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, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
2. What progress she has made on reducing pupil absence from schools.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
16. What progress she has made on reducing pupil absence from schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
In the autumn and spring of 2009-10, 45.8 million days of school were missed by pupils. By 2013-14, that figure had decreased to 35.7 million, the lowest number since comparable records began. The number of pupils who were persistently absent has also decreased, from 439,000 in 2009-10 to 262,000—again, a record low level. Time off for holidays has also dropped, by about 1.4 million school days, compared with the same period in 2009-10.
Mr Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I also thank the Secretary of State for visiting Nuneaton last Thursday to hold a very positive round-table discussion with local head teachers. Good attendance is the bedrock of improving educational outcomes for our young people. Will my hon. Friend therefore join me in thanking the teachers, head teachers and governors in Warwickshire for the solid improvement in attendance in the past year?
Mr Gibb
The Secretary of State mentioned to me how much she enjoyed her visit to the George Eliot school in Nuneaton on Thursday and how valuable she found the round-table discussion with the head teachers from Nuneaton and north Warwickshire schools. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) is assiduous in fighting for small businesses and more jobs in his constituency, and that he therefore understands the importance of education. I join him in paying tribute to all the teachers, parents and pupils for their efforts to reduce pupil absences, particularly in Warwickshire, where the number of school days lost owing to absence has fallen from 5.7% in 2009-10 to 4.2% this year. There have been similar falls in persistent absence.
Mr Walker
Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to Perry Wood primary school in Worcester? Against a backdrop of falling absence levels in the county, the school has used pupil premium funding to introduce a walking bus and a breakfast club, and it has increased attendance from around 90% two years ago to an average of 96% today.
Mr Gibb
I pay tribute to the teachers at Perry Wood school for the innovative way in which they have reduced absence there. In fact, I congratulate schools throughout Worcester on improving school attendance. In Worcestershire as a whole, overall absence has dropped by a fifth and persistent absence by almost a quarter since 2009, and I pay tribute to all the teachers, parents and pupils for the work they are doing.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
21. Another reason for school absence is that some pupils are young carers who have duties at home. The burden on young carers was shown tellingly in a BBC film called “Looking after Mum”, which was about a young carer who had been caring for her mother—my constituent—who had had a stroke when the child was four years old. What are Ministers doing to ensure that schools have policies in place to identify and support such young carers who have taken on a burden of care from the age of four?
Mr Gibb
Schools play an important part in identifying young carers and offering them appropriate support. To assist them in that endeavour, the Department has been working with the Children’s Society and the Carers Trust to share tools and good practice with schools, including a free access e-learning module for school staff. The Department of Health is also training school nurses to support young carers at school.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Is it still the case that, for the purpose of drawing up school league tables, a pupil in hospital receiving treatment for cancer would be marked as absent?
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
3. What recent discussions she has had with the CBI on careers education in schools.
The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)
One of my priorities is to ensure that more of our young people are leaving education with the skills to succeed in modern Britain. In October, I hosted a round-table discussion with employers and education sector representatives, including the CBI, on this important issue. We are consulting representatives to examine what further steps we can take to prepare young people for the world of work more effectively, and to ensure that businesses are engaging with schools in meaningful ways.
Stephen Timms
The CBI business manifesto was published last month. It highlights
“the shameful state of careers provision in English schools”.
It emphasises that girls in particular are losing out, but states that everyone is suffering as a result of what seems to be the virtual collapse of careers education. Why has the situation been allowed to get this bad, and what is the Secretary of State going to do to fix it?
Nicky Morgan
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman; I was particularly struck by the paragraphs about the state of girls’ education and aspirations:
“We’re losing out on the contribution women can make because too many girls at school, college or in the workplace are writing off—or are written off from—particular jobs for no good reason…Choices should not be closed off to anyone, and the full facts about earnings and opportunities need to be available to all, especially women.”
That is why one scheme—there are many others—that this Government are supporting is the Your Life campaign, which is supported by more than 200 leading representatives from businesses, education, civil society and government to show how science and maths can lead to exciting and successful careers.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in impressing on local schools the importance of work experience? Will she also congratulate the York, North Yorkshire & East Riding local enterprise partnership on the work it is doing in placing people on work experience and giving careers guidance, together with local employers?
Nicky Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She rightly says that work experience is extremely important, and I pay tribute to the role that LEPs play—both her own and many others across the country. We are working to make the whole education system much more closely linked to the world of work, with more relevant respective qualifications, more emphasis on learning useful skills and greater employer influence over course content.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State work with the Association of Colleges to help deliver its call for a careers guidance guarantee?
Nicky Morgan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion and I shall certainly take a look at that. I work closely with the college in my constituency in Loughborough. I will work with any organisations and do anything that will raise the aspirations of our young people and prepare them by giving them the skills they are going to need for life in modern Britain.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
When I grew up and went to school in Herefordshire in the 1980s, we had a widespread and comprehensive careers service. That has changed under successive Governments, yet I meet more and more young people who are unsure, post-qualifications, what they want to do with their lives. What can we do to ensure that local and national employers, particularly Her Majesty’s armed forces, get access to schools?
Nicky Morgan
I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend says. At the base of his question is the point that there is no such thing as a career for life any more and that we are all going to have to think about the skills we need to take the first job and then the next job, be it in the armed services, the public services, in business or through being self-employed. There are many examples of excellent schemes across the country where businesses and schools are working together, and our task is to make sure that that good practice is replicated throughout the country.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
Quality careers advice is essential to support young people in making the right choice, be it academic or vocational. However, recent figures on youth apprenticeships confirm the concerns we have been raising for some time that Government policy is damaging the apprenticeship brand and leaving young people behind. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) is right to call out the Government on their failure to deliver for young people. Will the Minister explain why they have failed to deliver on apprenticeships as a quality route for young people entering the work force?
