify things to my noble friend’s satisfaction. As we know, cybercrime has a global reach; a perpetrator sitting in their bedroom in London could be hacking into a computer system anywhere in the world. The new offence acknowledges this reality and captures serious damage caused in any country. The clause goes on to define a reference to “country” as including a reference to a “territory” and to,
“(i) any place in, or part or region of, a country or territory;
(ii) the territorial sea adjacent to a country or territory”.
It is the last of these three points that my noble friend’s amendment seeks to address, and she raises a very interesting point.
The Territorial Sea Act 1987 specifies that the breadth of the territorial sea adjacent to the UK is 12 nautical miles. I can therefore reassure my noble friend that this form of words does not mean, as one might usually expect, the sea very close to the coastline, but captures the full 12 nautical miles of territorial water surrounding the UK.
However, the position will not be the same for all countries. Although the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea sets 12 nautical miles as a maximum for territorial waters, some states may have chosen a smaller limit. The boundary line for a country’s territorial waters will be governed by its own laws and by international agreements and conventions. The non-specific language in the Bill reflects this variation. Where the damage is caused in the UK the territorial sea adjacent to the country will be the 12 nautical miles around the UK. Where the damage is in another country we would expect the court to take into account the laws of the country in question, together with any relevant international conventions, such as the UN convention, and any other agreements, in determining the territorial sea’s breadth. I hope that my noble friend has found this explanation helpful and that she will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Elton (Con)
Can my noble friend say whether territorial waters and a territorial sea adjacent to a country are normally co-terminous? My noble friend referred to some countries defining a territorial sea as extending less than 12 nautical miles, but she did not say whether it was less than the territorial waters of the country. I hope that is not too arcane.
Baroness Hamwee
My question was very similar—perhaps I will put it in a slightly different way. The explanation as I heard it is that this is about territorial waters. The language used seems to be that which is used to define territorial waters, whichever country one is talking about. However, it seems that there is no difference between the territorial sea adjacent to somewhere and the territorial waters. To give the Minister slightly more breathing space, perhaps I can also ask her to explain what a “territory” is, as distinct from a “country”?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, to answer my noble friend’s question last, and hopefully throw light on my other noble friend’s question: a “territory” is a geographical concept, the land and sea over which a state has jurisdiction. A country’s land mass may be divided into several territories, so the state of a country may also have jurisdiction over far-flung territories. For example, the state of the country of the United Kingdom has jurisdiction over various overseas territories, such as the British Virgin Islands. However, it is a matter for each state to determine, subject to the 12-mile limit. I hope I have not further confused the House.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, I hope to make a marginally relevant point. Is it not the case that by now the whole concept of a belt of territorial jurisdiction, 12 miles out from land, has been outdistanced by the realities of time? Grotius, I believe, was the international lawyer, who, many centuries ago, advocated a three-mile limit. Why? Because that was the range of a powerful cannon in those days. Then, ordnance became more and more powerful. Today, 12 miles is nothing in relation to the power of ordnance. Should not the whole question of the 12 miles therefore be eradicated?
Lord Swinfen (Con)
Before my noble friend answers that question, might I ask whether our gas and oil rigs and our large, hideous windmills that are beyond the 12-mile limit are within our territorial waters? If so, do not our territorial waters in some instances stretch very much further, and have we not claimed areas out into the Atlantic within the continental shelf in order to protect our own oil rights? Is the limit not much greater than 12 miles?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
Perhaps I can help on that. The law of the sea gives a territory an exclusive economic zone of 200 miles, which covers such things as mineral rights, wind farms and so on. Territorial waters are quite different: it is where jurisdiction is exercised over people within territorial waters. The limit is still 12 miles. Occasionally, it may be less if it overlaps with another country’s 12 miles, as it would, for example, in the Channel, where a median line is drawn between the United Kingdom and France.
Lord Swinfen
If my noble friend will forgive me, if we have territorial rights that are limited to only 12 miles, who has jurisdiction over the gas and oil rigs that are further out than 12 miles? Are they outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom? If a crime is committed on them, is it not a free-for-all?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank my noble friend Lord Bourne for very helpfully clarifying the issue over mineral rights et cetera. If a crime took place on an oil rig, windmill or anything out to sea, it would be a matter for whichever country had a flag on it. I hope that clarifies the matter in respect of anything that might be in any sea anywhere in the world.
On whether the 12-nautical mile radius should still stand, I do not think that that is a question for today. The fact is that it does stand.
Lord Elton
My Lords, I was hoping to protract the glory of this small question, but I think that I had better sit down in order to wrestle with my machine that is bleeping.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, after the tutorial that we have had from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, I feel that I should just say that I surrender—but, before I do so, I will comment that it would be easier if the Bill were to refer to each country’s territorial waters as that country has determined, rather than using what appears to be general language without making reference to the technicalities. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister, who no doubt now knows a great deal more about territorial waters than she really ever wanted to. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
The Question is that Clause 37 stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
Should we not be debating whether Clause 37 should stand part?
Lord Swinfen
My Lords, the Lord Speaker put the Question that Clause 37 stand part of the Bill and it was accepted by the Committee. We are now on to the next amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I will speak also to my Amendment 31H. Perhaps I should speak slowly to give the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, an opportunity to work out how to make her points in the debate on this clause.
In Clause 39, Amendment 31D would omit subsection (4) and Amendment 31H would omit subsection (7), both of which refer to a case in which the accused is in one country and the offence is linked to another jurisdiction, which will very often be the case when there is computer misuse. My amendments are probing; I am asking my noble friend whether there is a risk that a person could be prosecuted for the same act in more than one jurisdiction, and how it should be determined which jurisdiction takes precedence. Obviously, this point arises not only in connection with the Bill and the new offences, so I am not raising a novel point, but it would be very helpful to the House to understand how that conflict might be determined—I use the term “conflict” somewhat hesitantly as, technically, it is not a conflict—when more than one jurisdiction is involved. The first of these two amendments refers to the UK and the second to Scotland. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am grateful to my noble friend for the explanation of her amendments. I believe that I can provide the reassurance that she seeks. I know that a number of noble Lords are interested in this issue; indeed, it was raised in the House at Second Reading.
It might help if I briefly explain why we are making the amendments to the Computer Misuse Act in Clause 39 and then set out the safeguards against subjecting a person to double jeopardy. As the Committee is well aware, cybercrime is a serious threat that often crosses international boundaries. The Computer Misuse Act already recognises the transnational nature of cybercrime and provides for the extraterritorial jurisdiction of certain of the offences under the Act where there is a significant link to the United Kingdom.
Clause 37 adds nationality to the categories of significant linkage to the UK. This means that a UK national would be committing a computer misuse offence while outside the UK even where there was no link to the UK other than nationality, provided that the offence was also an offence in the country where it took place. Therefore, in the case of concurrent jurisdiction, a UK national could be prosecuted under the Computer Misuse Act in the UK subject to the usual extradition arrangements or the accused voluntarily returning to the UK.
Decisions about prosecution rest with the Director of Public Prosecutions. It would be for prosecutors in the affected jurisdictions to negotiate where the prosecution should take place. For example, in the EU, Eurojust was established to deal with criminality that extends over borders, and it has guidelines to help prosecutors decide where a case should best be tried. There is a similar protocol agreed by the Attorneys-General of the US and the UK for cases that in theory could be tried by either jurisdiction. The Crown Prosecution Service has domestic guidelines that its prosecutors are expected to follow to help them decide whether to bring a prosecution in the UK or cede jurisdiction to another state with an interest.
My noble friend is rightly concerned to ensure that an individual cannot be prosecuted in both jurisdictions where there is a concurrent jurisdiction. This is a risk that the existing guidance and agreed processes have been designed to manage. Using the UK and Clause 39 as an example, a UK national could commit a number of Computer Misuse Act offences in country B even if the criminality did not impact on the UK. As I described, the way in which we would expect this to work is that the prosecutors in the UK and country B would decide where to pursue the prosecution. In the absence of country B taking forward a prosecution, the UK could take one forward and would need to go through the extradition process to return the subject to the UK. If the case was prosecuted and the sentence served in country B, and the subject returned to the UK, the UK could not then take forward its own proceedings. Double jeopardy would prevent the subject being prosecuted for the same offence in the UK.
It is important to note that the extraterritorial scope of the offences in question does not place any requirements for the offences to be prosecuted here, especially in cases where the offence has taken place outside the UK and the only link to the UK is the nationality of the subject. Similarly, if the subject was outside the UK, the usual extradition procedures would be followed where prosecutors agreed that the prosecution should be pursued in the UK. I trust that that provides the assurance that my noble friend is seeking and that she will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, that was very helpful. I may have missed this, in which case I apologise, but I take it that the arrangements to which the Minister referred at the beginning of her reply deal with where the prosecution actually takes place and the decision between two states as to who takes the lead.
“(2A) A sheriff shall have jurisdiction in respect of an offence under section 3ZA above if—
(a) the accused was in the sheriffdom at the time when he did the unauthorised act (or caused it to be done), or (b) the computer in relation to which the unauthorised act was done was in the sheriffdom at that time.”
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, this is a technical amendment. Clause 39 extends the extraterritorial jurisdiction of certain offences under the Computer Misuse Act 1990. In doing so, the clause amends Section 13 of the 1990 Act, which relates to criminal proceedings in Scotland, to establish the criteria for when a sheriff court has jurisdiction to try certain offences under that Act. Our amendments to Clause 39(6) and (7) extend these provisions so that they also apply to the new Section 3ZA offence—inserted into the 1990 Act by Clause 37—of impairing a computer such as to cause serious damage. I beg to move.
“Annual reports: cyber-crime strategy
(1) The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 12 (annual reports), after subsection (7) insert—
“(8) A report under this section must include details of the policing body’s strategy to deal with cyber-crime.””
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I apologise if there has been some confusion. When the Question was whether Clause 37 should stand part of the Bill, I was loath to say no because, although I gave notice of my intention to oppose the Question, I really have no intention of opposing the clause. As noble Lords will agree, one way to have a general debate on the principle of an issue, rather than its individual parts, is to raise a clause stand part debate.
At the same time as moving Amendment 31K, which would require the annual reports of police authorities and police and crime commissioners to contain a statement on how they are tackling cybercrime, I will make some general comments on cybercrime and computer misuse. This is a probing amendment. The Bill amends the 1990 Act to create a new offence of unauthorised acts that cause serious damage, to implement the EU directive on attacks against information systems and to clarify the savings provisions for law enforcement. We have no difficulties with those provisions, but we wish to have a general debate and promote a discussion on whether the Government are doing enough or whether the Bill could go further and provide better and more effective protection from cybercrime.
Noble Lords may be aware that we also sought to table an amendment to create a new offence of identity theft. We have raised this issue with the Government before because it needs new legislation. We were disappointed that the Government did not take the opportunity to include something along those lines in the Bill. Noble Lords will know that, within cybercrime, identity theft causes a great deal of concern and affects a large number of people. However, it was not included in the Bill and, unfortunately, our amendment to address this was not in scope. I am sure we will return to this issue another time but, when dealing with cybercrime now, it is important to look at and address the loopholes in existing legislation.
There is little doubt that digital technology and the internet have changed our lives and provided us with new opportunities. However, they also create new challenges and provide new opportunities for criminals. Returning to the theme of Al Capone, even his creative criminal mind could not have imagined the opportunities that would be available to his successors in the 21st century. A recent HMIC report says that this could either be,
“where criminals use computers to help them commit crimes that would have been committed previously without the benefit of such technology, for example fraud and theft, or where they commit new crimes that were not possible before”,
or were not even thought of,
“such as an attack on government online services using ‘malicious software’”.
Recorded incidents of fraud have increased by a quarter over the past year but convictions have gone down. However, business crime—which surveys indicate is going up—is not counted in official figures despite online crime exploding.
The consumer watchdog Which? estimates that half of us have been targeted by online scams. Anyone who looks religiously through their spam in the parliamentary e-mail system will see scams offering services which I am sure most of us, particularly the women, would not want to take advantage of. Recorded online fraud is up by 30% but that is just the tip of the iceberg, because most of it is never reported to the police.
The Home Affairs Select Committee concluded in its report last summer that,
“there appears to be a ‘black hole’ where e-crime is committed with impunity. Online criminal activity which defrauds victims of money is not reported to or investigated by law enforcement. Banks simply reimburse the victims with no pursuit of the perpetrators. Criminals who commit a high volume of low level fraud can still make huge profits”.
Many members of the public take out insurance with banks and other organisations to protect themselves against online crime and identity fraud. I have yet to understand how easy that is or how it pays out to a victim. Although they may get their money back, the inconvenience, distress and worry caused by it are tremendous.
Despite that, the Bill does not offer a coherent government plan for tackling online fraud and economic crime, even though it would have been an ideal opportunity to do so. Looking at large-scale cyberincidents, the recent HMIC report has some very worrying findings. Only three police forces, Derbyshire, Lincolnshire and West Midlands, have developed comprehensive cybercrime strategies. The rest of us who live in other areas have to rely on some kind of knowledge within the police force because there is no specific strategy. Only 15 forces have considered cybercrime threats in their strategic threat and risk assessments and, where those assessments exist, the plans focus only on investigating cybercrime and are silent about preventing it and protecting people from the harm that it causes. While the Government and PCCs are increasing their investment in regional organised crime units, those units have not yet developed the necessary cybercapacity to assist the police forces. That indicates that there needs to be a real debate around these issues. There need to be new plans, new strategies and new actions in place to tackle new threats. The police need to do more, not less, to tackle online fraud and crime.
I have outlined that there is no serious strategy and that fragmented forces lack the skills and organisational structure to be effective. The shadow Home Secretary has said previously that that has to involve better skills and that the police need to have the skills in this very specialised area. They need better organisation, and they also need to co-operate with the private sector. That needs to be part of strengthening the law on identity theft. We have seen that there is some good practice within the police, but it is patchy. If it is going to be effective, it needs to be universal. Ensuring that this issue is addressed in the annual report will focus greater attention on it and on the strategies and plans that have to be made. What does not have to be reported can be forgotten or added as an afterthought. If it is central to the PCC report, we will have some way of measuring the actions taken. The scale of the challenge is too great for it to be forgotten or an afterthought.
I am not suggesting that the report itself will effect a marvellous change overnight, but it will help to ensure that the importance of this issue is recognised. As well as the impact on business, there is growing recognition of the implications for national security and our national infrastructure and its resilience. The security services and GCHQ also recognise that they need to do more to tackle the growing number of cyberattacks and the effects they could have. That means building on the work being done with major public and private sector organisations because we have to ensure that they are resilient against hacking and major online onslaughts. We have also said that we want major reform of oversight functions and responsibilities and accountabilities, and we want a major overhaul of the system of independent oversight commissioners, stronger safeguards and a serious review of the legal framework, including a full review of RIPA.
These clauses are welcome. They have our support. The reason for Amendment 31K is evident. It is to try to raise the issue which is of such importance. I seek assurances from the Minister that the Government recognise just how much this is needed. I express some disappointment. We think the Bill is an opportunity to go further, do more and really address the issues of resilience, national infrastructure resilience and national security. We are disappointed that an important issue in this area—identity theft—is out of scope of the Bill so we cannot address it. We support what the Government are doing. We think there could be more. We would like more. We would like to work with the Government to achieve more. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)
My Lords, I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, said. The issue—if you can call it an issue as it is a series of issues—in relation to cybercrime could scarcely be of greater importance to our society. It is not just an economic crime of the greatest potential but a crime in all dimensions.
The only reservation I have about the amendment is whether it goes far enough. Besides having to deal with the strategy in relation to cybercrime, I would hope for something in the report about the extent of the implementation and enforcement of the laws we are passing and the laws we have already passed. It has become a commonplace in this House to remark upon the fact that we pass laws as if there is no tomorrow but fail again and again to implement the laws we pass. I therefore hope that the report will deal with that crucial aspect of the so-called strategy.
I am not clear as to whether we are in this group also now discussing whether Clause 37 shall stand part of the Bill. We are not? Right.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, when I first studied the Bill and saw that there were clauses relating to cybercrime as well as substantial parts focused on the problems of drugs, I thought that the sections on cybercrime would have something to offer on the development of the Government’s strategy to deal with our immense problems with drugs. However, I cannot see that there is any connection between these different parts of the Bill. That is a disappointment.
Will the Minister share with the House some of the thinking of the Home Office as to how it proposes to address the rapidly developing and immense problem of drugs-related cybercrime? As I noted at Second Reading, the internet has transformed the marketing and distribution of drugs, whether they are proscribed or whether they are new psychoactive substances that are not proscribed. It is now far easier for those who produce these substances and those who sell to be linked up with those who are interested in consuming them. Social networking has intensified this ease of communication. For example, I understand that it is not at all uncommon when party invitations are distributed by means of social networking that the message will contain a link to the point at which particular fashionable, newly arrived substances can be obtained.
This problem presents huge challenges to policing in terms of protecting the safety of all people, particularly young people. The Government and law enforcement agencies must be thinking very hard indeed about this. It would be helpful if the Minister would say, were he to accept my noble friend Lady Smith’s amendment, what he would expect to see in these annual reports on the subject of drugs-related cybercrime. We have social networking, which uses relatively familiar and accessible networks of communication, but there is of course the dark web. The Home Office must again be pondering and working very hard indeed to find ways in which it can even know what is going on on the dark web, let alone to police it. These are hugely important issues, and perhaps the noble Lord would share his thoughts on them with us.
Lord Swinfen
I also support the amendment. In doing so, I declare an interest: I run a medical charity that does all its work online, with doctors and nurses in 74 different countries. However, I am not so much worried about that, because I hope that our confidential information is secure. I am thinking of people using cybercrime to find their rivals’ pricing information and new product designs when tendering for various projects; in other words, hacking into other people’s and firms’ computers and getting confidential information for their own pecuniary and business advantage. This is an important amendment and I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will consider it sympathetically.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, to pick up on the point about drugs, it does not seem to me that they are necessarily excluded. The new section of the Computer Misuse Act deals with an act creating,
“a significant risk of, serious damage of a material kind”,
which includes “damage to human welfare”, which is in turn such as to cause, among other things, “loss to human life” or “human illness or injury”. All that links up very closely with what the noble Lord has been talking about. If what he has described is not covered, we will need to go back to Clause 39—but not today.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, has created a new parliamentary device. I had long heard of the paving amendment, but today she has moved a door-stop amendment. It has enabled us to discuss an important aspect of the Bill, and I am pleased that we have the chance at least to consider the clauses that are designed to deal with cybercrime.
The Government’s approach and the scale of the investment that we have made across law enforcement agencies to develop and strengthen the operational response are designed to combat that emerging and complex threat. In 2010, the national security strategy named hostile attacks on UK cyberspace by other states and large-scale cybercrime as a tier-one threat to national security. To put these provisions on computer misuse into context, they are principally aimed at that level. That means that for the Government cyber is regarded as on a par with international terrorism as regards the risks to our national security. The Government have responded to that threat by committing £860 million over five years to the national cybersecurity programme. So far, we have invested over £70 million of that funding to strengthen law enforcement’s ability to tackle cybercrime.