Nicky Morgan
That is an extremely disappointing question because it bears absolutely no relation to the facts. We have the lowest number of NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—ever on record; and we have more 16 to 18-year-olds starting apprenticeships. The hon. Lady should not be talking down our young people and their opportunities—she should be talking them up. Our young people are learning fantastic skills. I do agree with her that the links between vocational and academic education should be treated completely equally. That is exactly what this Government have done with the delivery of almost 2 million more apprenticeships.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
4. What steps she is taking to promote the study of STEM subjects at school.
The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)
Under this Government we have seen record numbers taking STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—with maths now being the most popular A-level. That is due to excellent teaching and several supporting programmes, but of course more needs to be done. We have reformed qualifications and the curriculum; we are recruiting top graduates into teaching with increased bursaries and scholarships; we have established maths hubs; and, as I have mentioned, we have the Your Life campaign to change young people’s perceptions of science and mathematics.
Neil Carmichael
What steps is the Secretary of State taking to make sure that business and education come together and talk to each other to ensure that we match up supply and demand for skills in the engineering sector?
Nicky Morgan
My hon. Friend is right. I have previously said from this Dispatch Box that the estimates are that we need 83,000 more engineers every year for the next 10 years, and I have also said that they cannot all be male. That is why campaigns such as Your Life and other things such as tomorrow’s engineers week, which the Government are already supporting, are extremely important. I continue to look at all the best ways that businesses, schools and educators can work together to make sure that our young people are prepared for life in modern Britain.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State is aware that the earlier we can start loving numeracy, the better—it is so important. She was not there, but only last week one of her junior Ministers was with me, the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) and Johnny Ball to launch the early years numeracy strategy that came out of our all-party group. Will the Secretary of State put a bit of muscle behind that?
Nicky Morgan
Well, I’ll think of a number! The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that this Government will put their weight behind the campaign to get more of our young people studying maths subjects and studying them to a higher level. We have already introduced the maths hubs, and are supporting teacher exchange programmes with places such as Shanghai, which are already leading the way in maths education. We are seeing more of our young people doing better at maths earlier, and, as the hon. Gentleman says, that is absolutely critical.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Fiona Kendrick, chief executive officer of Nestlé in my constituency, is providing inspirational leadership? She is leading the campaign to get more science, technology, engineering and maths into schools so that more young people, especially young women, can enter the fields of engineering and technology. Such an inspirational change will improve the quality of education in this country.
Nicky Morgan
I agree with my hon. Friend and welcome Fiona Kendrick’s comments on the need to bridge the gap between education and employment and the need for industry to play its part. I think I was with my hon. Friend when I visited Bombardier, which is also in her constituency, and met the fabulous Kirsten, who is doing incredibly well as an apprentice welder.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It may be a “Blue Peter” link to say that I was at primary school in Heston with Zoë Ball. Very recently, I was talking to Heston residents about the opportunities for young people in the local economy, which is full of light industry. Exposure to the world of work at a young age makes a huge difference to confidence. What is the Secretary of State doing to improve work experience opportunities for under-16s in science, technology and maths subjects?
Nicky Morgan
I agree that work experience is extremely important, and I should like it applied to pupils as young as possible. As a first step, I would like young people to get advice about the jobs that are out there—I am talking about labour market information. But if the hon. Lady’s Government had not introduced so much red tape and so many health and safety regulations, employers might not be so put off taking on people for work experience.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
5. What steps her Department is taking to help more schools offer nursery classes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)
Nurseries in schools are at the heart of our plans to offer flexible, affordable and high-quality child care. To deliver on that plan, we are removing the red tape that stands in the way of schools offering provision to two-year-olds. We have also invested £100 million in early years child care places, of which a third are being created in schools. We are allowing child minders to offer wrap-around care in schools, and championing calibration between schools and private, voluntary and independent nurseries.
Nick de Bois
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Keeping a child in the same school when they transition from nursery to primary school is in the best interests of the child and indeed the school. Although I welcome steps to examine moves towards amending admissions codes for the most disadvantaged, may I urge him to keep an open mind about widening this policy right across nursery schools?
Mr Gyimah
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. In many cases, parents want their children to continue into reception year in the school in which they attended nursery, but that should not come at the expense of parents who, for whatever reason, choose different early years provision for their children. As my hon. Friend mentioned, we are amending the admissions code for the most disadvantaged pupils. Of course I always keep an open mind, and we will keep this matter under review and consider it later.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
One of the best ways of extending nursery provision is to have supportive chairs and boards of governors. Many schools find it very difficult to find governors, and many are paying them. May I ask the Minister what his personal—not his departmental—opinion is on the principle of paying school governors? By the way—interest declared!
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Gentleman is asking about the payment of governors in the early years sector. As he is aware, the early years sector is very diverse. Child minders and PVI nurseries do not have school governors. Some maintained nurseries do, but they do not have to pay them.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
There will continue to be a shortage of nursery class places until we address the issue of pay for nursery school staff. Top bankers’ pay went up by 7% last year, and that of those working in nursery schools by barely more than 1%. What will the Minister do about that?
Mr Gyimah
I welcome the hon. Lady to her post, but I do not agree with the numbers she cites. In fact, the pay of nursery staff has gone up, according to independent statistics. More important, most of the provision is in the private sector. The Government cannot prescribe wages for people in the private sector, but we can cut taxes so that people can keep more of what they earn, and that is why we have raised the personal allowance to £10,000.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
6. What recent assessment she has made of the vulnerability of children missing from school and home to child sexual exploitation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)
Nothing is more important than keeping children safe. To better protect missing children, we have introduced tougher statutory guidance and regulations, improved national data collection and published new practice standards for social workers. Ofsted has found that many, but not enough, local authorities are making progress, so we will continue to establish where that is not happening, and why, and will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure children’s safety.
Ann Coffey
A recent Ofsted report entitled “The sexual exploitation of children: it couldn’t happen here, could it?” said that most local authorities inspected are not making the connection between child sexual exploitation and children missing from school. Does the Minister agree that every local authority should keep a centrally held persistent absence list that could be cross-referenced by police and children’s services to identify children at risk and patterns of local child sexual exploitation?
Mr Timpson
I begin by thanking the hon. Lady and acknowledging the significant and important contribution she has made over a long period, and more recently through her report “Real Voices” on child exploitation in Greater Manchester. It poses many of the right questions, as she has this afternoon. I agree that it is absolutely right not only that all schools must inform the local authority of pupils who are missing education but that local authorities must identify pupils missing from school and take action as a result. Those duties already exist and Ofsted’s thematic review made it clear that in many cases that was not happening because of very basic practice failures across a range of agencies and organisations. The number of persistently absent children has dropped by 40% since 2010, but we need to highlight even more those children who are particularly vulnerable for the reasons the hon. Lady has outlined. I know I have a meeting with her in a week or two to discuss these matters further and I look forward to having a conversation to see what progress we can make.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that protecting children from sexual exploitation must include better education of children and parents on the potential dangers of the internet? To that end, will he praise the work of Warning Zone in Leicestershire?