We know that a co-ordinated approach is needed to tackle serious and organised crime, including cybercrime. We set out how we plan to achieve that in the Serious and Organised Crime Strategy, and I think that the noble Baroness will find some of the thoughts of the Home Office in that document, which we launched in October last year. At the same time we launched the National Crime Agency, which leads the UK response to serious and organised crime. The National Cyber Crime Unit in the NCA was established to provide the national crime-fighting response to the most technologically sophisticated cybercrime.
The National Cyber Crime Unit therefore provides the focus for our national response to combating cybercriminals. It is using its increased operational resources to arrest those responsible and to prevent and otherwise disrupt their activities. The National Cyber Crime Unit is also investing in state-of-the-art equipment and specialist expertise, keeping pace with the criminals who threaten the public. It also uses the NCA’s enhanced intelligence picture to proactively pursue criminals, targeting them where they are most vulnerable and signposting the public towards advice on how to protect themselves. Approximately half the NCA’s officers are being trained in digital investigation skills. That shows that we recognise the significance of cybercrime in fighting serious crime in this country.
The National Cyber Crime Unit has already had an impact in pursuing those criminals and disrupting their activity. Examples include the recent operation with its international partners to disrupt the communications used by criminals to connect with computers that are infected with malicious software, or “malware”, such as GameOver Zeus and CryptoLocker.
However, the NCA and the National Cyber Crime Unit cannot tackle that threat alone. The policing response to national threats is set out in The Strategic Policing Requirement, which chief constables and police and crime commissioners must have regard to, and which recognises both cybercrime—as a form of organised crime—and a large-scale cyber incident as national threats that require a policing response. While police forces can draw on the support of the National Cyber Crime Unit, it is also vital to build force capability to tackle the cyberthreat locally. We have therefore also provided funding to support the creation of cybercrime units within eight of the regional organised crime units.
The cyberunits will support the National Cyber Crime Unit and also help local forces prosecute and disrupt cybercriminals. They are also building links with institutions such as this to understand better the threat we face and the best tools to use in response. This year we have offered £25 million to support regional organised crime units. With funding from the national cyber security programme, the College of Policing is investing in new courses to build cybercapabilities in local forces. The training will increase knowledge and understanding of cybercrime and how to investigate it. It includes four e-learning packages and classroom courses to train 5,000 officers by 2015.
Lastly, we are also funding Action Fraud and the “Be Cyber Streetwise” campaign so that the public have a clear single point of reporting if they are victims of cybercrime, in particular financially motivated cybercrime, and know how to protect themselves and so reduce the risk of becoming a victim of cybercrime—the identity theft that the noble Baroness mentioned. Turning to Action Fraud first, we have rationalised the reporting arrangement so that Action Fraud is now the national reporting service for fraud and financially motivated cybercrime. The public and businesses can use it to report online or by phone. All reports go through Action Fraud, which then passes the reports to the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau. Both are now run by the City of London Police, the country’s national lead force for fraud. In January the Government launched a “Be Cyber Streetwise” campaign, delivered in partnership with the private sector, to encourage individuals and small businesses to adopt safer online behaviours to help them better protect themselves.
Although we have included Clause 37 in the Bill, I shall say a little about the new offence therein to capture cyberattacks which cause, or create a significant risk of, serious damage. This was referred to by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. Improvements in technology have brought many benefits and the use of IT systems has increased exponentially since the Computer Misuse Act was passed in 1990. It is surprising that we are building on that Act of 1990—it was a far-seeing piece of legislation. However, as we rely more and more on computer systems, and as they become increasingly interlinked to deliver maximum benefits, the potential for a cyberattack to cause serious damage also increases.
It is now possible that a major cyberattack on essential systems—for example, those controlling power supply, communications or food distribution—could result in loss of life, serious illness or injury, serious damage to the economy, the environment or national security or severe social disruption. However, the existing offence of impairing a computer, currently the most serious of the Computer Misuse Act offences, carries a maximum sentence of only 10 years’ imprisonment. This does not adequately reflect the level of serious economic or personal harm that a serious cyberattack could now cause.
The new offence will apply where an unauthorised act in relation to a computer—that is “hacking”, in common parlance—results, directly or indirectly, in serious damage to human welfare, the environment, the economy or national security, or creates a significant risk of such damage. The offence will carry a maximum life sentence where the attack results in loss of life, serious illness or injury or serious attacks to national security. Where the attack results in serious economic or environmental damage or social disruption, the maximum sentence will be 14 years’ imprisonment. This offence will ensure that, in the event of serious cyberattack, a suitably serious offence will be available to the prosecution and a suitable sentence available to judges.
A number of other issues have been raised, and it may be helpful to noble Lords if I write a summary covering different aspects. Identity theft was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the drugs issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. We recognise concerns about the whole business of legal highs and their availability on the internet. The Minister for Crime Prevention, Norman Baker, is currently reviewing law in this area, and the House will have an opportunity to consider the review’s findings later this year. It would be helpful to use the opportunity of this debate about the particular aspect of cyber misuse that is of serious consequence for me to write to noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lady Hamwee. I would like to be able to reassure them on that point. Indeed, I think that my noble friend Lord Swinfen also raised a point that I would like to address in that way.
I hope that, given the reply that I have been able to make, and including those points in a more general discussion about this area, the noble Baroness will be in a position to withdraw her amendment. We have clauses in the Bill that address cybercrime and we have taken a significant step in recognising the importance of this to our national well-being.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I thank the Minister for what he said about drugs-related cybercrime. Will he also seek to offer the House some reassurance on a very major issue that he touched on? He emphasised the Government’s very proper concern to protect our critical national infrastructure against cybercrime. I believe that it is the case that a good deal of cybercrime emanates from China. The Government have just completed a negotiation with the Chinese whereby it is agreed that they will build our nuclear power stations. What reassurance can he give to us that we are going to be protected in the event of cybercrime coming from a Chinese source, conceivably in unfortunate diplomatic circumstances authorised by the Government in China? I appreciate that this goes beyond a routinely or merely criminal issue, but it seems exceedingly important to me—and something that the Government must have been thinking about. As he has been advising us on the Government’s measures and strategies to deal with cybercrime, perhaps he could also say something about that.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think that I said in my general speech in response to the noble Baroness’s amendment in addressing this area that we recognise that serious damage to national interests and human well-being can be caused by individuals and also by organisations and states. I do not want to give an answer to the noble Lord’s particular suggestions. All I can say is that, obviously, we are anxious to work with China. It is an important nation in the world’s affairs and its assistance is important economically to the prosperity of the world.
If I can add any more to what I have just briefly said, I will write to the noble Lord, but in any case I will be writing to all those who participated in the particular debate on this issue, because I think that could be useful.
Lord Swinfen
What is the definition of cybercrime? I think it is a very wide one. I ask the question deliberately, because some time ago my charity—which, as I said before, works in 74 different countries—had its website hacked. It was repaired and the following day it was completely destroyed. We suspected that it was destroyed possibly by officials of another nation who did not approve of us giving medical advice to doctors working in that country. I suspect they thought that there might have been some nefarious purpose in it, although in fact it was purely charitable. I would be grateful if my noble friend would give me a definition of cybercrime.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Cybercrime is the use of computers—indeed, I may have it here. I have the Serious and Organised Crime Strategy, which uses the term. Cybercrime is the use of computers and electronic systems to commit a crime. Clearly, what happened to the noble Lord’s charity is a crime, committed extraterritorially. One of the aspects of cybercrime is that it is not globally isolated to particular territories or countries—hence the debates that we have been having on this particular issue. That is why we need to tackle it globally and why we need to be globally active in order to deal with it.
I believe that the clauses in this area are designed specifically to bring the Computer Misuse Act, which is what lies at the bottom of it, up to date, to recognise the threat that can exist from computer crime and particularly nowadays, when electronic use is so much greater than it was in 1990, when the Act was first brought in.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanations and response to the debate and, indeed, grateful to those noble Lords who supported and spoke to my amendment. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for allowing a more wide-ranging discussion, although it may not have been technically correct. I quite like the idea that on the fourth anniversary of my introduction to your Lordships’ House I have created a new form of amendment, as the noble Lord put it.
As the noble Lord said, the question on the definition of cybercrime from the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, was particularly appropriate. In this debate we have hit the nail on the head of how wide and vast this issue is. At one level we have the very big issues of national security and the resilience of our national infrastructure, which could be attacked by cybercrime. Then there are the issues around business security, with charities and organisations that can be affected by cybercrime. Then we come to the personal, which goes from merely inconvenient to causing misery and tragedy. All those things are encompassed in the term cybercrime.
The noble Lord’s explanation of what the Government are doing was very helpful. I do not see that any of that detracts from my amendment or makes it any less relevant. I remind the noble Lord of the point I made at the beginning: only three police forces—Derbyshire, Lincolnshire and West Midlands—have developed comprehensive cybercrime strategies. Only 15 forces considered cybercrime threats in their strategic threat and risk assessment. I do not doubt that at a national level a lot of work is going on and that it is well funded. However, it seems to me that if the annual report of the police and the police and crime commissioners focused on this issue and identified the work that was being done on it, that would let the public know what is going on and create awareness of this matter. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is absolutely right: this would be a way of monitoring implementation and enforcement. I do not see that anything the Minister said detracts from the usefulness of Amendment 31K.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
If I felt that it could be useful, I would take a slightly different approach towards it. I hope that the noble Baroness will read what I said about the efforts being made to ensure that police forces take proper account of this issue. The HMIC report was a wake-up call: it made us realise that, for all the progress we have made in the National Crime Agency and the National Cyber Crime Unit, we also need a local presence on the ground and the involvement of local police forces.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I would like to finish what I am saying. I should just say that the HMIC report drew on evidence gained last summer and in the early autumn. A lot has happened since that time, so I ask the noble Baroness to read what I said in response to her amendment. I think she will be impressed by the amount of progress that has been made.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
The noble Lord has referred a second time to the new reporting initiative for police forces and mentioned specifically the City of London police. As it happens, I was with them this very morning, when the initiative to which he referred was discussed. However, resources are a matter of acute concern for every police force in this country. We must go beyond simply saying that the Government have initiated a new plan or a new regime because, as I tried to indicate earlier—the noble Baroness agreed with me—it is absolutely fundamental that we give police forces sufficient resources to enable them to undertake the duties that we lay on them. I hope that my noble friend will take that very much into account.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, the point the noble Lord makes about police resources is very appropriate. I know how many police officers have been lost since 2010 in my own county of Essex. I am grateful to the Minister for coming back to this point. He described the wonderful things that are being done and how impressed I will be by that. I will read the report and look forward to being impressed. However, my point is that, if the work being done is impressive, why not tell people about it and include it in the annual report? As I have said before, I have been a Minister, albeit in the other place, and I have received notes telling me to resist amendments. However, it seems to me that Amendment 31K simply asks for a commentary in the annual report of the police and crime commissioners or for the police force to say what they are doing in this regard. I think that it would give people confidence as regards this issue.
As I say, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining this range of actions but, if they are so impressive, I see no reason why they cannot be included in the annual report. We may return to this issue. I will read the Minister’s comments and the documents to which he pointed but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group. The clause deals with a new offence of participating in the activities of an organised crime group. The various amendments in this quite long group seek to unpack, as it were, what all that means.
Amendment 31L would provide that a person participates in the activities of an organised crime group only if he takes an active part in those activities. How involved does somebody really have to be in order to participate, as spelt out in Clause 41(2)? Does he have merely to facilitate an activity or actually enable it? Those are very different matters. The provision concerns helping an organised crime group to carry on the activities in question. One can make it possible for a group to carry on activities or one can make it easier for it to carry on activities. I do not know whether there is a distinction between those in the new offence.
The offence is committed if,
“the person knows or has reasonable cause to suspect”,
that there are criminal activities or that he is helping an organised crime group to carry on those activities. That is not actually suspecting—it is having reasonable cause to suspect.
I am aware of the Government’s range of concerns and the need to create the new offence in order to contain what is within the frame here. The threshold for the offence concerns me. I think we need to hear a defence of such a relatively low threshold. I am aware of course that the noble Baroness would make it even lower; certainly her position is closer to the Government than that in my amendment.
My Amendment 31S questions—perhaps this goes in the other direction—why an organised crime group for this purpose consists of three or more persons. Is there not a crime group that consists of only two people and would not fall within this?
The last of my amendments, before I come back to some general points on the clause, is rather different. Clause 41(8) provides a defence if the,
“person’s participation was necessary for a purpose related to the prevention or detection of crime”.
I wondered, when I read that, whether this was about undercover policing. If it is, are there some distinctions between this offence and other offences? Or is there something particular about this offence that requires a defence to be spelt out specifically in this way? The question of undercover policing is of course a very topical and concerning one.
I raised at Second Reading, as did others, the concerns of the accountancy and legal professions about what their members—I do not mean dodgy accountants and dodgy solicitors, but ones who are perfectly respectable—have to do to ensure that they do not fall foul of these provisions. I think that the Minister has now met both the professional organisations. Perhaps this will be an opportunity for him to report to the Committee what progress has been made. I am picking up that it is good progress but I have not picked up much detail about it yet.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I have three amendments in this group, Amendments 31N, 31R and 31T, and I have given notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 41 stand part of the Bill to enable a wider general discussion around the issue. On the individual amendments, Amendments 31N and 31R concern a point referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the regulated professions. Currently, the standard for the new offence is,
“knows or has reasonable cause to suspect”.
That is deemed by organisations to be too high. The small businessman or sole trader may not have had experience of money laundering. This amendment removes that standard for lay persons and replaces it with “suspect” but keeps it for regulated professions with protections equivalent to those of Section 330 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Amendment 31T inserts protection from prosecutions similar to the consent regime in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to provide a defence from prosecution where the person has sought consent from the Financial Intelligence Unit to continue with their work.
Clause 41 creates a new offence of participating in the activities of an organised crime group. It will be an offence to participate in an organised crime group’s activities knowing, or having reasonable cause to suspect, that those are criminal activities or that their participation will assist the organised crime group to continue with those criminal activities. The criminal activities can be any offence that is punishable by a prison term of seven years or more. The clause seeks to reach all of those who are engaged in criminal operations, including those whose specific role may itself be legitimate and appear legitimate, if they are actively supporting or benefiting from criminal activity.
Many criminal gangs include corrupt and complicit professionals who use their professional expertise and skills to evade the law. At Second Reading, I referred to this as being the “Al Capone” clause. I remind noble Lords that Al Capone was never convicted of crimes related to the worst aspects of his criminal empire. He was convicted of tax evasion. I have since been told that I am getting old and that my reference is dated. I should in fact have referred to a spin-off from the series “Breaking Bad” which stars a dodgy lawyer in the title role. The programme is called “Better Call Saul”. To prove that I am with it and up to date, I use a new reference at which the noble Lord is shaking his head in despair.
Cultural references aside, as I said at Second Reading, the activities of serious and organised crime gangs today are evil. They exploit the weak, the poor and the vulnerable. Whether they engage in drug trafficking, people trafficking into slavery and prostitution, organised illegal immigration, or extreme and violent pornography, the human misery caused by such gangs is limitless. It defies our imagination. They are also engaged in money laundering as a way of hiding the rewards of criminal activity. If we are really serious about tackling such evils, we must agree that the law should be able to reach all those who are involved in and benefit from such criminal activity.
Of course there has to be duty on any individual or organisation to take reasonable steps to assure themselves that their business dealings are legitimate and anyone who knowingly profits from criminal activities should be held legally accountable for their actions. We have given notice of our intention to oppose the clause standing part of the Bill. I stress that it is not because we oppose the clause—we do not—but because we want to seek some assurances from the Minister about the way it will work in practice. Some points are similar to those made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and some are points that I raised in general at Second Reading.
We have discussed the clause and received representations and briefings, as have other noble Lords, from professional organisations whose members could be affected. I want to make it clear that in all cases, despite concerns they have raised about the wording of the legislation, they are very clear that any professional engaged in criminal activity brings their profession into disrepute and should face the full legal and professional consequences of their actions. There is no doubt about that. I am clear that they share the same commitment to ensuring that those who break the law should face the consequences. It is worth commenting that in addressing such issues I hope the Minister and his colleagues will want to work with the professional associations of those professions that could be affected to ensure that we get the legislation right. If he is able to say anything about the discussions and meetings he is having with those professions, it would be helpful. We want the legislation to be accurate and watertight. My experience is that no respectable professional organisation wants to see criminals within its ranks and they share the desire of the Government to work with the authorities to root out and deal with rogue professionals.
I now move on to something that is slightly an aside, but it is an issue that we have dealt with before. Like other noble Lords, I was surprised and disappointed not to see it tackled in the Bill. It concerns greater regulation and licensing of the private security industry. I am not going to labour the point. The Minister is smiling at me. He knows of my interest in and concerns about this issue. But this is a sad example of professionals wanting to work with the Government to seek better regulation of their industry and prevent bad behaviour and even criminality, yet the Government have failed to act in that area. The professionals I have met are clear that they share the Government’s objectives but they have concerns about whether the clause is needed and whether there might be unintended consequences. I will put on the record some of the concerns and hope that the Minister will be able to respond.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales does not consider that the clause is necessary. Developing the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, professionals within the regulated sector are required to undergo anti money-laundering—AML—training. They have legal responsibilities already under the Proceeds of Crime Act and the Money Laundering Regulations, including a duty to make suspicious activity reports to the Financial Intelligence Unit upon knowing of or suspecting any money-laundering. But there is currently no such requirement on an enterprising individual who sets up their own business outside the regulated sector and who may have no concept or proper understanding of what due diligence really means when entering into business relationships, despite the best intentions they may have.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants says that the clause as drafted would be too onerous on such individuals and could have the effect of criminalising a negligent or simply naive provider of goods or services when they are doing nothing wrong—just trying to earn a living—but the due diligence would be very onerous on them. The institute has suggested the amendments we have tabled. I cannot claim credit for thinking them up myself, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggested. I am grateful to the institute for its advice. The amendments retain the current objective standard of proof for regulated professionals but replace it for lay persons. It would be helpful if the Minister could respond to that point.
The duty on regulated professionals under the Proceeds of Crime Act to make reports of suspicious activity provides valuable intelligence for law enforcement agencies, giving them information on crime in action as well as past criminal activity. It also provides the person reporting the activity with defence from prosecution where they have sought consent from the Financial Intelligence Unit to continue with the work. Although that defence exists under the Proceeds of Crime Act, it is not present in Clause 41. My concern is that that could deter a professional who, having already started working for a client, realises or suspects that something is suspicious but, in reporting it, may fear being caught by the provisions of this Bill because it does not have the same defence mechanisms as the Proceeds of Crime Act, where reporting it provides a defence from prosecution.
In addition, the concept of assisting an organised criminal gang to carry on criminal activities is potentially problematic. The Law Society has pointed out that it is not clear under the offence,
“how far an individual must go to satisfy themselves that whatever service they are providing is not assisting criminal activities down the line somewhere. Certain criminal activities, such as drug trafficking, are more easily identifiable in some circumstances, e.g. a client may not be able to provide any evidence of legitimate income. Fraud and other financial offending, however, are not as easy to identify. It is not clear from the draft Bill what level of due diligence a solicitor would need to carry out to ensure that they could not be said to have turned a blind eye to criminal activity”.
Amendment 31T extends the application of Section 328 of the Proceeds of Crime Act to offences under this clause.
Returning to the question we raised at Second Reading as to who would be covered by the Bill, the Law Society says in its briefing that although the,
“Home Office wishes to target so-called ‘professional enablers’ with this new offence … the legislation is drafted so widely that it would capture far more people”.
I raised this point at Second Reading; the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has raised it today. I declare an interest as another of the vice-presidents in your Lordships’ House of the Local Government Association.
As Second Reading, my specific question was whether local authorities—I also included social housing providers and private landlords—could be caught by these provisions. The example I used was a drug dealer illegally using a rented property that a local authority, housing association or private landlord had rented in good faith. If that activity is reported to the landlord or the authority and no action is taken to remove the tenant, I asked whether there could be a case for action against the landlord if it could be argued they knew or had reason to suspect that criminality was taking place.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, said, Clause 41 creates a new offence of participating in the activities of an organised crime group. I am pleased that she and my noble friend Lady Hamwee welcomed the general principles that underline this measure.
I think that we would all accept that, for far too long, many of those who take part in organised crime have been able to remain out of the reach of law enforcement. As we set out in the Serious and Organised Crime Strategy in October 2013, we are committed to doing everything we can to pursue them. The new participation offence complements the existing offence of conspiracy, which is central to the majority of law enforcement investigations into organised crime and will remain so. As noble Lords will be aware, conspiracy is used to prosecute two or more individuals who have agreed to commit an offence where the agreement can be evidenced and where the individuals intended the offence to be committed or knew that it would be.
In practice, there are a range of players in many criminal enterprises. “Conspiracy” is used to target the major players who commit the offence or who are fully aware of it and their contribution to it. The participation offence will ensure that there is an appropriate and proportionate sanction for those others who “oil the wheels” of organised crime, who deliberately ask no questions and who then rely on the defence that they were not part of the overarching conspiracy.
The participation offence is therefore complementary to “conspiracy” and can form the second tier of such an investigation. It will be triable only on indictment, with a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment. It will ensure that we can prosecute effectively the full spectrum of those engaged in organised crime.
Perhaps I may turn to the anxieties which noble Lords expressed about the way in which we have constructed the clause. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed to a number of concerns about the offence that have been raised by both the Law Society and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. As was pointed out, I had said that I hoped to meet those organisations and, since Second Reading, I have been able to meet representatives of both. We had positive and useful discussions about a number of issues. I am pleased to say that those discussions are continuing with officials at the Home Office; we see this as a continuing dialogue.
One of the concerns raised was that the participation offence risks extending the reach of the criminal law too far, and as a result capturing the naive or unwitting; or catching individuals where the “facts” seem more firmly grounded with hindsight than they might have done at the time; or creating anxiety among people that they might inadvertently be captured by the offence. There is a tension between defining an offence that addresses the broad range of activity that sustains organised crime and avoiding inadvertently capturing activities innocently carried out. Noble Lords have pointed to that in their contributions. I believe that Clause 41 gets this balance broadly right.
First, the offence requires a person to have actively participated in or facilitated the criminal activity in some way. To which end, I understand why my noble friend proposed Amendment 31M, which would insert text to emphasise this point. However, it may exclude the possibility that an omission or failure to act would be captured by the offence if it were both deliberate and arose for the purposes of furthering the criminal activities of an organised crime group.
Secondly, an organised crime group must consist of at least three persons. Amendment 31S would seek to remove this stipulation, but I put it to my noble friend that this definition reflects the definition set out in the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime. Thirdly, the group must be committing offences carrying a sentence of seven years’ imprisonment or more. This threshold was adopted to catch typical organised crime group activities—for example, blackmail, trafficking in class A or class B drugs, people trafficking, assisting unlawful immigration fraud and theft.
Finally, the effect of subsection (2) of Clause 41 is to define the circumstances in which a person could be considered to be participating in an organised crime group in support of the offence outlined in subsection (1) of the clause. The definition has been drawn so as to capture those persons who know, or have reasonable cause to suspect, that their activities are criminal activities of an organised crime group or will help an organised crime group to carry on such activities. A “reasonable cause to suspect” must be firmly targeted on specific facts, and it will of course have to be proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee highlighted the concern that local authorities could be unwittingly caught by the same offence. However, it is possible to envisage a number of scenarios where this offence could be of significant benefit to local authorities—or, indeed, banks or other businesses, since it goes beyond the professions. It would provide an appropriate and robust sanction against corrupt insiders: for example, where a bank employee steals customer data and supplies it to organised criminals; or where a local council employee receives corrupt payments to facilitate organised crime.
It is also worth repeating that for the participation offence to be committed, a person must have had reasonable cause to suspect, firmly grounded and targeted on facts, as I have said. If those facts are present, the granting of licences, for example, should not happen. Licences should not be granted if there is reasonable cause to suspect, or knowledge. Any prosecution would also need to prove that the person actively participated in or facilitated the criminal activity in some way. That test may not be met in the letting of contracts for the provision of services to a local authority. As a further safeguard, the Crown Prosecution Service must be satisfied that any prosecution would be in the public interest. I want to take this up further with the Local Government Association because I think that some of its anxieties are unfounded, but I want to be certain that we are reading this correctly in this respect.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Lord. That is very helpful. I have just two questions. First, may I give him the list that the LGA provided to me and ask him to comment on it in writing to noble Lords? That would be helpful. Secondly, in the case that he mentioned of offences where somebody within an organisation is passing information or money out to an organised crime gang, would they not be offences already; or does this create a new offence, or just greater penalties? I would have thought that those kinds of activities would be offences already, perhaps under conspiracy.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Yes, they could be if they were seen as integral to the conspiracy. However, the whole concept of a participatory offence is the arm’s-length connection that there sometimes has been, which has made conspiracy an aspect of the law that is not particularly easy to use. By creating a participatory offence, we would make those connections with criminality that much easier to establish and, indeed, would cut off the support that organised crime groups have frequently had from insiders who have provided them with assistance. As I said, I hope to talk to the Local Government Association about its anxieties. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness let me have a copy of the particular things that she was concerned about and I will do my best to answer them in correspondence. I will make sure that other noble Lords and the Library are made aware of that, too.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Before the Minister sits down, I should say that I did not speak earlier in the debate because my noble friend Lady Smith said everything I wanted to. Could the Minister develop his response a little to one very important point that she made? It was on the question of due diligence. There is a serious anxiety among professional people that it will be very difficult for them to demonstrate that they performed the due diligence that would clear them from any charge that they knew or had reasonable cause to suspect that their clients were engaged in organised crime. It would be helpful if the Minister gave us some illustration of the kind of due diligence that would be satisfactory and pass that test. Obviously, if people do not have cause to suspect, then proceed to provide the professional service to their client and so participate, how can they be confident that they will not be caught under Clause 41 in this regard?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I do not want to prolong this. In fact, I still have quite a lot to say on these amendments. I was not about to sit down at all. Indeed, I really ought to carry on or noble Lords will grumble that the Minister is taking too long to reply. However, I think I can address these issues.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked me if I could elaborate a little on things I already said in correspondence to her, for the benefit of noble Lords, so I will just give some description. A person commits a participation offence if they take part in activities where they know or have reasonable cause to suspect that they are criminal activities of an organised crime group or where it would help an organised crime group. That must be firmly grounded. Although it would be for the jury to decide whether the threshold had been met in the circumstances of a particular case, the prosecution would need to prove that, for example, a landlord’s activity—the noble Baroness asked about this—participated in or facilitated criminality in some way. As a further safeguard, the Crown Prosecution Service must be satisfied that it is in the public interest.
Amendments 31L and 31Q seek to make other modifications to the scope of the offence. I understand my noble friend’s intention with these amendments and hope she will agree with me that these amendments would not materially change the effect of the provision. The main issue lies in the threshold—the mens rea, as lawyers would say—for the offence.
I listened carefully to my noble friend’s arguments and those set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that further consideration should be given to ensure that the participation offence does not capture the unwitting or naive. I also acknowledge that many situations look different with hindsight. What to a jury considering a case after the event will be a whole series of red warning signs clearly indicating organised criminal activity might have not appeared to be anything of the kind to the defendant at the time the events actually took place.
I understand the problem of definition of mens rea. However, the threshold or mens rea of belief provided for in Amendment 31P may be said to be the state of mind of a person who says to himself, “I cannot say I know for certain that the circumstances exist but there can be no other reasonable conclusion in the light of all that I have heard and seen”. Quite honestly, this is a very high threshold, which would remove much of the utility of the offence, which we are not in a position to accept.
There are some 36,600 members of organised crime groups involved in drug trafficking, human trafficking, organised illegal immigration, firearms offences, fraud, child sexual exploitation and cybercrime, and then there are the professional and non- professional enablers who help organised crime. A threshold of “believe” will set the bar too high and will not change the way these people operate or deter them from helping an organised crime group. However, a balance must be struck and, in the light of this debate, I am persuaded that we should give further consideration to ensuring that the mens rea is such that it does not capture the naive or unwitting.
I also acknowledge the points made in questioning the need for a general defence to the participation offence as well as the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to have defences specific to the regulated sector, which is the nub of Amendment 31R. It is important that there is no anxiety among people, including in the regulated sector, that they might be inadvertently captured by the participation offence. It is therefore right to consider, alongside the level of the mens rea, the need for a defence, but bearing in mind that if one is needed it needs to take into account that the participation offence will apply to professionals and non-professionals alike. We need to have this captured within the mens rea and the defence which should be all-embracing for the regulated and non-regulated sectors.
Amendment 31U seeks to remove the defence in Clause 41(8). This defence is required to protect, for example, undercover police officers who are participating in the activities of an organised crime group for the purposes of frustrating those activities or collecting sufficient evidence to bring the perpetrators to justice. The use of undercover officers will still need senior level authorisation and the police and others will have to demonstrate that the use of the officer is necessary and proportionate. There are a number of precedents for such defences in other statutes, including in respect of the offences in the Bribery Act 2010 and the offences in respect of indecent images of children in the Protection of Children Act 1978.
I will make some points on the particular concern, in Amendment 31T, that someone who has received consent in the submission of a suspicious activity report should not be prosecuted for the participation offence. As it stands, the clause would leave the decision to prosecute the participation offence under these circumstances to the discretion of the Crown Prosecution Service. It would be disproportionate to import the suspicious activity reporting regime for the participation offence when it is most unlikely that it would be in the public interest to prosecute someone in these circumstances; such a prosecution might even constitute an abuse of process. There is also the practical reason that the defence under Section 328 of the Proceeds of Crime Act is only in respect of entering into an arrangement which facilitates money-laundering; if there is evidence of actions constituting part of a wider programme of criminality, this should still be investigated and, if appropriate, prosecuted.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also asked to what extent people must satisfy themselves that there is no wrongdoing. This is part of the question of due diligence raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. The offence will address those who have reasonable cause to suspect or know they are assisting organised crime. It does not require people to carry out additional due diligence. It is for this reason that we do not consider that there will be additional costs for business. There is a much closer relationship between people’s actions in a professional, business or commercial occupation carrying out their trade than in some of the more sophisticated checks that have to be undertaken by professionals concerned with other legislation.
Lord Howarth of Newport
On the other hand, the regime that the Government are creating through this legislation must not be too easygoing because we face extensive problems of money laundering and participation in other offences. It must be the case that across the country there are professional people who are facilitating organised criminals to launder their money and transfer the proceeds of their crime out of the illegal economy into the legal economy. The Minister is walking a tightrope. I asked him earlier not to lay unreasonable burdens on professional people to demonstrate their innocence. On the other hand, the system has to be tough enough to make an impact on the problem that we suffer from as things are.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Right at the beginning of my speech, I talked about balance. I said that I thought we have got the balance in Clause 41 just about right. We do not want to upset the balance. We want to reassure people, particularly the professional groups that have been to see us and the Local Government Association, that that balance can be made to work for them. If it means that we come back on Report with some ideas on that, I am sure the House will welcome them because generally the House understands exactly where the Government are on this issue. Even though probing questions have been asked by my noble friend and the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, I understand that underlying them is their support for this participation offence and that they want to make it work.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I want to raise a point on Amendment 31T. The Minister rejected the idea of a defence if a potential offence is suspected and reported. For example, under the Proceeds of Crime Act, a potential offence can be reported to the financial investigation unit. That is a defence, but not a guarantee, against prosecution. My concern is that one of the reasons that that defence is in the legislation is so that those who uncover what they believe may be illegal activity are not deterred from reporting it to the relevant authority. It is very useful information. Has the Minister considered whether it will have a deterrent effect if somebody working for somebody discovers some way down the line that there may be criminal activity? Does he consider that they may fear reporting it if there is no defence for them to be gained by reporting it? When the Minister meets the professional associations concerned, will he discuss the processes by which they will establish due diligence to see whether there are any additional costs involved that they can outline to him?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Our discussions went into that area. We discussed how these matters would be considered by them. The noble Baroness will appreciate that as we want to encourage people to report suspicions as soon as they have grounds to suspect, even more so if they know, they should have every incentive to report the matter. However, one would not want to create a general defence that would enable somebody to have, in effect, a “get out of jail free” card so that when things got a bit hot, they were automatically able to create immunity for themselves against prosecution. I am not convinced by the argument that where we are is wrong. We want to talk to professional organisations because we see how important it is to have them on side in the fight against crime. I know from what they have said to us that they are approaching this issue in exactly that way. They want to make sure that their professions are supportive in the fight against crime, and that any within their professions who are not pursuing that objective but are assisting crime are punished.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, of course I will reflect, but I think that I will add a couple of things to my noble friend’s list between now and Report. I am of course pleased to hear what he says about the work with the Local Government Association. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was suggesting that I was a vice-president of the LGA, as she is. Some time ago, I was chucked out on the basis that I had been a vice-president for too long. I do not know quite what that says about anything, but I am not a vice-president. I was, however, practising as a solicitor and am still on the roll; perhaps I should have said that, but I think it has been clear.
My noble friend used a phrase like “giving an incentive to report when one is suspicious”. That has to be seen in the context of a client relationship. That is not easy. My noble friend has talked about balance but it is not a two-way balance; there are a lot of factors in it.
Clause 41(8) provides that it is,
“a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that the person’s participation was necessary for a purpose related to the prevention or detection of crime”.
It would be helpful if that had been drafted in a way to refer one—with a “subject to”, for instance—to the provisions which make it necessary for authorisation for the undercover policing to take place. I do not know whether I can put that thought into my noble friend’s mind.
Finally, the Minister suggested that the terms “help” and “enable” are synonymous, but I do not think they are. To help means to assist—to make something easier, while to enable means to make it possible. They are not the same, which is one issue within all this that I would like to reflect on further and maybe come back to at the next stage. However, I have no doubt that my noble friend, in his usual generous way, will want to discuss some of that before we get to that stage. It is clearly a matter of considerable concern around the House that we get the clause right. No one is opposing it, but we want to make it workable, and supported by all those who may be affected. I am grateful for the detail of the response, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
(b) in addition to an order discharging the person absolutely.”
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, these amendments make further amendments to Part 1 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 as a consequence of extending serious crime prevention orders to Scotland.
The most substantive amendment in this group is Amendment 31Z, which inserts proposed new Section 27A into the 2007 Act. Sections 27 to 29 of the 2007 Act already make provision for the winding up of companies, partnerships and other bodies corporate where they have been the subject of a serious crime prevention order and are then convicted of a breach of that order under Section 25 of the 2007 Act. Hitherto, all SCPOs have been made against individuals rather than bodies corporate, but it is important that the legislation continues to provide for the possibility of an SCPO being made against a company or other commercial enterprise.
Proposed new Section 27A of the 2007 Act makes bespoke provision for the winding up of companies or other relevant bodies and dissolution of partnerships in Scotland. As now, the test of the winding up of a company or other relevant body or dissolution of a partnership will be that it has been convicted of the offence of breaching a serious crime prevention order and Scottish Ministers consider that it would be in the public interest for the company—or, as the case may be, relevant body—to be wound up or the partnership to be dissolved. Amendment 31Z effectively completes the provisions in Schedule 1, ensuring that all elements of Part 1 of the 2007 Act are extended to Scotland.
Amendment 31AA is in response to the helpful comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, at Second Reading. In his comments, the noble and learned Lord correctly identified that new Section 36A of the 2007 Act, as inserted by paragraph 23 of Schedule 1, went wider than the England and Wales equivalent in Section 36 of the 2007 Act. As drafted, new Section 36A provides that in any proceedings before the High Court of Justiciary or the sheriff in relation to serious crime prevention orders, the civil standard of proof is to apply. Amendment 31AA clarifies that the civil standard of proof applies where the High Court of Justiciary or the sheriff, when sitting in a criminal capacity, are considering the making of an SCPO on conviction, or the variation of an order made on conviction, or the variation or replacement of an order following a conviction for breach. The criminal standard of proof would naturally apply, as now, to criminal proceedings in relation to the offence of breach of an SCPO. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for highlighting the need for this amendment.
The other amendments in this group are minor technical or drafting amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
(b) in addition to an order discharging the person absolutely.”
(b) in addition to an order discharging the person absolutely.”
“After section 27 insert—
“27A Powers to wind up companies etc: Scotland
(1) The Scottish Ministers may present a petition to the court for the winding up of a company or relevant body, or the dissolution of a partnership, if—
(a) the company, relevant body or partnership has been convicted of an offence under section 25 in relation to a serious crime prevention order; and(b) the Scottish Ministers consider that it would be in the public interest for the company or (as the case may be) relevant body to be wound up or the partnership to be dissolved.(2) The Insolvency Act 1986 applies in relation to—
(a) a petition under this section for the winding up of a company; and(b) the company’s winding up;as it applies in relation to a petition under section 124A of the Act of 1986 for the winding up of a company and the company’s winding up (winding up on grounds of public interest) but subject to the modifications in subsections (3) and (4).(3) Section 124(4)(b) of the Act of 1986 (application for winding up) applies in relation to a petition under this section as if it permits the petition to be presented by the Scottish Ministers.
(4) The court may make an order under section 125 of the Act of 1986 (powers of court on hearing of petition) to wind up the company only if—
(a) the company has been convicted of an offence under section 25 in relation to a serious crime prevention order; and(b) the court considers that it is just and equitable for the company to be wound up.(5) Where a petition is made to the court under this section for the dissolution of a partnership, the court may make an order to dissolve the partnership only if—
(a) the partnership has been convicted of an offence under section 25 in relation to a serious crime prevention order; and(b) the court considers that it is just and equitable for the partnership to be dissolved.(6) Where the court makes an order to dissolve a partnership under this section, the Partnership Act 1890 applies in respect of the dissolution as if it were a dissolution under section 35 of that Act.