Mr Timpson
I agree that in the new digital age, when children come into contact with the internet at an ever younger age, we need to ensure that they have the understanding and skills to make good choices. Part of that is ensuring that parents and teachers can acquire those abilities. That is why we have ensured that internet safety is taught at all key stages at school, and I am sure that the work that has gone on on the ground—not just in his constituency, although I praise that, but throughout the country—is helping to ensure that we get that message across.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) for her excellent report “Real Voices” and, in particular, for the consideration she has given to the voice of these young people. Her recommendations have a significance way beyond Greater Manchester. Anyone who reads the report cannot fail to be struck by the repeated references to the benefit that many of these vulnerable young people derive from working with peer mentors. Does the Minister share Labour’s interest in this approach, and does he have any plans to develop the model? Has he considered using the innovation fund as a means of stimulating it?
Mr Timpson
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s insight, analysis and recommendations as to what more we can do to ensure that children who need their voice to be heard have the requisite support from people who can provide them with the guidance and trust that are often lacking among other professionals. I am happy to talk to him about his suggestion. We have had some extremely exciting bids in this area through the innovation fund programme, which I will be able to say more about in the coming weeks. As I say, I shall be more than happy to discuss the subject with him in due course.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
Somerset county council has withdrawn regular checks on children educated at home, stating that it will contact families only if it is
“advised that Elective Home Education is not happening or is unsuitable.”
Does the Minister recognise that it is necessary to check systematically so that children at risk are identified, along with parents and carers who need support to deliver education, because otherwise school is often the only place where children at risk can have contact with other adults?
Mr Timpson
The hon. Lady refers to the recent Ofsted inspection in Somerset and the need for Somerset’s children’s services to make marked improvements in its response to ensure that children are safe. The example she has given is an element of that on which it needs to improve. I will not comment on the specific work that needs to be done, which has been well documented. She knows, as do her colleagues across Somerset, that I am determined to do whatever it takes to ensure the children in Somerset get the support and care they need so that they have a safe and fulfilling upbringing.
Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)
7. What steps she has taken to ensure that the best school leaders are recruited to work in the most challenging schools.
The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)
From 2015 the Government-funded Talented Leaders programme will match up to 100 excellent leaders with challenging schools, including in Norfolk. We also fund the charity Future Leaders to develop the leadership skills of aspirant head teachers.
Simon Wright
I welcome the extension of the Talented Leaders programme to Norfolk. Excellent leadership is vital, and turning around a struggling school needs a team effort, with teachers, governors and parents all pulling in the same direction. What efforts will be made to ensure that the Talented Leaders programme supports a whole-school approach?
Mr Laws
My hon. Friend is exactly right that we need not only to get talented head teachers and leaders into those schools, but to ensure that other members of the school community are part of that. That is why, under this programme, each school will be entitled to a leadership sustainability grant of £50,000, which is ring-fenced for staff and governor development in order to build leadership capacity for the future.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
For the third year running the Government have missed their teacher recruitment targets. For example, only 67% of physics places have been filled—the figures are 88% for maths and 44% for design and technology. Does the Minister accept that the teacher recruitment crisis is leading to real problems in key subjects and in leadership roles right across the country?
Mr Laws
We certainly accept that for some time now there have been challenges when recruiting to some of the core subjects, including some of the core scientific subjects, and that is why we have significantly increased the bursaries available in those areas. However, we should also acknowledge the great successes there have been in recent years in getting more outstanding graduates into the teaching profession, and we will do more of that in future.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Some of our country’s best leaders can be found in Her Majesty’s armed forces. What success are we having in recruiting former soldiers, sailors and airmen to become teachers in our schools, and what success are we achieving in getting more male teachers into primary schools?
Mr Laws
My hon. Friend is right on both points. The latest statistics show that we are having more success in recruiting male teachers into primary schools. We are also doing more, through our Troops to Teachers programme, to use the talents of many people who have served our country in the armed forces and can now serve our education system, too.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
Will the Minister join me in congratulating the leadership of Wellfield community school in my constituency, under head teacher Linda Rodham, on improving the school’s Ofsted rating from poor to good in four terms, and on the improvements we are seeing in qualifications year on year? Does that not prove that there is no smell of defeatism in the schools of east Durham?
Mr Laws
I am delighted to hear about the success of that school in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I hope that other schools in the region, and in those regions where there has been underperformance, will look at was has been done there and realise that there is nothing inevitable about failure in any part of the country.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
9. What assessment she has made of the potential merits of allowing nursery schools to become academies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)
Many maintained nursery schools are delivering high-quality early education, often in disadvantaged areas where that provision can make the greatest difference. Our aim is to improve parent access to high-quality early-years provision, enable a diverse market and ensure that nurseries are part of that market. However, the current legislation does not allow maintained nursery schools to become academies, but we will keep that under review.
Mr Stuart
I welcome the Minister’s response—or I think I do—that this is going to be kept under review. Too many maintained nursery schools—centres of excellence anchored, for the most part, in the poorest communities in the country—have been lost under successive Governments. Would not academy status give them the opportunity to ensure that they continue to help the Government in raising standards for all and, most importantly, closing the gap between outcomes for rich and poor?
Mr Gyimah
I welcome the enthusiasm of the Chairman of the Education Committee for maintained nurseries. I have visited Pen Green maintained nursery in Corby, which is an excellent example. He mentioned harnessing their quality. We have invested £5.5 million in teaching schools so that maintained nurseries can spearhead this and help to spread quality across the sector. He is right to indicate that 4,000 schools have benefited from academy status. As I said, we will keep the situation under review as opportunities arise to reconsider the legislative framework for maintained nurseries.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
Many nursery schools would like to become co-operatives but, by law, they are not currently allowed to do so. I welcome the Secretary of State’s interest in this area. May I press the Minister on allowing for an amendment to be made to the Deregulation Bill? That could happen very quickly and it would allow nurseries to join other schools in becoming co-operatives.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
10. If she will make an assessment of the public benefit contributed by schools in the private sector.
The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)
Public benefit tests are a matter for the Charity Commission. Schools in the independent sector make a significant contribution to the UK economy estimated at £9.5 billion per annum. Many have partnerships with state schools to share resources and teachers, drawing on the strengths of each member school to improve outcomes for all children across the partnership. One example is the Wimbledon schools partnership between King’s College school and over 20 state schools. Independent schools also act as academy sponsors, and 11 have been approved to do so.
Nicky Morgan
Sir Michael Wilshaw and I have had a number of discussions on many different subjects, including this one. I point out to the hon. Gentleman, as I would to all Labour Members, that this is happening already. We would like more partnerships to be growing, but there are already plenty of partnerships and collaborations between state and private schools. I wonder whether he would agree with Andrew Halls, the headmaster of King’s College school in Wimbledon, who recently said:
“The independent schools are under a bit more threat than we’ve been for a long time. The state sector has really improved.”
That is what happens with four years of a coalition Government.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one element that lies behind the debate on the public benefit of private schools is the need to ensure that pupils in the state sector have an ever-increasing chance of receiving the best academic education? Does she also agree that grammar schools play a significant role in providing this opportunity and that their work across the country should be suitably valued?
Nicky Morgan
At the heart of what my right hon. Friend is asking—I completely agree with it—is that we want every child in this country to go to a good or outstanding local school. I welcome diversity in our schools system. I also welcome the fact that, after four years of this Government, over 800,000—heading towards 1 million—more children are in good or outstanding schools receiving a life-transforming education to prepare them for a life in modern Britain.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
A prep school in Hampshire that claims £180,000 tax relief just for showing its pupils’ art work on the walls; a ladies college in Yorkshire that claims £110,000 tax relief a year while profiting from renting out school facilities: enough is enough. Will the Secretary of State now join Anthony Seldon of Wellington college, head teachers at the United Learning trust and the majority of the British people in supporting Labour’s plans to break down the barriers in English education and require private schools to work alongside state schools to share best practice and raise attainment across the country?
Nicky Morgan
The hon. Gentleman appears to have answered his own question—in fact, his own policy—by pointing out the successful collaborative partnerships between private schools and state schools going on across the country. His previous school has decided that it will not be building any buildings or unveiling any statues to the hon. Gentleman any time soon. He ought to think about the Labour Uncut website, which said:
“It is not so much that Tristram Hunt has the wrong policies for education; it is that he appears to have none.”
Last week’s announcement has not changed that.
Tristram Hunt
This is the politics of the status quo. Once upon a time the Prime Minister said—[Interruption.] I thought Members on the Government Benches would want to listen to their Prime Minister. He said he wanted to end the “educational apartheid” between private and state schools. Now we have a Secretary of State afraid to take on the vested interests, happy to allow £140 million of tax relief a year without demanding partnership and progress. Is this a principled stand against our policy or, like her flip-flopping opposition to gay marriage, is she just waiting for more people to get in touch before she changes her mind?
Nicky Morgan
The hon. Gentleman has shown yet again by his question that he has no vision or plan for education in this country. He would be letting down the children of this country were he ever to be allowed anywhere near the Department for Education. In a recent GQ Magazine interview he said:
“But what I have found challenging is that you can be so busy without achieving much, meeting upon meeting and then I think, ‘Where is the outcome? What have I achieved?’ Sometimes you can tick boxes but not feel you have made progress.”
That, so far, is the story of Labour’s education policy.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that there are outstanding private schools throughout the country, such as University College school in Hampstead and St Mary’s school in Calne in my constituency, which make a gigantic contribution to the local society, but nearly always under the radar, nearly always by secret means and through a thousand different links across the community? Those could never be judged or counted by any organisation; they are none the less to be encouraged.
Nicky Morgan
My hon. Friend is entirely right. The issue with the recent policy announcement is that much of the collaboration and partnership between schools, whether private and state or within state schools, is already happening. I have already mentioned that 11 independent schools were approved as academy sponsors. Last month we announced that 18 new primary independent/state school partnerships had been awarded DFE funding, so this is already happening. As usual, Labour is late to the party with zero policy.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
11. When she plans to announce the outcome of the next phase of the Priority School Building programme.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
13. When she plans to announce the successful applicants for the Priority School Building programme 2.
The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)
Our Department is in the process of analysing the expressions of interest for the next phase of the Priority School Building programme, and we expect to announce successful schools in January.
Andrew George
I draw to my right hon. Friend’s attention the excellent applications from Humphry Davy school and Helston community college in my constituency. The successful applicants will be anxious to know how quickly they can crack on with their rebuilding projects and by what date they will need to complete them. Will the Minister elaborate on that?
Mr Laws
My hon. Friend is a great champion of all the schools in his constituency and has been lobbying very hard indeed, as I am well aware, for the two schools that he names. I can assure him that we are processing these bids as rapidly as possible and that we will announce the successful schools in January. That will allow the project to move ahead as soon as possible.
Craig Whittaker
The previous Secretary of State, when he visited Todmorden and Calder high schools in the Calder Valley, said that they were among the worst that he had seen in England, but they never qualified for rebuilding under Building Schools for the Future because they attained too highly and did not have deprivation. Can the Minister confirm that under the Priority School Building programme, the criteria of attainment and deprivation have been scrapped and that schools that are dilapidated stand a chance of being rebuilt?
Mr Laws
I can confirm that. It is right that such a programme should look at the condition of all schools and prioritise those that are in most need of help, rather than targeting either attainment or deprivation. I am aware that there are a number of bids from schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We will look at those closely and announce the results in January.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
Will the Minister give a higher priority to schools in areas where the number of pupils is increasing hugely year on year? In our areas, the amount of money available to spend per pupil is squeezed down because the numbers are counted in October one year, but the number of pupils in the following 12 months increases exponentially.
Mr Laws
I think I have good news for the hon. Lady, because not only have this Government been considerably more generous than our predecessors in the allocation of basic need funding for our school system, but we are now allocating basic need funding for new school places for three years. In January, we will make another announcement of funding for basic need for 2017-18.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
12. What recent assessment she has made of the performance of free schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
The performance of free schools is continually reviewed as more and more are inspected by Ofsted. Based on the inspections undertaken so far, the majority of free schools are performing well. With 24% rated outstanding, they are more likely to be rated outstanding than other state-funded schools.