(7) The appropriate Minister may by order provide for the Act of 1986 to apply, with such modifications as that person considers appropriate, in relation to a petition under this section for the winding up of a relevant body and the relevant body’s winding up.
(8) An order made by virtue of subsection (7) must ensure that the court may make an order to wind up the relevant body only if—
(a) the relevant body has been convicted of an offence under section 25 in relation to a serious crime prevention order; and(b) the court considers that it is just and equitable for the relevant body to be wound up. (9) No petition may be presented, or order to wind up or dissolve made, by virtue of this section if—
(a) an appeal against conviction for the offence concerned has been made and not finally determined; or(b) the period during which such an appeal may be made has not expired.(10) No petition may be presented, or order to wind up or dissolve made, by virtue of this section if—
(a) the company or relevant body is already being wound up by the court, or(b) the partnership is already being dissolved by the court.(11) In deciding for the purposes of subsection (9) whether an appeal is finally determined or whether the period during which an appeal may be made has expired, any power to appeal out of time is to be ignored.
(12) In this section—
“appropriate Minister” means—(a) in relation to a relevant body falling within paragraphs (a) to (c) of the definition of “relevant body” below, the Treasury; and(b) in relation to any other relevant body, the Scottish Ministers;“company” means—(a) a company registered under the Companies Act 2006 in Scotland, or(b) an unregistered company within the meaning of Part 5 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (see section 220 of that Act),but does not include a relevant body;“the court”, in relation to a company, means a court in Scotland having jurisdiction to wind up the company;“partnership” does not include a relevant body; and“relevant body” means—(a) a building society (within the meaning of the Building Societies Act 1986);(b) an incorporated friendly society (within the meaning of the Friendly Societies Act 1992);(c) a registered society within the meaning of the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014;(d) a limited liability partnership; or(e) such other description of person as may be specified by order made by the Scottish Ministers;and the references to sections 124 to 125 of the Insolvency Act 1986 include references to those sections as applied by section 221(1) of that Act (unregistered companies).”(1) Section 29 (powers to wind up: supplementary) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1ZA) The Scottish Ministers may by order make such modifications as they consider appropriate to the application of the Insolvency Act 1986 by virtue of section 27A(2).”
(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) after “subsection (1)” insert “, (1ZA)”;(b) after “section 27(3) and (4)” insert “, 27A(3) and (4)”.(4) After subsection (3) insert—
“(3ZA) The Scottish Ministers may by order make such consequential or supplementary provision, applying with or without modifications any provision made by or under an enactment including an enactment comprised in, or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament, as they consider appropriate in connection with section 27A(2) to (4).”
(5) In subsection (4)—
(a) after “section 27(5) or (6)” insert “, 27A(7)”;(b) after “subsection (1)” insert “, (1ZA)”;(c) after “enactment” insert “including, in the case of an order made by virtue of section 27A(7) or subsection (1ZA) above, an enactment comprised in, or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament.””
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
“(1) Proceedings before the High Court of Justiciary (the “High Court”) or the sheriff arising by virtue of section 22A, 22B, 22C or 22E are civil proceedings.
(2) One consequence of this is that the standard of proof to be applied by the High Court or (as the case may be) the sheriff in such proceedings is the civil standard of proof.
(3) Two other consequences of this are that the High Court or (as the case may be) the sheriff—
(a) is not restricted to considering evidence that would have been admissible in the criminal proceedings in which the person concerned was convicted; and(b) may adjourn any proceedings in relation to a serious crime prevention order even after sentencing the person concerned.(4) Despite subsection (1), an Act of Adjournal under section 305 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (Acts of Adjournal) may be made in relation to proceedings before the High Court or the sheriff arising by virtue of section 22A, 22B, 22C or 22E.
(5) A serious crime prevention order may be made as mentioned in section 22A(6)(b) in spite of anything in sections 246 and 247 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (which relate to orders discharging a person absolutely and their effect).
(6) A variation of a serious crime prevention order may be made as mentioned in section 22B(4)(b), or (as the case may be) a variation of or a new serious crime prevention order may be made as mentioned in section 22C(4)(b), in spite of anything in sections 246 and 247 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.”
“( ) in subsection (6)—(i) for “statutory instrument” substitute “the Secretary of State or the Treasury”;(ii) after “27(6) or (12),” insert “, 27A(7)”;”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Baroness Meacher
“Dissuasion Panels to prevent gang-related violence and drug-dealing activity
(1) A police officer may refer a person aged 14 or over to a Dissuasion Panel under this section if the following two conditions are met.
(2) The first condition is that the officer is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the person has engaged in or has encouraged or assisted—
(a) gang-related violence; or(b) gang-related drug-dealing activity.(3) The second condition is that the officer thinks it is necessary to make the referral for any of the following purposes—
(a) to prevent the person from engaging in, or encouraging or assisting, gang-related violence or gang-related drug-dealing activity;(b) to protect the person from gang-related violence or gang-related drug-dealing activity;(c) to determine whether the person is drug dependent and may benefit from drug treatment.(4) A Dissuasion Panel must be comprised of at least three people from the following backgrounds, with preference given to professionals with prior knowledge of the individual—
(a) medical, including mental health;(b) social work;(c) legal;(d) any other profession that the court believes will be useful and as it directs.(5) The Dissuasion Panel will—
(a) assess the individual’s personal circumstances,(b) consider whether these have impacted on the activities at subsection (2), and(c) determine whether interventions are needed to—(i) prevent the person from engaging in, or encouraging or assisting, gang-related violence or gang-related drug-dealing activity;(ii) protect the person from gang-related violence or gang-related drug-dealing activity;(iii) address drug dependency.(6) Following assessment of a person by a Dissuasion Panel under this section, the Panel may—
(a) make no further intervention; or(b) require the respondent to do something which they reasonably believe will—(i) prevent the person from engaging in, or encouraging or assisting, gang-related violence or gang-related drug-dealing activity;(ii) protect the person from gang-related violence or gang-related drug-dealing activity;(iii) address drug dependency.(7) Requirements may include, but are not limited to—
(a) treatment for those who are drug dependent;(b) counselling;(c) education;(d) training;(e) reporting to the Panel for review.(8) If the person does not agree to the proposed requirements they will be referred to court for alternative action under section 34 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009, as introduced by section 47 of the Serious Crime Act 2014.
(9) At any review by the Dissuasion Panel, the Panel may—
(a) permit the contract to continue with its current terms;(b) vary the contract by—(i) adding a requirement; (ii) removing an existing requirement;(iii) amending an existing requirement;(c) cancel the contract and refer the person to court for alternative action under section 34 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009, as introduced by section 47 of the Serious Crime Act 2014.(10) If the person breaches the contract, he or she will initially be referred back to the Dissuasion Panel who may—
(a) permit the contract to continue with its current terms;(b) vary the contract by—(i) adding a requirement;(ii) remove an existing requirement;(iii) amending an existing requirement;(c) cancel the contract and refer the individual to court for alternative action under section 34 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 as introduced by section 47 of the Serious Crime Act 2014.(11) For the purposes of this section, something is “gang-related” if it occurs in the course of, or is otherwise related to, the activities of a group that—
(a) consists of at least three people, and(b) has one or more characteristics that enable its members to be identified by others as a group.(12) In this section “violence” includes a threat of violence.
(13) In this Part “drug-dealing activity” means the unlawful production, supply, importation or exportation of a controlled drug.
(14) “Production”, “supply” and “controlled drug” have the meanings given by section 37(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.”
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 32 and to speak also to Amendments 33 to 39, all of which are probing amendments. I emphasise that we are presenting quite a detailed proposition. The new clause was drafted by a lawyer from Release at my request. Neither she nor I claim that every word will be approved by government lawyers. We ask for your Lordships’ indulgence on that. I am grateful to the Minister for the meeting we had yesterday to discuss these amendments. It was extremely helpful.
I shall deal quickly with Amendments 33 to 39. They are substantially consequential on the new clause and I do not want to take the time of the House to discuss them in any detail. The exception is Amendment 34, which replaces the lower standard of proof with “beyond reasonable doubt” as the basis for injunctions. Any order of a court which could involve penalties should, in our view, be based on the criminal standard of proof. We are simply asserting that and I shall not debate it. Amendments 38 and 39 also relate specifically to injunctions and ensure that the requirements or prohibitions spelled out in an injunction relate specifically, in Amendment 38, to,
“engaging in, or encouraging or assisting, gang-related violence or gang-related drug-dealing activity”
and in Amendment 39, to
“protect the respondent from gang-related violence or gang-related drug-dealing activity”.
I shall be interested in what the Minister has to say about those amendments, but I shall focus my remarks more generally on Clause 47 and specifically on the new clause.
We understand the objective of Clause 47 and are not arguing against the granting of injunctions in a number of situations envisaged by the Government. Our concern is that the injunctions referred to in Clause 47 and in the Policing and Crime Act 2009 require the young person to go to court where the injunction may be issued. We discussed this issue yesterday with the noble Lord. The involvement of the court in our view is an extremely costly and in many cases unnecessary process. It is also a process which criminalises the young person and makes it harder for them to return to normal life and earn a living.
We understand that an injunction may place a range of prohibitions and requirements on the young person, including the requirement to participate in rehabilitative activities. We realise that they are not just blunt instruments. We welcome the requirement in the statutory guidance on the implementation of gang injunctions of 2011 that the body proposing to apply for the injunction must consult the youth offending team and may also consult schools, probation and other bodies. Local authorities also have an obligation under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. If a young person may be suffering from drug, alcohol or mental health problems, local authorities must have regard to that.
Lord Elton
The noble Baroness has put forward a very attractive proposal, at which I hope my noble friend will look carefully. I do not doubt that it will need a lot more work on it before it can be in statute. I hope that the length of the interval between Committee and Report will make that possible.
I have a question for the noble Baroness, having only cursorily looked at the amendment. It seems to me that it depends very much on the quality of the sentence or referral that the panel makes. There should be a requirement that any child or young person who is put into its orbit should not be able to fall out of the system so that they simply have to report at intervals. I would like to see the word “monitor” in there somewhere. A responsible adult or organisation should be required in the statute; otherwise, we will get people fading away, as they have done in the past under probation.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I was extremely happy to add my name to the amendments in this group, tabled by my noble friend Lady Meacher, and I pay tribute to the work that she does as chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Drug Policy Reform. She is deeply knowledgeable in this field, and I know that the House will always listen with great care to the proposals that she makes. She is right, of course, to make the point that injunctions on their own will achieve nothing, and that people with a drug dependency or who find themselves in the ambit of drug-related gangs are people who need help. She is right to suggest that the help that they need should very likely be help in terms of their health. It is better with these young people to treat their predicament not as a criminal but as a health issue. That is the model that has been established in Portugal since 2001, as my noble friend said, initially amid some considerable controversy—because Portugal faced an appalling crisis of drug trafficking and addiction and a whole generation of young people in very great danger. It was to many people countercultural primarily as a health-related issue rather than as a criminal issue. But the evidence shows that, over the years, the approach has paid off and results have been very good indeed.
I commend to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and others the report on the Portuguese experience published by the charity, Transform, and available on its website. It looks very carefully at the evidence of what has happened in Portugal. I add to the highlights that my noble friend Lady Meacher mentioned the facts that drug use has,
“declined among those aged 15-24, the population most at risk of initiating drug use … Rates of past-year and past-month drug use among the general population—which are seen as the best indicators of evolving drug use trends—have decreased”,
and that,
“Rates of continuation of drug use (i.e. the proportion of the population that have ever used an illicit drug and continue to do so) have decreased”.
On all these important indicators, the policy has been vindicated. However, it is also important to say that this Portuguese strategy is one of investing very considerably in support services for the young people who are brought before disuassion commissions. The young people come to an agreement with the disuassion commission about a course of action that they will take. Not only will they seek to co-operate willingly with what is recommended in terms of their health, but there are many other courses that the disuassion commission may recommend for them, including job training and all kinds of activities and processes to help them to integrate successfully with society. This strategy came at a time when Portugal was broadening the range and depth of its welfare state and of its support services for vulnerable and fragile young people. Of course, Portugal has been under very serious fiscal pressure in recent years. It may well be that the quality and extent of these services are not what the authors of the strategy would ideally have wished; none the less, the results have been very good.
It will be necessary, if we are to adopt a constructive, positive, humane strategy of the kind that has been pioneered and demonstrated in Portugal, for the Government of the day in this country to be willing to invest in the resources needed to make a full success of that. We all know how very difficult that is going to be for a Government now or in the foreseeable future to do. That is a kind of caveat; but it would not at all invalidate the adoption of a strategy such as the one my noble friend has commended to the Committee. I very much hope that the Committee will favour what she has suggested.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, like my noble friend and other noble Lords, I do not want to comment on the fine detail of the amendment but simply to support the noble Baroness. Her points about avoiding criminalisation and what I might summarise as an active, supportive, constructive response, are immensely important. Under the noble Baroness’s chairmanship, some of us met a number of MPs from Portugal. We were very struck by the agreement across the parties about the benefits of this measure and the lack of contention around it. We actually ran out of questions to ask them on that issue. Clearly, in that country they have succeeded in taking some of the heat out of the drugs issues, which has been a very considerable achievement. I hope that we might learn from that example.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for giving me a copy of her amendment and a briefing note on it when she tabled it. I was not aware of the Portuguese experience as my noble friend, Lord Howarth described it. It is interesting and bears further consideration. I am not an expert on whether the detail of the amendment is correct. It looks complicated, which might be because it was drafted by a lawyer, but I suspect that it is not so complicated in practice.
These dissuasion panels would sit alongside the injunctions, such as is proposed in the Bill, and a police officer would refer a young person if they were involved in gang-related violence or a drug-related activity. The panel would be tasked with assessing the young person. It would determine whether there was a need to require the young person to undertake some form of action, whether that be treatment or counselling, to prevent them engaging in further activities, to protect them or to address their drug dependency. That seems to be a more holistic approach to tackling the drug culture and drug abuse.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for explaining her thinking behind these amendments, and to noble Lords for taking part in this interesting debate. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for coming to see me yesterday, when we had a good discussion, so that I could understand what she wanted to achieve through her amendments on tackling drug dependency. I know that she takes a strong interest in this issue. We have often discussed drugs policy in this Chamber while wearing other hats. I recognise that her intention is to place a stronger focus on addressing drug dependency and on meeting the needs of vulnerable individuals who may become involved in gang-related violence and drug dealing. Therefore, I welcome this opportunity to discuss these issues.
However, as my noble friend Lord Elton indicated, gang injunctions are a much wider issue than that of just drug abuse. Drug abuse can be an element of gang activity but gang injunctions go much further than drug abuse alone. I hope that I can help noble Lords by talking about what the Government are doing to tackle drug-related offending and reoffending. The Government strongly support local investment in integrated offender management approaches, including identifying drug-using offenders and directing them to treatment. This is going on now. The Government are also: piloting drug recovery wings, focused on abstinence and connecting offenders with community drug recovery services on release; increasing the number of drug-free environments and piloting payment by results for drug and alcohol recovery services; testing a new “through the gate” model for substance misuse services to complement the introduction of transforming rehabilitation proposals; and developing and testing liaison and diversion services in police custody suites and at courts. I mention these initiatives because I do not want it to be assumed that no effort is being made at a local level to try to make drug users’ lives better. A great deal of effort is being expended in this area.
The expansion of activities covered by gang injunctions is not a substitute for seeking the prosecution of someone for a serious crime such as drug dealing. However, there are instances where a gang injunction may help prevent respondents engaging in gang-related drug activity or protect people being further drawn into such activity, which is particularly important for children, girls and young women.
Amendment 32 introduces the concept of dissuasion panels with the purpose of assessing the personal circumstances that could have led a person to engage in gang-related violence or gang-related drug-dealing activity. The panels would be composed of persons from a medical, legal or social work background. The amendment also confers powers on these new panels to impose requirements on an individual to prevent them engaging in the gang-related violence or gang-related drug-dealing activity, to protect the individual from such violence or activity, and to address drug dependency.
Although referrals to a dissuasion panel appear to be discretionary, the tenor of the proposed new clause seems to be to prevent an application for a gang injunction being considered by a court until the case has been referred to the dissuasion panel—I think I heard the noble Baroness aright in that regard—and the person concerned declines to abide by any requirements imposed by the panel. The result of the proposed new clause would be the introduction of a two-stage process. While I have considerable sympathy for the outcome the noble Baroness is seeking to achieve, I believe that interjecting a dissuasion panel into the process applying to a gang injunction is unnecessary.
Baroness Meacher
I should make it clear that the amendment proposes that only if a police officer identifies drugs as a problem for the individual concerned will they be referred to the dissuasion panel. If they have engaged in violence and there is no indication of drugs being involved, then, of course, they will go straight through to the court.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation but I do not think that it totally weakens the argument I am trying to make for adopting a holistic approach to gang activity, which is contained in the gang injunctions. An individual’s personal circumstances leading to his or her involvement in gangs are already part and parcel of the matters taken into account as part of the gang injunction process. The Policing and Crime Act 2009 includes a consultation requirement. This requires the applicant to consult any local authority, chief police officer and other body or individual that the applicant thinks it is appropriate to consult. The Government’s statutory guidance on gang injunctions—we are considering gang injunctions in the Bill—published in 2010, stresses this point and suggests that the consultation process may include voluntary or support services working with the respondent and/or their family as well as the respondent’s school or housing provider, among others.
I agree that it is essential to take into account mental health or substance misuse issues, as these can be very relevant to someone’s involvement in gangs, together with any other personal circumstances, and this is already the case as part of the application process for a gang injunction. I also agree that it is important to stress this point further. However, I believe that the best place would be in guidance rather than introducing an additional statutory layer to the process. The guidance on gang injunctions is currently being revised and will be reissued in the autumn, as I explained to the noble Baroness yesterday. The revised version will make clear that the consultation process should include medical practitioners where appropriate and any other relevant professional who may assist in determining the individual circumstances of the case, and in particular whether substance misuse or mental health issues are factors that need to be taken into account.
New subsection (7) of the proposed new clause stresses further the point that requirements to prevent or protect a person from gang-related violence or drug dealing may include treatment for drug dependency, counselling, education or training. Gang injunctions are intended to help respondents leave the gang and may already include positive requirements such as the ones highlighted in Amendment 32 that work towards this end. The statutory guidance encourages applicants to be creative about helping respondents to leave the gang and specifically suggests that anger management sessions, coaching, counselling or other behavioural sessions may be appropriate. The revised guidance will stress further the positive requirement element of the gang injunction as a way of helping break away from gang-related violence, which is one of the elements we are seeking to address, and/or drug dealing.
Lord Elton
Before my noble friend concludes, could I ask him two questions? First, we had some impressive figures indicating the change in the percentage of treatments that were completed following the introduction of the system in Portugal. How do those rates compare with existing rates in the United Kingdom?