Graham Evans
In Weaver Vale, I am proud to have worked with the founders of the Sandymoor free school, which has grown from strength to strength since it opened in 2012. Will my hon. Friend join me in applauding the school’s achievements, including its first Ofsted report as a good school with outstanding leadership?
Mr Gibb
I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the governors—I understand that he is one—and the staff at Sandymoor school. The school’s motto is “Ordinary people. Extraordinary achievements.” That is right in one respect, in that it is extraordinary to secure a good grading from Ofsted within the first two years of opening a new school, but there is nothing ordinary about the head teacher, Andrew Green-Howard, or his staff at a school where, to quote Ofsted, the
“majority of students are meeting or exceeding…ambitious targets…in mathematics, English and science”,
and behaviour “is very impressive.”
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May I, through the Minister, thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for free schools, Lord Nash, for their visit to the Falcons school in Leicester? I know that they enjoyed their visit. We were disappointed not to see the Minister there as well. I know that, apart from the education provided, the Secretary of State particularly liked the vegetable samosas that the children had made for her. Does the Minister agree not only that the Falcons school is the first Sikh school in Leicester, but that it has a first-class future?
Mr Gibb
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his praise of the Falcons school. I wish I had been there: I am a great fan of vegetable samosas, but I am more of a fan of free schools of whatever faith that provide high-quality schools and high-quality education up and down the country.
Mr Speaker
It is always useful to have a bit of information about Ministers’ eating habits.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
23. [906352] I have championed the New College bid for a new free school in North Swindon, which would help to deliver much needed high-quality school places in my growing constituency. Will the Minister comment on the importance of local groups coming together to set up free schools?
Mr Gibb
I thank New College and other proposers that have submitted free school applications for their hard work and commitment. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work and support for the New College bid. Free schools are giving local communities and teachers the freedom to come together and establish new high-quality schools that are raising academic standards. We are currently assessing all wave 8 applications against the published criteria, and we will soon write to applicants to notify them whether they have been selected for interview.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
We are constantly told that free schools are outperforming all other maintained schools. Will the Minister comment on his own Department’s admission that not only have a very small number of free schools actually been inspected, but that the
“findings cannot be interpreted as a balanced view of the quality of education nationally”?
Mr Gibb
Of course, many of the schools have only just opened—they have been open for only one year or two years—and not all of them have yet been inspected. However, many have been inspected, and 24% of free schools inspected have been judged outstanding. That is under the tougher framework that Ofsted now applies. The rate is higher than for schools as a whole.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
14. What steps she is taking to ensure that local authorities recruit and retain an adequate number of qualified children and family social workers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)
Since 2010, we have invested more than £0.5 billion in social worker training and improvement. The number of registered children and family social workers has risen to 24,845. Programmes such as Step Up to Social Work, the Assessed and Supported Year in Employment and, more recently, Frontline are all righty focused on bringing high-quality people into social work to improve the retention and status of social workers and, most importantly, the outcomes for children.
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the Minister for highlighting the need to attract more people into social work in the difficult area of child protection, but is it not important for councils to strike the right balance between newly qualified social workers and experienced staff? If we expect newly qualified social workers to carry too high a case load and we do not provide the right support, that will not only damage retention, but have a negative impact on vulnerable children. What will he do to address that further?
Mr Timpson
I agree with the hon. Lady. It is important that newly qualified social workers get as much support as possible when we bring them into the profession, so that they see it as a legitimate career to remain in and so that too many of them do not leave it too soon. That is why the chief social worker, Isabelle Trowler, recently proposed an approved child and family practitioner accredited status, and said that we must ensure that we have accredited supervisors and a practice leader in all children’s services to lead practice from the front. On top of that, there has been better collaboration across the local authorities in areas such as the north-east, where the hon. Lady’s constituency is based, to look at social worker need in the region and keep vacancy rates as low as possible.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend expand on the contribution that programmes such as Frontline and Step Up to Social Work are making to bring high quality people into social work? What plans does he have to continue with them?
Mr Timpson
Frontline and Step Up unashamedly attract the brightest and best graduates into social work, making them very much the Teach First of social work. They have been extremely successful, with 25 people applying for every place in Frontline. We have just announced the fourth cohort of Step Up to Social Work for January 2016 and we are supporting a third year of Frontline. That will ensure that high-quality graduates go into social work and will be its future leaders. It will also help to improve the status of social work across the country.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
15. What steps her Department is taking to make additional resources available to schools in areas that experience high levels of in-year admissions.
The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)
We have allowed local authorities to use a mobility factor in their local funding formulae to target additional funding at schools that had a high proportion of pupils entering in-year in the previous year.
Mr Ward
I am not sure whether the Minister has seen the figures for Bradford. If he has, he will know why I am asking this question. Recently, the Prime Minister said that
“there is no doubt that some communities face particular pressures… I think a fund that can more directly help those communities would be very worthwhile and that is what we are going to put in our manifesto”.
If there is a need right now, why should the money not be made available right now?
Mr Laws
I would be very happy to talk to my hon. Friend about this matter. In 2014-15, Bradford local authority allocated almost £1 million to schools that experienced high in-year fluctuations in pupil numbers. In addition, it allocated £1.7 million to help schools provide new places to cope with population growth. In January, we will allocate further basic need funding across the country.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
18. What recent representations she has received on the National Audit Office’s report, “Academies and maintained schools: oversight and intervention”, published on 30th October 2014, HC 721; and if she will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
I have received no representations on the National Audit Office’s report. The Department will reply to any recommendations the Public Accounts Committee makes in due course.
John Cryer
Is the Minister aware that the NAO report points out that the Department for Education finds it difficult to judge the value of various school interventions? Does he agree with that assessment? If he does not agree with it, why not?
Mr Gibb
We do not agree with that assessment. The report is factually accurate, but we do not believe that the interpretation the NAO has put on the facts is correct. The oversight of our schools is very clear: the oversight of academies is very clear, the oversight of maintained schools by local authorities is very clear, and the oversight by Ofsted is very clear. We are seeing a rise in academic standards across maintained schools and across academies and free schools in this country.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)
On Friday evening, I attended the Social Worker of the Year awards, which is an inspiring occasion that recognises the work of many in the profession. I thank them for the warm welcome that they gave me and my team. Last week, the early years foundation stage results showed an increase in the number of children reaching the expected levels, which is an important step in ensuring that more children are ready for learning. I also welcome the recent figures that showed a drop in bullying. That is an important priority for me. We recently invested more resources in supporting schools to tackle bullying, including £2 million to help schools address lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender bullying.
Gareth Johnson
Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the opening of a university technical college in my constituency, which is the first of its kind in Kent? Such colleges are a fantastic innovation that help to satisfy the increasing demand for skilled engineers and scientists. The UTC will add to the diverse range of educational establishments that is available in my Dartford constituency.
Nicky Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning Leigh university technical college, and I am delighted that young people in his Dartford constituency now have the opportunity to attend a UTC. They are an important part of our education plan to ensure that young people leave school well educated and, as he said, well prepared for careers such as those in engineering.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Recruitment for initial teacher training was 108% against target in 2010, but it is now down to just 93%. Head teachers are having to travel abroad to recruit, and the chairman of the teacher training advisory group has warned that places such as Dover, Great Yarmouth and Blackpool will be at the back of the queue for teachers. We warned that that would happen, but there has been nothing but cold complacency from Ministers. I think it is one of the only policies that the Liberal Democrat Minister for Schools still agrees with. When will he get a grip on it?
Nicky Morgan
I am sure that the Minister for Schools can answer for himself, but I doubt that that is the only policy he agrees with. Some 32,543 trainee teachers started undergraduate or postgraduate initial teacher training in 2014-15—236 fewer than last year. The shadow Minister might want to reflect on the fact that one reason more teachers are attracted to the profession is the recovering economy, yet the legacy that his Government left us was a weak economy. We want to make teaching an attractive profession. It is already highly respected, but it will be less attractive given the shadow Education Minister’s proposals to make all teachers swear an oath, which I think was met with universal derision.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
T3. My right hon. Friend has a strong commitment to teacher training. Will he join me in supporting a Fens teaching and learning centre based in Wisbech that will support not just north Cambridgeshire but also west Norfolk and south Lincolnshire, and help with retention, recruitment and talent management?
The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)
I am happy to welcome that and to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that proposal. He will know that in the year ahead, as a consequence of representations from him and other hon. Members from Cambridgeshire, we are increasing funding for Cambridgeshire schools by 8%, or £23 million. That will certainly help with the recruitment problems and issues that he mentions.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
T5. My constituent, Julia, came to talk to me about the plight of supply teachers who are now paid considerably less than the classroom teachers they cover, despite needing a wide range of skills and the ability to adapt quickly. What will the Minister do to regulate supply teacher companies to ensure that schools and teachers are not being ripped off?
Mr Laws
We are not intending to over-regulate that sector, but I agree that we must ensure a proper deal for supply teachers. They form an important part of the school system, and the flexibility and freedom that we are giving schools to run their own recruitment, as well as additional resources through the pupil premium, are allowing schools to tackle those problems.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
T4. Some Labour councils are frustrating the growth of primary free schools by building annexes to local education authority schools, even though they may be miles from the secondary school, which often means that a less rigorous process is followed to establish the new school. Will the Minister look into the matter, and would he welcome examples of where it is happening?
Mr Laws
I would be happy to look into that. The hon. Gentleman will know that we allocate basic need and maintenance money directly to local authorities, and the free schools programme is managed directly from our Department. If he wishes to provide me with examples of this issue, I will happily look into them.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
T7. The decision by the Education Funding Agency to halt the move by Academies Enterprise Trust to privatise a range of academy services from teaching assistants to ground maintenance in one huge £400 million contract, has been welcomed by schools, trade unions and staff, many of whom saw it as a mechanism to drive down wages and reduce other terms and conditions. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her personal intervention, but will she outline what advice she has given to academy chains such as AET about the need to concentrate on the poor performance of many of those schools, rather than on partnerships that drive money away from our children?
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
Academy chains want to find efficient ways of providing back office services, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that chains that are under performing, including the AET chain, are receiving the close scrutiny of the Minister responsible.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
T6. With the advent of the new curriculum, the Government have moved away from a nationally recognised, standardised system based on levels, and schools are now free to choose from myriad different assessment frameworks. Is the Minister confident that consistency will be maintained, and what work is being done to ensure that all frameworks are fit for purpose?
Mr Gibb
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. The old system of levels was flawed. It merely gave the illusion of consistency. In reality, the standard of a particular level varied from school to school. The national curriculum, on the other hand, sets out very clear expectations for each key stage. The national curriculum tests in reading, maths, grammar, punctuation and spelling at the end of key stage 2 will tell pupils’ parents and teachers how children are performing against very clear expectations.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The logistics sector is probably, if one takes all elements of it, the biggest industry in the UK, yet all too often children in our schools have no knowledge of the career opportunities in that sector. What will the Government do to ensure that children in our schools get to know about the sector, the fantastic careers available to them and the fact that in some ways it could almost offer a job for life?
The Minister for Skills and Equalities (Nick Boles)
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question. He was not here for the first bit of Question Time, but I am delighted he has turned up for the second bit—otherwise I was not going to get an outing at all. It is very important that young people understand the opportunities available in the logistics sector. The National Careers Service now has specific allocation to ensure that it does more work with schools. In any area of the country like his, where the logistics sector is vital, it should contact schools directly to seek opportunities. Schools are often crying out for employers who are willing to come in and talk to young people about the opportunities they can offer.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Schools’ efforts have ensured the successful launch of universal free school meals. In Chippenham, Redlands primary school is bidding for a kitchen pod so it can begin to serve hot lunches, and at Holt primary school lunches are served from the staff room, which is also where the washing up is done. Will the Minister look favourably on those schools, and other growing schools, that lost their kitchens long before we introduced free school meals?