Secondly, he mentioned anger management as one means of diminishing gang violence and therefore, presumably, gang membership. I hope that he will not overlook the exceedingly powerful inducement of fear maintaining the membership of gangs—not merely internal intimidation but the feeling that nowhere is safe unless you are inside the gang, which is a very common phenomenon among young people certainly in London and I do not doubt in other major cities as well. I went to a conference some time ago in London where children were reported as having said that they felt safer in the gang than they did not only in school but at home. That is a much bigger issue than we are tackling now, but it cannot be ignored. If we are going to get the architecture right, it has to be taken into account.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am not in the position to provide the figures that my noble friend asked for, but certainly when we study the Portuguese system and documentation I will make sure that I write to the noble Lord—and indeed to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It will be useful to share that information.
My noble friend is absolutely right. There are all sorts of reasons why people belong to gangs. Fear is one of them. I have made two visits now to Brixton to see how territory, people and circumstance combine to encourage the existence of gangs. We need to be proactive in the way in which we deal with this problem. It causes abject misery through drug dependency; it causes crime through theft; it causes violence; and it causes unnecessary loss of life, as much of the violence can result in fatalities. All of that needs to be addressed in any policy that deals with gangs.
That is why we need a process. In my view, gang injunction lies at the heart of that process. I would be reluctant to dilute that but it can be informed by processes that can be imported from elsewhere. I hope that I have given some idea of my thinking about the issue and I hope that the noble Baroness, as I have said already, will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Meacher
I thank the Minister for his very considered reply, and also give a special thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his thoughtful intervention. I assure him that one of the key points in the Portuguese system is indeed the monitoring of the observance of the contract by the individual.
Baroness Meacher
Indeed: mentoring. The idea in this system is that the referral to, for example, treatment ensures that the person is then mentored in the environment to which they are referred, whether it is residential or day-based or a number of different things. The idea is a comprehensive package for the individual, monitored—not mentored—by the dissuasion commission panel to make sure that the person really does receive all the elements that they have signed up to in their contract. As I said, it is not a soft option but it is an effective one. That is what we are seeking to at least discuss here. I am truly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to my noble friend Lord Howarth for a very considered and important contribution, and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Hamwee. This has been a helpful debate.
I need to mention in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that Britain still has one of the highest levels of drug addiction and problems in Europe. We are in the top three countries. The tougher the policies, the worse a country tends to do. That is just a basic rule across many countries and is well understood in the field.
I am very grateful indeed to the Minister for agreeing that the department will look at—and, I hope, undertake a cost-benefit analysis of—dissuasion panels as an option for dealing with people with drug dependence problems. That is the point: it is cost effective and it is worth it. It produces results and it is cheaper. Rather than seeing it as a sort of two-tier system, one should think of it as dissuasion panels taking an awful lot of work away from the courts and dealing with that work more effectively: that is perhaps a better mental set in relation to this problem. With my many thanks to all those who have been involved, we will undoubtedly come back to this and, I hope, have further discussions with the Minister. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, before the Committee approves Clause 47, I suggest that we think very carefully about its construction and its drafting. Broadening out our consideration from the specific issues of drugs on which we were focused while examining the last group of amendments, we should look at some wider issues of principle, particularly those of civil liberties. I do not want to detain the Committee unduly, but this House prides itself on its willingness to apply line-by-line scrutiny to legislation, and where this clause is concerned some close examination will be appropriate.
The clause would substitute for the existing Section 34 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 a new Section 34. In proposed new Section 34(1), it is made clear that we are considering the question of powers to grant injunctions against people “aged 14 or over”, and therefore against children. We should bear that in mind as we consider what follows in Clause 47 and the new Section 34. Subsection (2) says that the first condition which the court must satisfy is that it thinks,
“on the balance of probabilities that the respondent has engaged in or has encouraged or assisted … gang-related violence, or … gang-related drug-dealing activity”.
We talked a moment ago about the question of the civil level of proof as against the criminal level—the balance of probabilities as against “beyond reasonable doubt”—and I understand the case that the Minister was making. But under Clause 47, if the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that these things have happened and that the person,
“has engaged in or has encouraged … drug-dealing activity”,
then we are told later on, in subsection (7), that “drug- dealing activity” means what it does under the terms,
“of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971”.
So the young person is being drawn into the purview of the criminal justice system, at the age of 14 or over, but without the safeguards that the criminal law provides: the statutory defences and the higher standard of proof required.
I am not clear what representation a young person in these circumstances will be entitled to, or whether legal aid will be available to support a young person to make their case against an injunction. It also ought to be borne in mind that in criminal proceedings and in one of the amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, proposed—I always want to call her my noble friend—the individual must agree to a drug rehabilitation order. I do not see any requirement in Clause 47 that the young person should agree to a course of action which would be prescribed in an injunction. There are issues here that we ought to reflect on.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am very happy to assure the noble Lord that our policy is indeed decent and coherent. I did not find his arguments so coherent, because I felt in some ways that he was trying to say that he felt the new provisions within the Bill were going too far, and were affecting civil liberties, and at the same time suggesting that they were not effective at all about dealing with young people who found themselves in gangs. In our last debate I showed there is coherence here. Gang violence is a serious problem. It does need addressing. It needs a legal framework against which you can address it. A great advantage of the injunction is that it provides an opportunity for that to happen.
Gang and youth violence is damaging too many young people in our country and can have a devastating effect not only on those who get caught up in it but also on their families and communities. Gang injunctions are a valuable civil tool that allows the police or a local authority to apply to the county court or the High Court for an injunction against an individual who has been involved in gang-related violence. Gang injunctions are available to help the police and local authorities prevent acts of gang violence, but importantly, the injunctions are also there to protect younger gang members’ behaviour from escalating, including by requiring them to participate in activities which help them leave gangs behind.
Baroness Meacher
I regret that the Minister referred to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, as incoherent—or words to that effect. It seemed to me that the noble Lord’s arguments were incredibly powerful with regard to the lack of appropriate skills and training of the people in the courts, and the Howard League case he referred to. Obviously, as I said in my own speech, matters are made a great deal worse by cutting somebody off from their support systems and so on. I have to say that many of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, support strongly the case for having a professional tribunal or dissuasion panel to look at these cases, rather than leaving it to the courts, which do not appear to have the skills needed in these very difficult situations. I absolutely agree with the Minister that these are difficult problems; they have to be dealt with, but they have to be dealt with professionally, and I think that is the point the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, was trying to make.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I had intended to speak in this debate. The noble Lord was uncharacteristically quick off his feet to respond to my noble friend. This clause requires some clarification and I am sorry that he seems quite upset about the probing questions that have been asked. I will listen to what he has to say. If the issues I intended to ask him about are not addressed, I will come back to him at the end of his comments, but there are some points of clarification that would be helpful in this debate.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am sorry, I just felt that the closing remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, when he said that government policy lacked coherence in this area, were belied by the contribution that I had made in the previous debate on the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I did not say that the policy lacked coherence; I said that I thought it was wrong to ask the House to legislate before the Government had demonstrated that these new legislative provisions were part of a coherent and decent policy.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
In which case, I am in the process of doing just that. Perhaps we can draw a line under our little spat. Indeed, I was going on to talk about the ways in which the people who are responsible for seeking gang injunctions do bring professional expertise to these matters.
As I was saying when the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, intervened, gang injunctions for adults have been available since January 2011, and gang injunctions for 14 to 17 year-olds have been available since January 2012. I hope it reassures the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, that when applying for injunctions against minors, the applicant must consider their duties towards young people in general, including the general duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, together with any child protection issues that arise in a particular case. In doing so, the applicant would be expected to seek the views of any social services or children’s services department that is engaged with the child.
The findings of a review of the operation of gang injunctions, published in January 2014, indicated that the definition of a gang used in the Policing and Crime Act 2009 has some limitations for addressing local gang issues. I am sure that noble Lords would expect the Government, having found those limitations, to come forward with amendments to address them.
Section 34(5) of the 2009 Act specifies the circumstances in which gang injunctions may be made. The court must be satisfied that,
“the respondent has engaged in, or has encouraged or assisted, gang-related violence”—
that is the fundamental requirement. “Gang-related violence” is defined as,
“violence or a threat of violence which occurs in the course of, or is otherwise related to, the activities of a group that … consists of at least 3 people … uses a name, emblem or colour or has any other characteristic that enables its members to be identified by others as a group, and … is associated with a particular area”.
We are not talking about stop and search here; we are talking about collective activity. Following consultation with practitioners, we have concluded that this definition is too restrictive and, more importantly, does not reflect the true nature of how gangs operate in England and Wales.
Gangs do not always have a name, emblem or colour or other characteristic which enables their members to be identified as a group. Instead, individuals may operate as a group and engage in criminality with some degree of organisation without these features. Although gangs are traditionally associated with particular territories, they are now increasingly involved in criminality beyond their own areas and can be less associated with a particular area. Gang structures are now seen to change over time—they are morphing—such that it is possible for gangs to disappear from certain locations and reappear in other locations relatively quickly. Gangs may move to other locations as a result of black market forces or being pushed out by rival gangs.
In order to reflect the changes in the way gangs operate, Clause 47 amends the 2009 Act to revise the definition of gang-related violence. Under the new definition, violence will be gang-related,
“if it occurs in the course of, or is otherwise related to, the activities of a group that … consists of at least three people”—
that remains—
“and has one or more characteristics that enable its members to be identified by others as a group”.
It has been suggested that this definition is too wide and that any group of three or more people identified by others as such could be affected by this legislation. I assure the Committee that this is not the case. Being part of a gang as defined by this clause is the first stage of the process but courts will also need to be satisfied that the defendant has been involved in violence and that any such violence is related to the gang. Of course, only courts can impose a gang injunction, after they are satisfied that it is necessary to do so.
In addition, evidence from police and local authorities shows that urban street gangs often engage in street drug-dealing on behalf of organised criminals, and some gangs aspire to and may become organised crime groups in their own right. That is why we are expanding the activity in relation to which gang injunctions can be imposed to involvement in the drugs market. This will allow gang injunctions to be used to prevent individuals from engaging in drug-dealing and to protect people from being further drawn into illegal drug-dealing, which is particularly important for vulnerable people, in particular teenage children, of whom we spoke earlier.
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, has raised some wider points about the Government’s overall drugs strategy. The noble Lord’s view is that the strategy is not sufficiently focused on tackling the root causes of demand for illegal drugs which drive this market. I agree with the noble Lord that reducing the demand for drugs is essential to successfully tackling this issue. Indeed, it is one of the three strands of the Government’s strategy, which balances action to reduce demand alongside support for individuals to recover from drug dependency and ensuring that law enforcement effectively protects society by restricting the supply of drugs.
We are confident that this approach is working. Drug usage has fallen to its lowest level since records began in 1996. Figures on the level of overall drug use among young people in 2012 show that 17% of pupils aged 11 to 15 reported ever taking a drug, compared with 29% in 2001. There is a marked fall in the use of drugs among young people.
Lord Howarth of Newport
The Home Office is fond of quoting certain statistics that are, I am sure, correct, and demonstrate declining use of certain drugs. Can the noble Lord, however, tell us whether the use of class A drugs has fallen? What is his view on the consumption of new psychoactive substances, which are also drugs, even if not proscribed under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971? Surely the overall picture is far less comforting than he seeks to persuade us it is.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I accept that. I am not at all complacent about the role of drugs in society and I think the noble Lord knows that. However, I am saying that we have, through our strategy, at least reduced consumption over the past few years. It is an important element—we know that 45% of acquisitive crime, for example, is estimated to be carried out by opiate or crack users. It remains a matter of concern. Nobody is complacent about this—I did not want to create that impression. However, I also wanted to reassure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that we are driving this policy hard because we recognise the damage that drugs do in society. We continue to do all we can to prevent people using drugs in the first place, and to intervene early with those who start to develop problems, for example by developing an online alcohol and drug education and prevention information service. This work to reduce demand for illegal drugs is crucial, but I am equally clear that we need to provide the police and local authorities with the tools they require to intervene to prevent the harm caused to communities by gangs who are involved in drug dealing and to divert young people on the periphery of this world away from gangs before their involvement becomes serious.
The whole point of this clause is to improve our response to gang-related violence and involvement in illegal drug dealing by redefining and extending the scope of these injunctions to ensure they better reflect the reality of gang culture in England and Wales. Of the 109 gang injunctions issued, 45% have been breached. Interim injunctions were granted on the authority of the court. It needs to act proportionately when it considers these matters. We never expected large numbers of gang injunctions to be used. They are aimed at preventing gang-related violence, and they are a useful tool for local partners to use in the right circumstances for the right individuals. The changes in this Bill will enable more effective targeting of those not directly involved in violence but who could influence violent activity. I say to the noble Lord that legal aid is available for gang injunctions, including costs incurred for a lawyer to represent a person in court. Legal aid also covers breach and variation hearings.
I have tried to cover most of the points raised by the noble Lord in his intervention. I apologise to the noble Baroness—I did not mean to cut her off from this debate, and if she wants to say a few words on this issue I am happy to do my best to reply to them too.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Lord, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, was intending to speak on this. We were looking at each other, and the noble Lord beat us both to the Dispatch Box.
I will be brief, as the Minister has sought to answer some of the questions, although others remain. We accept that the current definition of gangs has not been able to include or address some of the existing problems. The number of injunctions indicates that. Our worry is—this was raised at Second Reading—that in broadening the definition it becomes easier to get the lower-hanging fruit. There are two levels here. There are those gangs which are violent, intimidating—there are serious levels of violence in some cases. There are others who are altogether different: younger people who may appear intimidating to some people close to them and will have signs to indicate that they are gangs, but are of a very different order from those who threaten and terrorise communities. So there are two kinds of gangs under discussion. We want to see the most serious kind—the intimidating and violent— come into the ambit of this measure, but not by widening the definition so that those who are easier to catch and easier to identify, or are on the fringes of gangs, are inadvertently caught up.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, or any other noble Lords, saw the TV programme on Sunday evening called “Common”. I hesitate to address legal issues in the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, but this fictional drama examined the law of common purpose or joint enterprise. If I understood right—I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong—that law dictates that all participants of a criminal enterprise have a responsibility for all the results of that enterprise. This was a case about a young man who was before the courts on a murder charge, even though he was the driver of the car and had no idea what was happening. Nevertheless, he was part of that criminal enterprise.
We have a slightly similar issue before us: could those who may not be part of violent activity, perhaps on the fringe but not involved, be somehow caught up? I am not defending those who are part of a criminal gang, or part of an activity where they should be held responsible: it is the idea of the wider definition catching the lower-hanging fruit, those who are easier to place an injunction on in the courts. Given that the first condition has to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities—the respondent has engaged in, or has encouraged or assisted gang-related violence or drug dealing—it would be helpful if the Minister could say exactly how he defines “engaged in, encouraged or assisted”. I suppose “engaged in” is quite easy. However, will whether someone is “encouraging” or “assisting” be defined in guidance?
I also echo the point made by my noble friend Lord Howarth when he asked for guidance from the Minister on what measures could be expected from the courts—when will that guidance be available? Will it be made available to your Lordships’ House before Report? It would be quite helpful in those discussions. Furthermore, concerns were raised by several noble Lords at Second Reading that the standard of proof here is a civil rather than a criminal one. I do not think the Minister addressed that in his comments in response to my noble friend. It would be helpful if he were able to address that.
I am sorry not to be as quick on my feet as the noble Lord—he is obviously fitter and healthier than I am. I will do better in future.
Lord Elton
My Lords, before my noble friend applies the secateurs again to this budding debate, perhaps I may give notice that I also have points to raise, after he has dealt with this one.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think it would be easier if I dealt with them all. If other noble Lords want to bring something to the party I would be happy to deal with them all in a final wind-up speech. I do apologise for jumping the gun. The two noble Baronesses were obviously far too polite to each other, but if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and my noble friend Lord Elton would like to speak, I will do my best to respond.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I have been drawn to my feet by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. I have had experience of prosecuting cases involving gang violence—in a way, this is a point in favour of the injunction system. One of the great difficulties for the prosecutor is proving involvement in these activities beyond reasonable doubt. In Scotland, we used to have an offence called mobbing and rioting—that was one of my first forays into prosecution—where a whole number of people were brought into court and accused of being involved in a mob. The noble Baroness is quite right: if they were so involved, they were liable for everything that the mob did. I found that I lost quite a number of the accused because I could not prove that they were sufficiently connected to be brought into the system. If one was applying the civil standard, it would be reasonably clear that one would be able to say that they were involved in the kind of activity that the injunction is directed at. I therefore see a value in the injunction system.
I may have misunderstood the Minister, but did he say that 45% of such injunctions are breached? That troubles me for a reason that might be worth mentioning. In the cases that I came across, there was great intimidation of individuals to force them into the gang activity. If one has a typical city area where the gang competes with a gang from another place 300 or 400 yards along the road, all youths of a particular age are expected to participate in the activities of the gang. I am a bit troubled by the idea of a person being singled out for an injunction and then turning to their colleagues—or compatriots, it might be—who are saying, “Come along and join us. Get hold of a weapon and attack the other people”. If he says, “Well, I’m sorry, I can’t do that, because I’ve got an injunction against me”, I think that he would be jeered at and drawn along simply out of shame and intimidation. It is that aspect of the system that worries me. I would be interested if the Minister had any information as to why such a high proportion of those injunctions are being breached, because it might suggest that there is something in the system that is in need of improvement.
Broadly speaking, I understand the policy behind this. As a former prosecutor, I think that it has a value in being able to get people into some kind of legal system to deter them from further activity which the criminal law perhaps cannot do.
Lord Elton
My Lords, mine is a much smaller question and reveals my ignorance of POCA. I understand that the applications will be made by the police. How long is it expected that it will take to grant the applications and are the arrangements for the interim in any way influenced by the proposed new section? I imagine that there is a section in the parent Act which applies the standards in the new section to the interim injunction. If not, how do they relate?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am pleased that we have had this little episode at the end of our discussion. I am grateful for the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. He is right: I did say that 45% of injunctions had been breached. Making civil injunctions work is always a challenge for authorities. We have discussed that sort of issue when considering previous Bills.
I say to my noble friend Lord Elton that it is not POCA, but PACA—it is the Police and Crime Act 2009 that is being amended by this part of the Bill.
I say to the noble Baroness that this is not about criminalising gang members but finding a civil way of dealing with the trouble in which they find themselves. They are members of a gang; we want to get them out of a gang. The gang is no good for them; it is no good for their fellow gang members. This is an important way of being able to deal with this matter.
I expect the guidelines, about which I spoke to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, privately yesterday and today in public—I am sorry that I did not address this issue earlier—to be available before we return on Report. I say again to the noble Baroness that the test of “encouraging or assisting” gang-related violence is in the existing legislation; it is not a new illustration. I am not aware that the courts are having any difficulty in interpreting that test.
I hope that I can with confidence propose that Clause 47 stand part of the Bill, having done my best to demonstrate all the things that noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, demanded of me when he addressed the issue at the beginning of this debate.