Mr Laws
I will certainly look further at this issue and at the particular schools my hon. Friend mentions. He will know that we have recently allocated a further £25 million for school kitchen and dining room improvement to allow us to tackle the neglect of school kitchens and dining halls, which has gone on for too long. I will look very closely at the bids he mentions.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
Will the Minister, for the benefit of the House, enlighten us as to which independent statistics he prayed in aid in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern)? My hon. Friend was using statistics from November this year produced by the Office for National Statistics’ annual earnings survey.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)
I will be happy to write to the hon. Lady with the answer.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Last week, a primary school in my constituency at Middle Rasen was marked down from “outstanding” by Ofsted for being too British. That follows other faith schools that have been marked down because they are falling foul of the Secretary of State’s new British values. Let us be honest: not a single traditional Catholic or Anglican school preaches intolerance in this country. When will the Secretary of State take action to ensure that we have freedom of faith in our faith schools?
Nicky Morgan
My hon. Friend will know, if he has read the Ofsted report carefully, that the school was marked as “good” right across all the categories on which Ofsted marks, not just on the spiritual, moral, social and cultural education that the school provides to all its pupils. He will also know that the requirements on schools to actively promote fundamental British values, to teach a broad and balanced curriculum and to have regard to the spiritual, moral, social and cultural education given to their children, have been long in the drafting. They have, of course, come into sharper relief since the events in Birmingham. I agree with him that all good schools—including all faith schools, of which I am a huge supporter, and Church schools—already do a huge amount to teach their young pupils about life in modern Britain. We want all pupils to have mutual respect and tolerance for each other and for people of all faiths.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Minister knows that the number of children put forward for adoption has halved in the past year. The Government’s unrealistic time scales have meant that social workers are left with no option but to hold off issuing care proceedings, resulting in a logjam in social services departments and, in some cases, increasing delays for children. Will the Minister accept responsibility for this situation and urgently reconsider this ill-thought-out policy?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)
That is simply not true. We have seen a record rise of 60% in the number of adoptions under this Government. On the back of the judgment in RE B-S, there has been a misinterpretation of the law, but the law on adoption has not changed. We are prepared to do everything we can for all those children whose plan is for adoption, who still await care as we sit here and who still endure the delays and unfortunate practices preventing them from getting into loving, permanent, stable family homes. We will do everything we can to get rid of those delays and give them the best possible start in life, which is exactly what they deserve.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
May I press the Secretary of State on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)? In its report, Ofsted marked down Middle Rasen school because:
“Pupils’ cultural development is limited by a lack of first-hand experience of the diverse make up of modern British society.”
Do the Government really think that that should be a factor in determining whether a school is outstanding? Most people in this country think it is a load of politically correct nonsense.
Nicky Morgan
I have great respect for my hon. Friend, but on this occasion I am afraid I have to disagree with him. I think that what most parents in this country want is that their young children and students should receive a broad and balanced curriculum, to be prepared for life in modern Britain and have their horizons broadened, not for doors to be closed. That is exactly what we are looking for in all schools. The difficulty with his point is the assumption that children at that school will never leave Lincolnshire, which I do not think is the case.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Today’s report by the Children’s Commissioner for England has highlighted the increasing gap between rich and poor families and its effect on children. It states that in spite of measures such as universal free school meals for infants, the Government are failing to meet their commitment under the UN convention on the rights of the child, particularly to protect the most disadvantaged children. Does the Secretary of State regret the decisions of the Government that have led to such a damning report?
Nicky Morgan
I will take a close look at the report, but what I most welcome is the fact that this Government have spent billions of pounds on the pupil premium, which schools are using and spending to raise educational attainment. We have seen the gap between the poorest and richest pupils narrowing as a result of the Government’s policies.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision to award an additional £300,000 to Burnage academy for boys, reflecting an increase of nearly 100 extra pupils in-year. May I urge him, however, to bring forward a change to the funding formula to ensure that schools that suffer from dramatic changes in numbers in-year do not have to keep coming begging to the Government?
Mr Laws
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the very strong case he made for this school at the end of last week. As a consequence, this morning we approved popular growth funding of almost £300,000 for the school. It is particularly important to award such funding where the change in pupil numbers is due to popular growth changes, and I will look more widely at the points he raises.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
What sort of spell has the Secretary of State cast on her Front-Bench team? I have never seen a bunch of numpties with such a lack of vision and passion. I went to five schools in my constituency on Friday. They are crying out for new teachers. They cannot recruit. What will she do about that?
Nicky Morgan
If the hon. Gentleman wants to look for a team with lack of vision, he ought to look to his party’s Front-Bench.
Mr Speaker
Order. For the record, the use of the word “numpties” is arguably tasteless and a matter of subjective opinion, but I do not think it constitutes a threat to order.
Road Investment Strategy
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
I would like to make a statement about our plan to invest £15 billion in England’s strategic road network. It is a new, five-year funded plan, backed by significant reform to make sure that it will happen.
New schemes and new action, set out in one investment plan for the first time ever—this is a fundamental change for the better, and we need it because the strategic road network is the backbone of our economy and our way of life. Whether people drive or cycle, or travel by bus and coach, it matters; when people buy goods from the shops or travel to work, it matters. The strategic road network needs to work well and it needs to improve. It carries a third of all traffic and two thirds of all freight, and it is busier than ever. Motorway traffic has increased by almost 50% in the last 20 years. Traffic across the entire road network has doubled since 1976, and we have not invested enough to cope with this growth. Our motorway network has hardly expanded since the 1990s. Our trunk A roads are often of variable quality and are running at capacity. Forecasts show that traffic will continue to grow and the problems will get worse.
This Government are responding. We have started construction on 20 major schemes, six of which are finished already—schemes that will add over 300 miles of new lanes to our strategic road network—and we have also committed to major new investments, such as the £1.5 billion in improvements to the A14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon, but this is just the start. Today I am pleased to set out details of a much bigger plan, which will hugely improve our strategic network in all parts of England—an ambitious, funded and achievable plan.
In shaping the plan the Government have kept three things in mind: first, that action on our roads must be just one part of a much wider commitment to improving our transport infrastructure. We already have a five-year investment plan for our railways, which will see £38 billion spent on improvements and maintenance by 2019. We have also supported work on a northern powerhouse, with faster rail links across the Pennines, so I do not see better roads as an alternative to investment in rail, airports or ports. They are part of the same thing: building a transport network that is reliable and fast.