Lord Marlesford
“UK Passport Office powersForeign passport declaration
(1) Subject to subsection (2), where a person holds, tries to renew or to obtain a British passport, the UK Passport Office may require that person to provide information about any foreign passport or passports they currently hold or have held in the past and may further require that person to notify the UK Passport Office of any subsequently acquired foreign passport.
(2) Such information must be considered by the UK Passport Office to be of use for combatting terrorism or other serious or organised crime.
(3) Any information so obtained by the UK Passport Office may be retained by that Office and used for the purpose of combatting terrorism or serious or organised crime.”
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I make no apology for raising again the issue of foreign passports. I say straightaway that I am not proposing, and have never proposed, any restrictions of any sort on people holding foreign passports.
I last raised this matter on 7 April as an amendment to the Immigration Bill. It was of course opposed by the Home Office for the usual NIH reasons. Of all departments, the Home Office more than others rejects ideas that do not originate from its own creative and fertile mind. However, the problem is that the Home Office, especially in recent years, has not always been good at joined-up thinking, so it can be an obstacle to joined-up government. That is why I fear that my noble friend the Minister is probably under riding instructions to say that my proposal for there to a requirement that details of foreign passports held by British passport-holders should be with the Passport Office is unnecessary and irrelevant in the war against terrorism, serious crime or organised crime. There is a second reason. The Passport Office is at present in considerable difficulties and may regard itself as incapable of handling the changes that are needed, however urgent they are. I shall give a little detail of this later.
I bring forward the amendment in the context of the menace of the deep cloud of Islamist terrorism. Tragically, the fundamentally good and admirable purposes of Islam—one of the three great monotheistic religions, which has given the world so much in science, culture and ethics and has historically been a haven for religious tolerance—and the true religious dimension of it as laid out in the Koran, which at its finest level is expressed by the mystical doctrine of Sufi, have been undermined by the medieval intolerance of the Wahabi sect and hijacked by political Islam, with its armed terrorist groups, such as al-Qaeda and now ISIS, which are engaged in the savage and cruel civil war between the Sunnis and the Shias.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Marlesford for introducing this amendment. It is not the first time that he has raised the issue of foreign passports held by UK passport holders. My noble friend knows very well that success is not normally achieved at the first outing of an amendment, and I admire his persistence. He certainly does not need to apologise for raising this issue again, even if his speech was as wide-ranging as it was interesting.
I query the need for subsections (2) and (3) of the proposed new clause. I do not know why they are there at all. If Parliament agreed them, we would be telling enforcement officials, rather unhelpfully, “We give you this source of information and you are to be grateful and make use of it”. I suspect that my noble friend is far too skilled and experienced to carelessly insert a redundant provision into his amendment. Perhaps it has rather more to do with my noble friend ingeniously making his amendment relevant to the Bill.
The problem is that if we tidy up his amendment by deleting subsections (2) and (3), the amendment will no longer be relevant to the Bill. However, I have another anxiety. I can understand why my noble friend has not provided for any penalties, other than the implied possibility of the withdrawal of the UK passport under prerogative powers. My fear is that an innocent holder of multiple passports may find themselves in difficulties, while at the same time the serious criminal or terrorist has merely made an admin error. I hope that when my noble friend comes to reply to the debate, he will allay my concerns.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
As noble Lords know, we debated this issue fairly recently when my noble friend moved a similar amendment on Report of last Session’s Immigration Bill on 7 April. Since then, following my recent meeting with my noble friend, I met him again today. We have looked afresh at the issue and I have to advise my noble friend that I have reached the same conclusion as I did before.
As I indicated when we debated this issue in the Immigration Bill, Her Majesty’s Passport Office contributes directly to the Home Secretary’s key aims of securing borders, tackling terrorism and reducing crime. It achieves this through its public protection strategy and by sharing data and intelligence with other parts of the Home Office and other agencies. I thank the senior officials from Her Majesty’s Passport Office for providing me with briefings in this area. They have been extremely busy recently, as noble Lords will know.
My noble friend raised a number of points concerning his amendment. I start by responding directly to the issues he raised. There is an existing requirement for holders of any uncancelled passport to provide that document when applying for a British passport. I will expand on that point later. HMPO issues around 5.5 million passports each year. Data are not held centrally on the number of applicants who hold a second passport under another nationality. Of the passports issued each year, around 1 million applications are from first-time applicants and the remaining 4.5 million are for passport renewals and replacements. About 95% of applications are made in the UK, with the remaining 5% from British citizens resident overseas.
There is no requirement for a British passport holder to notify HMPO of a change of address. This is because the address of the passport holder is not relevant to the ability to travel and cross borders. The HMPO database is for those issued with or refused a British passport. It is not intended to be a record of the individual’s changing personal circumstances unless that impacts on their identity, nationality or entitlement to continue to hold a passport. HMPO has an established process in place whereby the police, courts and prisons notify it of court or police conditions attached to an individual, including persons wanted, arrest warrants, bail conditions and travel restrictions.
I do not have an estimate of the costs involved in setting up a database as suggested in the amendment, but imagine it would be in the hundreds of thousands rather than millions. The issue is one of value for money. To what use would we put the information? If there were a benefit in setting up such a database, we would do so and the costs would be outweighed by security and public protection considerations. However, as I indicated, Her Majesty’s Passport Office already requires a person applying for a first-time passport or renewing or replacing any existing passport to indicate whether they have had any sort of passport—British or otherwise—or been included in any passport before.
Where a passport applicant indicates that they have, they are then required to send to the Passport Office all uncancelled passports. This requirement to submit a passport held in a second nationality is primarily for identification purposes. It can also assist in the determination of British nationality. However, the primary function is to ensure that any British passport issued is compatible with the identity and personal details contained in the existing overseas passport.
Border Force and law enforcement agencies can access data held by Her Majesty’s Passport Office provided it is relevant to their examination of a passenger at a port or is necessary in connection with any investigation or inquiries being undertaken. Accordingly, the information gathered by HM Passport Office is available to assist Border Force and others in helping to prevent and detect crime.
Holding dual national status is perfectly lawful in the UK. It is not a barrier to the issuing of a British passport. We believe that it would therefore be disproportionate to require a person to notify the UK Government of any subsequently acquired overseas passport unless that was relevant to an outstanding application for a British passport. Should such a person fail to disclose at the point of application for a British passport that they hold a passport under another nationality, it would be a criminal offence on the basis that they would have made a false statement on the application form. Apart from considerations of criminal proceedings, it would be open to consider the exercise of the royal prerogative to withdraw or refuse the issue of a British passport. That would be considered on the individual circumstances of the case and the seriousness of the consequences of the attempted deception.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Attlee for his comments. He was absolutely right: we had to adapt the amendment to the Bill. The Minister’s answer was exactly as I expected and also quite revealing. The emphasis on the Passport Office’s burden reflects my point that I suspect that its internal problems mean that it feels that it could not cope with it, and that if anything makes the proposal go away, so much the better. What he says is the Passport Office’s view is not the one that has been expressed to me by a number of people in the security world, which is that this is necessary.
I was not, of course, suggesting that the caliphate passport would ever be shown to a British Border Force inspector. The whole point about the caliphate passport is that it will be used in the sort of countries where we would want to know a British passport holder had been doing things. The one thing he has not mentioned is that there is a greatly increasing and very serious threat of Islamist terrorism from the al-Qaeda and ISIS terrorist wings of political Islam. Pray God there is not, but if there were some terrible atrocity and it was found later that we had no idea what was likely but that we might have done if we had realised a person was moving around with other passports, there would be some regret at the Government’s line.
Frankly, the Government are wrong about this. The passport is a powerful weapon for defending our borders but full use is not made of it. I very much hope that the Permanent Secretary who has been tasked with looking at the Passport Office will consider these issues. As I said earlier, I pay tribute to the Border Force, which has greatly improved since Admiral Montgomery took it over from the Civil Service. As I said last time, I suspect we will gradually tiptoe towards a sounder way of making the best use of the passport system to protect us and our citizens. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“Guidance
In section 47 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 (guidance), for subsection (3) substitute—“(3) Before issuing or revising any guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, and representatives of chief police officers, local authorities, health authorities and persons concerned with the care of young people, the Youth Justice Board and such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.””
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, Section 47 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009—PACA, as my noble friend referred to it a few minutes ago—provides that the Secretary of State must issue guidance relating to gang-related violence injunctions. Under Section 47, the Secretary of State must, before issuing or revising guidance, consult the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales and such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate. Given the multidisciplinary nature of gang-related violence, it is interesting that the only specific consultee is the Lord Chief Justice—the courts, essentially. My amendment would add consultation of representatives of chief police officers, local authorities, health authorities and persons concerned with the care of young people, the Youth Justice Board and, again, such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.
I do not need to persuade the Committee of the interest, in a technical sense, of all those whom I have listed, in the issue of gang-related violence and the formation and operation of gangs. I appreciate that, under PACA, the Secretary of State is able to consult all these people but it would be appropriate to list a wider number of officeholders and interests than is simply caught up in “such other persons”. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hamwee for outlining her thinking behind this amendment. I entirely agree that the contents of any statutory guidance should be developed and agreed on by all the relevant parties in advance. I assure her that this is already the case. The statutory guidance on gang injunctions is being revised, as we have already discussed, and will be reissued in the autumn. We are already consulting the Youth Justice Board, the Ministry of Justice, HM Courts and Tribunals Service, the Judicial College, the Crown Prosecution Service and the College of Policing. We also plan to consult police forces and local authorities, through the Local Government Association, as well as the Department of Health and the Department for Education. This will ensure that the welfare of young people is integral to the process. I have emphasised, in my contributions, the importance of this guidance in making gang injunctions effective.
In legal terms, the current requirement to consult the Lord Chief Justice and,
“any other such person as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate”,
allows enough flexibility so that relevant parties are involved in the process as judged most appropriate. It is a commonly used form of words to describe this sort of consultation. Although I understand exactly why my noble friend has tabled this amendment, it is not possible to set out in legislation a comprehensive list of all those who should be consulted and I am not persuaded that anything further would be achieved by laying out a list of consultees. For this reason, and in the knowledge that the new guidance involves considerable consultation—though not I hope so much that it would mean it is not available by Report—I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, we know the phrase well. When my noble friend started to list those who are currently being consulted, I thought that this was sticking, again, with the court system. However, he widened that, and I was very pleased to hear confirmation that the importance of the welfare of young people, not just a criminal justice response, is being encapsulated in the consultation going on at the moment. I do not intend to pursue this, but I am glad to have that information and to have the recognition articulated in that way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
Amendment 40B will end this part of the work on the Bill with, again, something of a whimper, but nevertheless I shall pursue it very briefly in order to get the Minister’s comment.
Clause 56 deals with the retention or return of substances seized under these new provisions. Subsection (7) provides that where the substance is being retained for a second period, reasonable efforts are made,
“to give … notice to the person who the officer thinks may be entitled to the substance”.
The amendment would simply add that notice should also be given to the person from whom it was seized if that person is different. I may be missing something somewhere else in this clause, but I beg to move.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I am aware that the Committee is hungry. I am hungry myself, so I shall be extremely brief. This amendment, helpfully tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, provides us with the only opportunity to debate the provisions in the Bill that deal with cutting agents used to bulk out illegal drugs. I simply want to draw to the attention of the Committee the law of unintended consequences. Cracking down on relatively harmless cutting agents such as benzocaine runs the risk that you drive criminals to use much more damaging cutting agents. A case was reported in Scotland recently in which six people died. They had used heroin that had been bulked out with a cutting agent contaminated with anthrax. Criminals are entirely unscrupulous. I hope that, when under the terms of this clause, the police, customs and courts are considering whether to return or retain cutting agents that have been seized, they will think very carefully about the consequences of impounding relatively safe cutting agents, thereby providing an incentive for criminals to use much more dangerous cutting agents.
I will also, although this is a painful thing to do, draw to the attention of the Committee the utterly tragic case of Martha Fernback, a 15 year-old girl who died nearly a year ago after consuming ecstasy—MDMA—which was 91% pure compared to the average street-level purity of 58%. Had that MDMA been cut and the purity been what it would normally be when it came into her hands, she would still be alive today. Her mother, Anne-Marie Cockburn, has campaigned with tremendous courage and great wisdom asking that the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary think deeply about whether it would be right to move from the system of prohibition that trapped that girl towards a system of legalisation and strict regulation as well as vastly better education in this field. I will not enlarge on that theme because the Minister and the House know my views well, but as the House determines whether to approve these clauses we ought to bear in mind that legislation with the best of intentions, which the Government have, can lead to horribly counterproductive effects.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, if a court approves the further retention of a suspected drug-cutting agent beyond the initial 30-day detention period, it is only right that the responsible police or customs officer makes reasonable efforts to inform the person who may be entitled to the substances if the person was not present or represented at the court hearing. A person entitled to the substances is defined in Clause 53 as the person the substances were seized from or the owner of the substances. It is important that all those persons who are entitled to receive notice do so. This provides additional protection for the legitimate trade, ensuring people have sufficient time to consider and act upon the notice, if appropriate.
I commend my noble friend Lady Hamwee for ensuring that we continue to minimise the impact on the legitimate trade by setting out in clear terms who should be informed of the court’s decision. I shall therefore give further consideration to extending the provision to ensure that notice is given to the person from whom the suspected drug-cutting agents were seized, if different from the owner. I will reflect on this point and let her know the outcome in advance of Report.
On the two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, about switching to more dangerous cutting agents, the proposals include a general seizure power which covers any substance suspected of being intended for use as a drug-cutting agent. Therefore, we do not anticipate that they will lead to drug traffickers using cutting agents that are more dangerous than those currently being used. I have heard of dangerous cutting agents being used currently. Any new substances that traffickers begin to use would be equally subject to seizure under these powers.
On the risk that the powers to seize cutting agents would place drug users in danger because of purity issues, by restricting the ability of drug traffickers to cut drugs we anticipate that the new powers will reduce harm by limiting the availability of drugs on the street. Lower availability should increase prices and therefore reduce use. The powers will also attack the profits of drug traffickers, which they use to fund a range of other harmful criminal activities. Moreover, the most common cutting agents are far from harmless. There has been a move away from inactive cutting agents to more dangerous pharmaceutical agents, such as benzocaine, lidocaine and phenacetin. Toxic doses of benzocaine and lidocaine can decrease the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood and can cause convulsions that mimic the acute toxicity of cocaine. Phenacetin, a painkiller, is no longer used in the UK due to its carcinogenic and kidney-damaging properties.
I hope my response has addressed the issues that my noble friend and the noble Lord have raised and that my noble friend will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the Minister is extremely generous and I consider my wrist to have been slapped. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, yet again with the Serious Crime Bill we have had not only good and strong arguments but we have considered them succinctly. As a result, we are in the position that we have reached the target for today’s consideration of the Bill at a point when it means that the Question for Short Debate in the name of my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft has become the last business of the day. This has the advantage for those who previously thought that they had seven minutes that they may now have 10 minutes for speeches. The number of minutes for the proposer, my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft, remains at 10, and for my noble friend the Minister at 12. However, for all other participants, it is now 10 minutes.
Industrial Strategy: British Business Bank
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wheatcroft
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their strategy in relation to industrial policy, and in particular the British Business Bank.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to be leading this debate on the industrial strategy and the role of the British Business Bank within it. The good news is that there is a strategy. The even better news is that it is working. We have in the past seen Governments meddle with industry with less happy results. In steel, in motors and even in travel agency, Governments have demonstrated that they are not great when it comes to running things.
However, this Government have a well thought-out strategy which is not about short-term froth but about long-term benefits for the country. Establishing the British Business Bank is an important facet of that strategy, helping smaller firms to overcome that perennial problem of how to get their hands on finance. Governments sometimes seem to struggle to breach the divides between various departments but, on the industrial front, we really do have joined-up government: the Treasury working with BIS and UKTI to get the right results, to help our businesses grow and, crucially, to export.
The overarching policy is to provide an environment which nurtures business generally, with low corporation tax and sensible, not overburdensome, regulation. Although there are some difficulties which cannot be addressed overnight, and will in fact take years to put right, such as infrastructure failings and the skills shortage—which all too often means a failing of numeracy and literacy—the UK is nevertheless now an attractive place to start, build and grow a business. It is Europe’s top destination for foreign direct investment, the money flows that create jobs.
There is one school of thought that argues that government should not attempt to intervene in industry beyond providing that hospitable environment. Certainly, picking winners is a dangerous occupation, not that some Governments do not still attempt it. Choosing individual companies to be nurtured into being national champions is a recipe for national disaster. This Government have avoided it and wisely chosen to look not at companies, but at those sectors where we already have an edge and where an extra push might produce the greatest benefits for the country.
There are 11 such sectors. Another Administration might have rounded the number up and gone for a neat dozen, or rounded it down to come up with a top 10. The fact that both those options have been resisted in favour of 11 chosen sectors surely indicates that a genuine plan, rather than passing headlines, is what this is all about. The sectors are aerospace, agricultural technologies, automotives—and here I declare an interest as a director of Fiat; we do not yet manufacture in the UK but I am doing my best—construction, information economy, international education, life sciences, nuclear, offshore wind, oil and gas, and professional and business services.
Is it not instantly cheering to reflect that in all those really important and high-growth sectors, the UK already has some world-class businesses and they are going to get better? There are things that an enlightened Government can do to help. Within each sector, top executives now get together, not to collaborate on price—which would see them land up in jail, which is not part of the Government’s industrial strategy—but to look at where there are barriers to growth and things that Ministers can do to make life easier for them.
The Government can, and do, help to fund research which will benefit these chosen sectors. For instance, there is now a £7 million centre for “extreme engineering” at the University of Newcastle. The Neptune Centre for Subsea and Offshore Engineering brings together industry and academia to develop technologies that can withstand the world’s harshest environments. Future success in the oil and gas industry will depend on being able to employ the best science and technology, and what emerges from this centre will keep British companies at the forefront of these developments. Siting this ground-breaking centre on the north bank of the Tyne will give a boost to the revival of this part of Tyneside.
It is absolutely vital that our industrial strategy is not just about rebalancing the economy in terms of its dependence on the service sector, but about rebalancing it geographically. The concentration of wealth and wealth creation in London and the south-east is simply not healthy. In terms of gross value added, the average Londoner generates more than £37,000, while in the north-east the figure is marginally over £16,000, and in Wales it is even less than that.
While I am sure that we here in the capital like to think that we are doing our bit for the economy—although there are of course some who doubt that we do much of it in here—I am confident that in the north-east and Wales people feel the same way. These figures are a reflection not of a lack of energy or enterprise but of the huge growth in the financial services sector which has benefited London and of a lack of investment in the regions. Perhaps the Minister could tell the House how industrial strategy is contributing to rebalancing that. We need to make sure that the profits of growth are shared across the country and not just in the wealthy south-east. The growth is coming but we need to be sure that it is shared.
Remarkable evidence of that growth has come just today, with the latest figures from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. It estimates that in the previous quarter Britain enjoyed its fastest growth for four years, at 0.9%; that really is cause for celebration. Yet, despite that remarkable achievement, we could do better. Too many of our small businesses stay just that way. For some that is a lifestyle decision, but for many it is because they hit hurdles that they simply cannot get over.
That was why the Government established the British Business Bank. In some ways this is still a notional entity, as it has to go through the laborious process of getting EU approval before it can take on a life of its own. That should come, I hope, by the end of the year. However, for now, the British Business Bank is part of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and here it is already at work.
I confess to something of a maternal interest in the British Business Bank as I was a member of the steering group which tried to plot a useful course for this innovation. It was conceived as a potential solution to growing complaints from smaller businesses about the banks’ reluctance to lend, or at least to lend on reasonable terms. It is all very well to make an offer of funding to a small firm, but if it is at an interest rate and on terms which are completely impossible that does not really constitute an offer at all. The latest available figures indicate that banks’ reluctance to lend remains. According to the Bank of England, in the first four months of this year total lending to small and medium-sized enterprises was almost £2 billion lower than in the same period last year, which was itself £1.5 billion lower than in the previous year.
Now, maybe demand has really shrunk, but it is hard to believe that it has evaporated on that scale. The British Business Bank is therefore attempting to bridge the gap, encouraging new lenders into the market and channelling funds into innovative operators such as the peer-to-peer lender Funding Circle. Here I must confess to a touch of nervousness when I read the bank’s promotional material and see: “We’ll use … securitisation techniques”. It goes on to say:
“By using leverage as a tool”,
we will be able to—noble Lords will get the gist of what concerns me. Securitisation and leverage are not of themselves ruinous, but anyone who has lived through the ravages of the financial crisis has learned to treat them with a degree of caution. Can the Minister reassure the House that the business bank will remain focused on helping smaller firms rather than becoming a government-owned investment bank? I have always struggled with the term “investment bank” anyhow, because investment seems to be the antithesis of what those organisations do. Will the business bank specifically help companies in those 11 sectors that have been set out as the strategic sectors for the country?
The business bank can do much useful work in just guiding smaller firms through the various schemes available for them—all 810 of them, according to the website. From the Armagh Business Centre through the Survive and Thrive programme to the Wood Energy Business Scheme, there surely must be something for everyone—but finding it may be difficult. A bit of streamlining might not go amiss. The business bank website is on its way to becoming a user-friendly information hub, but there is still a way to go. Often money is not the key to what smaller firms need.
I will end—and I promise that I will end here—by mentioning a scheme launched at the beginning of this year to bolster the 8,900 mid-sized businesses in this country. Currently those businesses make up just 0.5% of all businesses, but contribute around a fifth of employment and turnover. The CBI reckons that if they were to reach their full potential, they could add £20 billion to £50 billion to the economy. I cannot see why the sky should not be the limit. However, only 17% of those businesses export. The Government have now sent a personal letter to each one of those companies, asking if they would like individual support from UKTI to get them exporting. There are specialists ready to work with them. Is that not an industrial strategy in action?
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for moving this Motion, because it provides us with an opportunity to learn more about the business bank. It seems to have been below the horizon in recent months, but I notice it published a strategy document last month, in June.
The noble Baroness puts the business bank in the context of an industrial policy strategy. My response is: what strategy? Yes, she explained actions that the Government are taking, and Ministers refer to an industrial strategy that was announced in 2012. Last Thursday, the Minister spoke of a strategy in a debate on manufacturing and mentioned several initiatives, all of which are very welcome. However, the noble Baroness described initiatives reacting to market opportunities or to issues that have arisen in the economy: skills, training, technologies and sectors for support, exporting and, yes, financing. She also described existing businesses.
However, that does not add up to a strategy. Those are piecemeal responses to changes or problems that have arisen over the years. A strategy has to be intellectually coherent. It has to provide a framework for all of these activities. It has to be a means to an end—a means for achieving a vision. If we have one, perhaps the Minister can tell us what is the purpose of our strategy? Is it economic growth, or to benefit us all?
Ministers like to learn from Germany. Fifteen years ago, Germany was the sick man of Europe. Their strategy was laid out in Lisbon 2000 and the Haas report. It was economic, social and environmental, and yes—it has worked. It has provided a path for everybody in Germany to improve their quality of life and their ability to earn a living, and their economy is winning the race to the top. That is a strategy.
The noble Baroness is therefore right to put the question of the business bank in the context of a strategy. However, I put it to her that this is yet one more example of the Government reacting to events. Indeed, she told us as much when she said that the bank had resulted from what occurred during the banking crisis, because of lack of investment funds for small and medium-sized enterprises.
I welcome what the bank has done, acting as an intermediary in supplying credit, unlocking funds through guarantees and filling in other small funding gaps. I also welcome the way it has tidied up the work of the small loans guarantee and the capital for enterprise initiatives. The website gives us the numbers, but it does not make clear how much are loans on the bank’s own account and how much are for acting as intermediaries. Perhaps the Minister can tell us that. Although welcome, the amounts are quite small in relation to the size of the financial market and will have a modest impact on the market.
A proper strategy would deal with the financial market itself, not just one of its failures. It should be a market which provides patient capital to allow small and medium-sized enterprises to develop their businesses. It should provide investment in capital intensive schemes such as power stations or cement works, which are mainly foreign owned because our financial market is adverse to this kind of investment. The same goes for infrastructure investment. The market should work for us all instead of finance largely being an end in itself.
We know that just giving the banks more money to lend to business obviously does not work—the money goes elsewhere. A proper strategy would encourage putting money into industry for the public benefit instead of inflating the value of our homes for private benefit. For instance, in many European countries, including Germany, you cannot borrow against the rising value of your house, so rising property values do not suffocate lending to business. A proper strategy would encompass more competition. In this morning’s Financial Times there was news of the potential for 30 new banks. That is good.
If the objective of the business bank is to raise the quality of life of us all and help our industry win the race to the top, all those issues have to be part of a strategy, throughout government. An industrial bank can help, especially as part of a coherent strategy, but it cannot do it alone.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and to have her tour d’horizon of the Government’s industrial strategy from her perspective of experience in the business world and business journalism.
As the noble Baroness said, there are very good and encouraging signs of recovery as the economy starts to rebalance and growth resumes. When Vince Cable first started to refer to the term “industrial strategy”, I must say that I had certain concerns about that terminology, because I always associated it with the Government’s failed ventures to intervene in industry in the 1970s. However, the work at BIS over the past four years matches the Treasury in providing the essential components of recovery and the hope for sustainable growth. The brand “industrial strategy” is clearly being restored and reinvigorated, and it looks like a winner. I want to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, that there are components of an industrial strategy here. They are very clear, have been set out very clearly by the Secretary of State for Business, and a lot of them build on the good foundations left by the previous Secretary of State for Business, the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson.
There are four key components of this strategy. The first is the partnership activity concentrated on the key strategic sectors. We have seen the recovery in the automobile sector: it is remarkable. We are now one of the leading producers of motor cars in Europe. Now we have to concentrate on making sure that the component supplies are provided in the UK and not simply imported. This weekend in Silverstone we saw the spotlight on the specialist engineering companies which are behind the development of Formula 1, and all the reforms that they have introduced, particularly on energy conservation. Many of these SMEs are based here in the UK.
Two weeks ago, I visited Airbus in Toulouse, another example of where partnership between Government and industry has been remarkably successful. In 1995, 20% of passenger aircraft were made in Europe by European manufacturers; the rest were made in America. Today, more than 50% of those planes are made in Europe, largely through Airbus and its suppliers, and we have 10,000 employees in Airbus and 100,000 working in the supply chain of this company. It is impossible to see how success would be possible in that sector without a partnership between the Government on research and development and a vision of what a European industrial strategy could achieve in this sector. Any idea that a partnership with the German and French aviation sectors could take place so successfully outside the EU is, in my view, ludicrous.
The second key component of the strategy is the promotion of key technologies, particularly based on the partnership with universities and the development of catapult centres. The role of universities has been recognised as essential to economic growth. They are building on the competitive advantages in research, which we must now exploit in a successful industrial strategy, whether it is in energy storage, robotics, regenerative medicine or the other sectors and technologies that they have identified as part of the strategy.
The third component—and where the coalition has had great success, although I will not go into the detail tonight—is addressing skill shortages and unemployment through the growth of the apprenticeship scheme and a refocus on the importance of technical education. The provision of skills in these technical areas is vital for our industrial strategy.
The fourth component of the strategy is to provide financial support, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. We know that SMEs are a major provider of jobs and have been over the past couple of years—remarkably so as we have recovered from recession. There is great potential now through more start-ups and more growth from these companies. It is remarkable that until 2012 this country was the only one of the G8 countries without a specialist institution seeking to intervene and provide finance and advice for SMEs. Germany has its KfW bank; the USA, despite moves in Congress, still has the Small Business Administration. These are bodies with vast resources and expertise which all help with financing and advice for small businesses. I hope that our British investment bank, once it is approved by the European Union’s competition authorities in the autumn, will be a further force for us in this competitive market.
We are grappling with market imperfections in respect of financing small businesses. At a time when bank choice is down to four, with many withdrawing from high-risk, high-cost, more risky finance for small businesses, we needed to do something to fill that gap. It is long overdue. It is a problem that has existed in this country since the 1930s and when markets do not work then the Government have to help make sure that they do. There has been a lack of provision for debt and equity financing for these companies and there has been demand weakness as well. There has been a lack of awareness of business potential and of the benefits of raising finance at cheaper rents. Without the funding, these companies will not fulfil their potential. The first step is to develop the local networks, through investment partners, to form a strategic plan, which we have now seen published by the business bank, and then to develop the key partnering to help private finance think longer term and take advantage of government backing to lever lower borrowing costs. We have seen substantial progress in the first year of the bank: £282 million lent to 30,000 businesses; and the formation of 80 financial partners, with the aim of increasing this investment to £10 billion by 2018.
For the country to make its mark and to gain competitive advantage we have to see some continuity in these policies over the next four to 10 years. It is important to recognise that we will not see the benefits of some of these policies until the next Government or the Government after next—these policies take time to emerge—but we have got to see ongoing work to simplify financing schemes and to finesse them in different markets. We have to develop the bank to match the best of our competitors in other countries, particularly in Germany.
There are two final elements to the industrial strategy. The Government are making moves to ensure that government procurement is aimed at helping small businesses, particularly with the success of the Olympics in 2012. In the regional economic partnerships we have the basis for encouraging growth in the regions, and I hope that these organisations will be used to help promote financial opportunity for small businesses.
Just as the Treasury’s determination and focus on the financial and economic policy of the country are showing signs of working, so the industrial strategy, led by BIS, is ensuring that the firm foundations for industrial recovery and export growth are built on a genuine partnership between the Government and key industrial sectors: knowledge, the strength of our universities; firm initiatives to improve skills; government procurement policies; and, at last, the establishment of a heavy-weight, specialist organisation, the British Business Bank, to assist and advise SMEs on financing, which is long overdue.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft for instigating this debate. Her insightful remarks come as a result of her very distinguished career as a business journalist at the Times and the Wall Street Journal, where her articles were a must-read for any businessperson for many years. I am particularly pleased to be able to take part in this debate because the financing of SMEs is an area in which I have had an interest all my working life. I refer your Lordships to my various interests as declared in the register of interests. I shall focus my remarks on the British Business Bank.
It was very clear to many of us in 2010, when the coalition Government first came to power, that the country’s finances had been left in a ghastly state in many areas and directions. It was not just the out-of-control debt and deficit which were threatening the whole economy and country, but the shock of the global financial crisis meant that banks were making life extremely difficult for many perfectly good businesses that desperately needed finance, both for working capital, or short-term finance, and longer-term equity injection.
It is probably safe to say that the incoming Government were shocked by the inability of the traditional banks at that time to take on the role they had previously undertaken in providing finance to SMEs and were acting a bit like rabbits caught in the headlights. The numbers bear this out. Successful loan applications for SMEs had dropped from 88% in 2007 to 65% in 2010, as opposed to 76% in Germany. In addition, the changing capital requirements, commonly known as Basel III, applied a risk weighting system with increased premiums for lending to SMEs which simply exacerbated one of the main areas in the UK for retail clearing banks. Indeed, it seemed clear that the retail banks simply could not, or would not, lend money to SMEs and found themselves incapable of doing so on a cost-effective basis. As the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, mentioned in the debate on Thursday on manufacturing, the noble Lord, Lord Young, reminded us of his recent enterprise report and noted that more than 95% of firms in this country currently employ fewer than 10 people. Smaller businesses are crucial to economic growth, and the current ratio of 80% of UK smaller business having as their bankers one of the four big banks is not sustainable.
There are particular circumstances for SMEs, which mean that they need special help. Many do not have a finance director but rely on the owner’s ability to do a service function and many other functions, and they rarely have time to shop around for finance. Indeed, research shows that 71% of SMEs seek finance only from their existing provider and, on average, in terms of median, the time spent by all SMEs looking for alternative sources of finance is less than one hour. Like all of us, SME owners do not enjoy filling out forms. Accordingly, in 2010, the word was out that banks were no longer interested in lending to them and, as a result, the problem became self-fulfilling as SME owners did not bother to apply to banks for such finance.
It then transpired that around the world, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said, there were better ways of doing business. The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, mentioned that in Germany there was the successful KfW model, which dwarfs anything that has been done in this country. We were the only country in the G8 not to have a comparable institution—by which I mean an institution that lends and invests in banks themselves. This is the work of the British Business Bank, which is probably misnamed. Although it is certainly British and certainly business-focused, not domestic, it is not really a bank as commonly understood, but rather an investor in challenger start-up organisations, which themselves pump-prime finance in a mixture of debt and equity to their own clients. This is infinitely preferable to the well trodden route of government direct intervention and subsequent massive write-off and losses.
I understand that the British Business Bank is tasked to achieve a return roughly equivalent to five-year gilts. It is not money that is written off; it is money on the books of BIS that seeks a return. I hope that we see full transparency on the results of BBB and, equally important, of each of its partners, some of whom, such as the start-up loans, will find profitability a stretch. I note that £300 million has been allocated to the investment programme to promote choice and competition in business finance, of which £203 million has been recommended. This is an excellent initiative, but it contains a large element of risk. Trying to achieve a return comparable to five-year gilts will prove a challenge.
There has in the past, before BBB, been a plethora of direct schemes available to entrepreneurs but, as I have said in this House, finding out about government grants and availability of funds has not been easy. Although the Government have reduced the schemes down to one government website, which is very helpful, the results are not produced in a way that is easy for an entrepreneur to select the appropriate scheme. The last time I looked, I found 791 schemes available to entrepreneurs seeking grants. I then tried a more selective search and I chose to look for a business in London with up to 250 employees in the service sector; by pressing the button, I was offered 42 grants, which is still too confusing.
The creation of the British Business Bank is a huge step forward and reflects the approach taken by this coalition Government to business, often by people in government who have had real experience of running a business with all the frustrations and pleasures that this entails. It is particularly pleasing to see that only 19% of British Business Bank’s business has been in London, so more than 80% is in the rest of the UK. It has ambitions to unlock further substantial sums as the new legislation allows. This is, of course, in addition to the £6 billion of growth deals announced by the Government yesterday, which is a separate matter.
I want to emphasise that the British Business Bank is not the only source of finance to businesses arranged by the Government. I particularly recommend to your Lordships the Business Growth Fund, an organisation that is finally coming to fruition and is investing equity finance into British business. I look forward to the British Business Bank reporting that its allocation of close to £3.9 billion has been deployed. I very much hope that all parties, while they may not have supported every aspect of the Chancellor’s successful recovery, will commit in their forthcoming manifestos to support the British Business Bank.
Lord Wrigglesworth (LD)
My Lords, I join in congratulating my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft in introducing this short debate, which provides us with a very useful opportunity to discuss industrial strategy and the role of the British Business Bank and banking more generally. The comments from my noble friend Lord Stoneham set out very clearly, when linked with what my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft said about industrial strategy, exactly what the Government are seeking to achieve. I am somewhat surprised by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, because I think that BIS and the Secretary of State have set out a very clear industrial strategy.
We have a lot of history in this. If you go back to Tony Benn, you have the extreme of wanting to nationalise the 40 top companies in the country. You then go through the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation and the National Economic Development Council, picking winners. That is another strategy. I think that the Government have got it absolutely right, as the noble Baroness said. They are facilitating the success of the banking sector and the other sectors and activities pointed out by my noble friend Lord Stoneham.
I wanted to intervene in this debate because I have had experience in two banks. One of them was a state bank, established by Tony Benn when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, called the National Girobank. I worked in the City for that bank for a number of years. The intention was to give everybody in the country a bank account, so that everybody could transfer money from one account to another by the new electronic means that was just becoming available. It all sounded absolutely wonderful; but of course it paid no attention to what was going on in the market. The bank ended up being privatised and sold off to the Alliance Building Society. It is still doing a useful little job there, but nothing like the major ambitions of Tony Benn in that time.
Because of my experience I want to bring some reservations to this debate about government policy at the moment—although I heartily endorse all that the Government are seeking to achieve. There is a great risk that expectations are raised too high about what can be achieved in creating competition in the banking sector. I was delighted to read—as the noble Lord also pointed out—in the Financial Times today that there is potential for another 30 banks. I hope that there are going to be 30 new banks; but I shall believe it when I see it. It also reported that five new banks had been given a certificate. I tried to start a bank in the north-east some years ago and know what it was like to try to get a licence to operate. There are five new banks—two of them Nigerian, two of them Indian and one British. The British one, Paragon, began life financing buy-to-let flats and houses in the boom before 2007-08.
We are therefore a long way from seeing the competition appearing that I think everybody would like to see. We hear a lot about challenger banks appearing on the scene. Nobody can disagree with it, but the greatest force in banking, from my experience, is inertia. People do not change their bank accounts. We need more competition in order to encourage them to do so; but to get carried away and think that in the term of one Government we can completely change the structure of the banking system in the country is pie in the sky. This is a very good start. It is very well worth doing and should be supported, but it is important that we do not get carried away and think that it can achieve everything in five minutes.
Similarly, on the regulatory side, there is a great danger that people think more can be achieved than actually can be achieved. In a previous incarnation I went to the United States to look at banking regulation there, which has always been rather more rigorous than it is here. I visited the comptroller of the currency; I remember meeting Paul Volcker; I met the chairmen of the Senate committee on banking and the House Committee on Financial Services, and a whole host of other people. The one message I got from it was that, no matter how much regulation we introduce, we will still get problems in the banking sector. I am slightly concerned that while we are spending our time discussing deregulation Bills and everybody is calling for deregulation in every other sector, if we are not very careful, in the stampede to regulate our banks we are going to kill the goose that has laid the golden egg in recent years.
That is not to say that things have not to be done; but there are over a million paragraphs of regulation in the FSA rulebook. When the Bank of England was given statutory responsibility over bank supervision in 1979, fewer than 80 people were engaged in the supervision of financial firms. Since then the number of UK financial supervisors has increased to around 1,200. In 1980 there was one UK regulator for every 11,000 people employed in the UK financial sector. By 2011, there was one regulator for every 300 people employed in finance. Those numbers do not even include compliance people in the private sector, the number of which has exploded since the crisis.
In 1974 returns could have around 150 entries. Today, UK banks are required to fill in more than 7,500 separate cells of data—a fiftyfold increase. Forthcoming legislation could see that rise to between 30,000 to 50,000 data cells spread across 60 different regulatory forms. We are in danger of killing the goose that laid the golden egg. While we are rightly concerned to control the banking sector, we need to realise that there is a limit to what should be done and what can be done.
The British Business Bank is getting off to a really good start. As my noble friend said, it is not really a bank; if anything, it is a wholesale bank. It is supporting or partnering other institutions. I think that that is the right way ahead; as a result, it is getting quickly to a very substantial number of small firms. The truth is that 80% of the lending to firms in this country is coming from the big institutions. Clearly, that is not a desirable situation so we want to see this institution succeeding.
I am slightly concerned, in reading the bank’s documents, that it says that:
“Unlike most banks, our impact is not measured in terms of profits generated but rather by the benefit of increased economic activity it creates”.
That is all very fine. I hope that the bank achieves the rates of return to which my noble friend referred because I do not want to see this institution crowding out other banks and other financial institutions seeking to operate on proper rates of return. Therefore the rates of return that it achieves are terribly important. I am pleased to see the objectives in there and the monitoring of them that the institution is proposing.
The British Business Bank deserves support. It is targeted in the right way through a whole host of institutions and it clearly has made a very good start in helping firms in the small and medium-sized enterprise sector which so clearly need the support that the bank is giving.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for securing this debate. I very much enjoyed listening to her comments. She is someone to whom the House always listens carefully because she knows a lot about the subjects she discusses. I am sure the Minister will reflect on her comments as he prepares to respond to the debate.
However, like my noble friend Lord Haskel, I found the noble Baroness’s somewhat unrelenting optimism about what she called the industrial strategy a little hard to take. I liked it better when she talked about some of the problems that still remain to be solved, including rebalancing the economy and trying to get more of a regional spread. That, I felt, was the more authentic voice which I have come to enjoy listening to. However, we look forward to what the Minister will say in response to the important points that she made.
I was very struck by what the noble Baroness said about the content of the industrial policy in the sense that she made play, I think, of 11 sectors. It was an interesting little number that I initially fell for, but I do not think that 11 is a particularly magic number. I am not an expert on the magic of Hogwarts, or anything like that, but I do not think that 11 features in that. Why 11? I think it is 11 because it is not 12. It is not 12 because, if you read the document produced by BIS last year, from which that is taken, you will see that it covers the 11 sectors which the noble Baroness listed, which are important and are being picked as winners. That may or may not please some noble Lords. The 12th and most important of these is, of course, the creative industries, but they do not appear in the document because they are not covered by BIS. That seems to me to suggest a fractured approach, meaning that the Government are not joined up about this. There is a danger that the sectors which BIS selects and supports are the ones that it provides for. As the noble Baroness pointed out, that would be rather ridiculous. Therefore, those 11 sectors but not the creative industries may well be in a beneficial place as regards the British Business Bank, export support or UKTI. That would be a terrible shame. I hope that is something the Government have picked up and are working on.
The 2008-09 crash exposed long-standing structural problems in our economy: an economy unbalanced by sector and region; short-termism in our corporate culture leading to low levels of business investment and low productivity; a dysfunctional finance system; and a stubborn and increasing trade deficit. Although some growth has finally arrived, which we certainly welcome, it is not the balanced and sustainable growth that we need. Prices are still rising faster than wages and the continuing cost of living crisis for many means that individuals are, on average, £1,600 a year worse off compared with 2010, so “business as usual” is certainly not good enough. To set the foundations for future success, we need to take a different approach.
Labour has a long-term plan to earn and grow our way to higher living standards. Our goal is a high-productivity, high-skilled, innovation-led economy. To get there, we need more British-based businesses creating good jobs, investing, innovating and exporting. If elected in May 2015, we will deliver an economy creating good jobs and opportunities, offering people a ladder up and the best chance to make the most of their potential. We will take action on immediate pressures that businesses face and cut business rates. We will reform the energy market and boost competition in the banking sector. To lay the foundations for long-term success, Labour’s plans already include: radically reforming vocational education and apprenticeships; creating a proper, independent British investment bank and a network of regional banks with a responsibility to boost lending in their areas; supporting green growth by backing the 2030 decarbonisation target; and establishing a small business administration to champion small businesses at the heart of government. Some of these points were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham. When we come to power, I hope that we can count on his support for these measures. I think that he wants to see an all-party approach to ensuring that our economy is sustainably supported over the long term.
What is the problem that the British Business Bank is trying to solve? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, who said that in some senses it is a misnomer. I think that point was also picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Wrigglesworth. Indeed, it is more of a wholesale operation. The bank picks up that point in its strategy document and says that it is not a bank in the conventional sense. We understand that. According to the business bank’s new strategic plan, which was published only last month, its goal is to,
“change the structure of finance markets for smaller businesses, so these markets work more effectively and dynamically”.
Any scheme that helps small businesses to access finance is clearly welcome but the record of the Government in getting the clearing banks to lend to small businesses is one of complete failure. This, presumably, is a statement endorsed by the Government confirming what we have been saying to the Government for some time: every scheme, from Project Merlin—remember that one?—to Funding for Lending, has completely failed to deliver to the small and medium-sized businesses.
Indeed, as was quoted by the noble Baroness in her opening remarks, according to the Bank of England's most recent Money and Credit statistical release, net lending to SMEs has fallen by £1 billion in the last quarter and is down by £2.2 billion overall compared to last year.
We have a bit of a problem here and it is very interesting to read in the strategic plan of the business bank what it thinks about it. For example it says very early on in its strategic aims:
“We will increase the supply of finance available to smaller businesses where markets don’t work well”.
If we unpick that, this means there is a problem in that the present system is not supplying finance to where it is needed. Markets are not working well and the supply of finance is therefore reduced. The strategic plan also says:
“We will create a more diverse and vibrant finance market for smaller businesses, with a greater choice of options and providers”.
Again, if we duck behind the language, that means that the existing system does not provide the funding, the existing banks are not worth working with and they need to come up with something that will make more of a difference in terms of the flow of funds to those who can use them. I think we would agree with that.
The plan also says:
“We will build confidence in the market by increasing smaller businesses’ understanding of the options available to them”.
That is an interesting point; if you go behind the language, it suggests that the bank is saying that the people who start businesses—the people who are in charge of the small business sector—are untrained in trying to raise finance, probably not very good managers at that either, and do not understand what they need to do in order to get the finance, so they will have to embark on education in order to get to the point where they can even complete all the forms that the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, was saying are very difficult. I enjoyed his riff about the trouble of getting through the website. He mentioned that in an earlier speech to which I was responding. I followed him through it and I had even more trouble than he had in getting to anything. I am glad to say that the British Growth Fund, which he also mentioned, has a much simpler website where you can get to very easy options straightaway. I understand why he recommends that.
I have had a bit of fun with the wording of the strategy document, but I do not think the Minister necessarily needs to go through it. Unless he says anything to the contrary, I will take it to be a validation of what we have been saying. There is a problem and the banks are not solving it. We also have a bigger problem in that people do not really understand what they need to do to get the funding they want.
This section that I have been quoting ends with the proposition:
“We will achieve this whilst managing taxpayer resources efficiently and within a robust risk … framework”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, was on to that as well. I understand where she was coming from. I too had great difficulties with this section of the report—I do worry about it. Having said that, I want to get the compliments out of the way first. The strategic plan is really good. It is a very good read—and I mean that as a compliment. It gives some interesting figures and background to the context which I have not seen brought together before. For example, there is a little table that shows very clearly that 53% of businesses with up to 50 employees who have applied for a loan from the clearing banks were declined. This is slightly bigger than the figure that the noble Lord, Lord Wrigglesworth, mentioned. It really is a disaster—if nearly 50% of the businesses cannot get the money, there is a problem.
I also liked the direct funding programme that they have in the strategy. The Aspire programme which is up to £1 million for women-led SMEs seems to be a very good proposition. That is an area of the market that has not been looked at in any detail, and I pay tribute to the British Business Bank for picking up the opportunities that are there for women-led SMEs.
I also like the enterprise finance guarantee, which uses the financial strength that is available in the bank to help those who need guarantees to get lending, because they may not have collateral or assets that they can pledge in return for their money.
I also think that there is still a huge opportunity for start-up loans, which used to come from the banks and of course have dried up completely. Throughout the report, which I recommend to noble Lords, the case studies are very interesting about what is happening on the ground and the way in which the bank is operating.
I am, however, concerned about the way the bank operates for the majority of its interventions. In the Written Ministerial Statement, which accompanied the lodging of the strategy in the House of Commons, the Secretary of State draws attention to the fact that 61% of the bank’s activity is channelled through smaller investors and lenders, with only 39% going through the big four banks. He continues:
“Over the coming years, I expect that this bias away from the big banks will continue”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/6/14; col. 21WS]
I have already explained that I smell where that is coming from. But that 61% going up and being channelled in a wholesale manner through other institutions is interesting and, like the noble Baroness, I worry about that.
My worry is slightly different in practice because examples of what are called “innovative investments” over the past year have included: £7.8 million to the Dawn Capital II venture capital fund; £25 million to the Episode 1 venture capital fund; £30 million committed to the Praesidian Capital Europe debt fund; £15 million to BMS Finance; £40 million invested through Funding Circle, which is a good thing, and £20 million in the Sussex Place Ventures capital fund. These are somewhat opaque titles and giving money to venture capital funds and hedge funds, which already seem to be quite good at gathering cash to reinvest, seems an odd way to supply support. Perhaps the Minister might reflect on that when he comes to respond. For instance, why are those companies not doing their own funding alongside existing sources, including the British Growth Fund?
This will of course raise issues of propriety. I draw the Minister’s attention to a recent report in the Independent on Sunday. It said:
“Millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is being spent on a venture capital fund overseen by one of the Conservative Party’s biggest donors … The British Business Bank, which is run by the Department for Business, has committed £7.8m to the Dawn Capital II investment fund … Dawn Capital II’s parent company is Dawn Capital, whose chairman is Adrian Beecroft”.
Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord Newby (LD)
I was seeking to draw the noble Lord’s attention to the time.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I am sorry; I got carried away and I have overrun. I will not go on, as I think the point is made, but the report asks whether there is a problem about a company drawing money from the state and giving money to an individual who is a well known supporter of the Conservative Party. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft for initiating this important debate. I pay tribute to her for her contribution to the business bank steering group.
Changes in international economies are creating new challenges and opportunities for business across Britain. Last week, in a debate in this House, I talked about what we are doing to support manufacturing in the UK, which was mentioned earlier. This debate allows me to go in to more detail on the Government’s industrial strategy and how the British Business Bank is providing access to finance for smaller businesses to help them grow and prosper. I fear that I will not be able fully to address the questions raised by the noble Lords, Lord Haskel and Lord Stevenson, because there were some particularly negative opinions given. As my noble friend Lord Stoneham said, I believe that the industrial strategy is clear and I seek to try to explain that today.
Your Lordships will be aware that the industrial strategy, launched by Vince Cable in 2012, has given impetus and focus to this Government’s long-term plan for growth. I am pleased to hear that there was much agreement today on that. It provides businesses, investors and the public with more clarity about the long-term direction of the economy, looking beyond this Parliament. The Government are working in partnership with industry to provide support across a wide range of sectors. They are broad sectors rather than picking winners, as my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft said.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, asked what the purpose of the industrial strategy is. The industrial strategy is providing a spectrum of support for a range of sectors and this partnership with industry is giving both government and industry confidence in the future direction of the economy and confidence to set policy to address the needs of business, and for business to invest in long-term growth. But it is more than that. The industrial strategy is about economic growth and providing benefit for us all.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about the creative industries not being one of the industrial strategy sectors. The Government are providing a spectrum of support for a wide number of sectors, over and above the 11 listed in the industrial strategy, and BIS is working closely with DCMS on the creative industries strategy. Nicola Mendelsohn, the industry chair of the creative sector, sits on the industrial strategy council, which is a sign of the breadth of engagement outside the 11 sectors.
The UK also has great strengths in the life sciences field—a sector I want to focus on—where, among other successes, and as evidenced in the news today, we are world leaders in ground-breaking dementia research. Last week, we launched “Create UK” in support of the creative industries, which are worth £71.4 billion to the UK economy, a sector that I know well in my role as the Minister for Intellectual Property.
My noble friend Lady Wheatcroft asked how we would address regional imbalances in terms of investments and funding. Only yesterday we launched the growth deals for the 39 local enterprise partnerships further to support local growth throughout the country through £6 billion of funding for transport, housing, business support and skills projects in the regions. These growth deals are the latest part of the Government’s long-term plan to boost growth around the country, following, among other projects, the multi-billion pound regional growth fund, and the city deals signed with 26 urban areas across the country.
My noble friend Lady Wheatcroft raised the issue of ensuring that the impact of the industrial sector is felt across the UK. As the House will be only too well aware, my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham is working hard with the sectors to increase their help for small and medium-sized enterprises, and in the professional and business services sector, which I co-chair, we run regular regional workshops for SMEs. Members of the council, including my co-chair, attend these and offer advice.
I will be focusing primarily on access to finance but there are some cross-cutting themes that underpin our support for all sectors. As I mentioned last week, we have invested £600 million in the “eight great technologies”. These are the technologies where we have the research expertise and business capabilities to be a world leader. They are supported by the Technology Strategy Board and include robotics, big data and energy storage. We are helping to bridge the gap between research and development and the market through £74 million of investment in nine catapult centres, which are complementary to our industrial strategy.
On the important subject of skills, which was raised by my noble friends Lady Wheatcroft and Lord Stoneham, we need to address the current and future shortages. We need to strengthen our science, technology, engineering and maths skills base by building a skills pipeline at all levels from technicians through to postgraduates. To do this, we are, first, investing £185 million in the teaching of STEM subjects; secondly, offering traineeships to young people; thirdly, we are building and delivering a network of new national colleges to provide specialist vocational training; and finally, as the House will know, we have set up university technical colleges.
As my noble friend Lord Stoneham highlighted, we are unlocking procurement opportunities, advising businesses in advance what the Government are planning to purchase so that they can invest in the right skills and equipment to make the most of these opportunities. Through UKTI we are helping our companies to export. In April 2014, UK organisations won four new contracts worth £1 billion to establish 12 technical and vocational training colleges in Saudi Arabia. Key events such as the International Festival for Business in Liverpool, which I attended two weeks ago, help us to showcase our companies and technologies on the world stage. The festival is creating new business-to-business relationships, and unlocking commercial openings for small, medium and large companies, both at home and overseas.
I now turn to the important point of access to finance. Well-functioning markets for finance are crucial for ensuring that firms can invest and operate when they need to, producing new and improved goods and services, and in turn boosting the UK’s productivity and competitiveness. We do understand that there are some well-documented long-standing supply and demand issues, which mean that smaller firms cannot always access the finance that they require. My noble friend Lady Wheatcroft alluded to this. We have been addressing these issues, and hence the reason that this Government have established the British Business Bank.
The business bank is providing funding and guarantees through private sector finance providers, allowing them to offer more targeted and appropriate finance products for smaller firms so that they can prosper and grow. My noble friend Lady Wheatcroft raised issues about using securitisation techniques as part of the modus operandi of the business bank. I agree with my noble friend that the business bank should operate for the good of the economy. It will not operate for its own benefit. It is already staffed by skilled professionals who know how the markets work. But it will operate within the rules set by BIS and the Treasury, and with a sensible risk appetite.
Over the next five years, the bank aims to unlock up to £10 billion of financing for commercially viable smaller businesses. A range of British Business Bank programmes is already making a real and significant difference, catering for the diverse needs of smaller firms, such as start-up loans, which support entrepreneurs looking to start a business with a repayable loan of up to £25,000, and give access to a business mentor. I am delighted to report that more than 18,500 of those loans have now been offered to entrepreneurs, with more than £92 million approved to finance start-up businesses.
The British Business Bank also provides guarantees through the enterprise finance guarantee scheme to support loans to firms that would otherwise be declined funding due to a lack of collateral for working capital purposes. This programme has proved a considerable success, providing nearly 15,500 loans since the election and resulting in more than £1.6 billion of additional lending to smaller businesses.
The bank also provides a suite of venture capital interventions, including enterprise capital funds, which support and promote a diverse and vibrant market to help early-stage and high-growth firms. The enterprise capital fund programme currently has 16 separate funds, nine of which are investing in early-stage opportunities, with a combined capacity of more than £530 million.
As my noble friend Lord Leigh mentioned, a £300 million investment programme has been developed to provide support for a range of finance providers, including debt funds and peer-to-peer finance platforms. To date, £198 million of awards have been recommended by the investment panel, which will support more than £800 million of lending capacity.
The British Business Bank will also provide information and advice to smaller businesses about how to successfully go about getting the right type of finance. One example of this is the recently published Business Finance Guide, produced in association with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.
We believe that the investments made by British Business Bank programmes are already delivering significant results. In total, British Business Bank programmes facilitated £782 million of new lending and investment in the last financial year. Over 60% of this funding was provided through new, emerging or smaller finance providers.
My noble friend Lord Wrigglesworth mentioned the need to balance good regulation in banking with promoting sensible risk-taking. Banking regulation has tightened greatly. This Government have led global efforts to increase capital and liquidity requirements but we are also aware of the need to promote competition. This is why rules for small and new entrants are not as strict and the process for new banking licences has been streamlined. We see the results in new banks coming into the market.
My noble friend Lord Stoneham asked about success measures for the British Business Bank. Last week we published our success measures in the bank’s strategic plan, which are: increasing the amount of finance for small firms; increasing choice; increasing small firms’ confidence in finance markets; and finally, doing all this while managing taxpayers’ resources efficiently. These will be turned into detailed KPIs over the next few months and this will be monitored by the British Business Bank’s board, which itself will report to BIS Ministers.
My noble friend Lord Leigh asked to see greater transparency on the British Business Bank’s results. I assure my noble friend that all results will be published and fully transparent.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, if I read him correctly, asked how much of the British Business Bank’s activity is effected on its own account. All the bank’s lending and investment is exercised alongside private sector providers. So, of the £782 million of lending and investment last year, around one-quarter is public sector money and the rest is new money from the private sector.
To conclude, the British Business Bank is integral to the UK’s long-term industrial strategy and is playing a vital role in removing the barriers to businesses accessing finance. This Government’s commitment to a long-term industrial strategy has already proven a success in supporting growth and turning our economy around, and its impact will continue to be felt long after this Parliament. It is essential that we continue to work in partnership with industry to address barriers to growth, both to unlock the potential of British business and to deliver strong and sustainable growth.
Baroness Wheatcroft
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response, and I take comfort from the fact that he reassured us that the business bank will work within strict limits as to the risk it takes. I take rather less comfort from his reassurance—
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but I should perhaps remind her that in this type of debate she does not have the right of reply.