Secondly, we have to keep in mind changing technologies. Our road network as it stands today was designed for the vehicles and standards of the ’60s and ’70s, but new fuels and new digital systems offer immense opportunities in the years to come and we must be ready to take them. Already, smart motorways offer a big increase in capacity, and Britain is becoming a world leader in low-carbon technologies, including through the £500 million of Government backing for low-emission vehicles, so it is right that we continue to invest in the network for the future, not just rely on the one we have today.
Thirdly, we must make sure that investment in our road network improves lives and the environment and does not harm them. That means schemes that are thought through and that address long-standing problems such as the essential new tunnel at Stonehenge, which will both extend the dual-lane running on the congested A303 and massively improve the situation of the world’s most famous prehistoric monument. It also means that as we develop our strategic road network, we must make sure it serves the needs of every user, for example by cycle-proofing new sections and making the £100 million investment in better cycling routes across 200 priority locations that we announced last week.
To do all that we need to reform. Until now, the Highways Agency has been hamstrung by annual budgets, which have made a mockery of long-term planning. It has been inefficient and has held our roads back. That is going to change. The Infrastructure Bill now before Parliament aims to create a new Government-owned company to improve and operate the network, with a watchdog to make sure that motorists get what they have been promised, and it is backed by a five-year funding settlement already announced by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. This will see investment in enhancements to the strategic roads network triple by the end of the next Parliament to £3 billion a year.
That is why the Government can proudly say that we are on the driver’s side, and in today’s road investment strategy we have the proof—in total, 84 new schemes, more than 1,300 miles of new lanes, including 23 new sections of dual carriageway, 400 new miles of lanes on our motorways, junctions that work, bottlenecks unblocked and jams cleared. In addition, Members have contributed to the work of the six feasibility studies launched last year to find solutions to particular challenges. This has been a valuable process and has helped to shape the road investment strategy. I am pleased to say that we have not just been able to act on some of the feasibility studies, but that we are acting on all of them.
Let me now set out in some detail what will happen, starting with the south-west, a region whose vital transport links have been neglected, but under this Government they will not be left behind. Today I can announce that as a result of the A303 feasibility study we will bring motorway-quality journeys to this key route. This will be a £2 billion investment, starting with a 1.8 mile tunnel where the road passes Stonehenge. It is part of over six miles of new dual carriageway between Amesbury and Berwick down, and there will be three miles of new dual carriageway between Sparkford and Ilchester. That will be followed by further work, including linking the A303 to the M5 at Taunton with a new dualled section. Also in the south-west, we are upgrading the A30 between Chiverton and Carland Cross. This will extend the express route to Camborne from the M5.
Let me now deal with East Anglia. The A47 is a vital east-west link between this economic powerhouse, the midlands and the north. As a result of the feasibility study, I can announce substantial work to the east and west of Norwich, upgrading North Tuddenham to Easton, and Blofield to North Burlingham. This will create 30 miles of continuous dual carriageway around the city. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) has continued to highlight the dangers of the Acle straight, so I am pleased to be able to announce a £10 million fund for safety measures and investigations into the long-term future of this hazardous road. Other schemes include the £280 million upgrading of the A428 between the Black Cat roundabout and Caxton Gibbet. This will create an express standard road between Cambridge and Milton Keynes.
In the midlands, we are committing £20 million to upgrading the Chowns Mill junction between the A45 and the A6, and junctions along the A52 around Nottingham will be improved. Junction 10A of the A14 will be built, opening up a substantial development site.
In the north-west, the port of Liverpool will benefit from a £250 million upgrade on the link between the docks and the motorway, and we will also act on the trans-Pennine feasibility study, which will cut jams through a new link road to Glossop. There will be new passing lanes on the A628 and dualling of the A61. We will commission a new feasibility study focusing on the M60 around Manchester, working closely with the local transport authorities. We will consult on the options around Mottram and Tintwistle while keeping in mind the scenic importance of this area on the edge of the Peak District national park.
In the north-east and Yorkshire, two further feasibility studies on the A1 will lead to improvements around Newcastle and a significant improvement to the road towards the Scottish border. This is a main link between the two capitals of the United Kingdom and it has been made clear that action is needed, so I can announce that we will invest more than £600 million to improve the A1 Newcastle-Gateshead western bypass and to dual the A1 north of Newcastle between Morpeth and Ellingham. Work will be done on tackling the notorious pinch point at the Hopgrove roundabout on the A64.
Finally, in their commitment to all parts of England, including the north, the Government have not forgotten that the south needs good roads too. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) will be pleased to hear about the junction work on the A34 around Oxford, and we are looking at the long-term future for this road. Ashford will benefit from a new junction 10A on the M20, facilitating growth in the south-east of the town. Junction 30 of the M25 will see huge improvement, strengthening access to ports in Essex. As a result of a further feasibility study on the A27, improvements will include a new dual carriageway bypass around Arundel, and improvements to the road junctions in Worthing and Lancing. Furthermore, £75 million has been ring-fenced for the A27 east of Lewes.
This is a comprehensive package for all parts of England. It is funded; it is committed; it will bring change. It sits alongside our much wider investment in better transport, including a transformation of our railways. There will be proper co-ordination with work being done by local transport and Network Rail. I commend the statement to the House.
Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement. However, the whole country has had advance sight of these projects, first when they were announced in June 2013 and subsequently at the time of their re-announcement in November this year. This latest re-announcement represents not so much an upgrade of the nation’s roads as an upgrade of the Government’s press releases. If the Government were as good at upgrading roads as they are at making announcements about upgrading roads, life would be considerably easier for Britain’s hard-pressed road users.
The Secretary of State is right to talk about the vital importance of our road network to families and businesses throughout the country, but is this not a classic case of all talk and no delivery from the Government? We know that they have failed to deliver, not just on roads but on their infrastructure promises. Will the Secretary of State confirm that infrastructure output has fallen by more than 11% since 2010, and that only a third of the projects in the national infrastructure plan will have started by 2015? If the prehistoric builders who began work on Stonehenge had taken the approach to construction that the Government are taking, we would still be waiting for the first stone to be erected four and a half thousand years later. Is it not high time that the Government backed Sir John Armitt’s proposal for an independent national infrastructure commission to identify our long-term infrastructure needs? Why do Ministers disagree with—according to the CBI—89% of businesses about the need for such a commission?
We support proposals to tackle congestion hot spots, and we support long-term funding for roads, but given the Government’s track record, we will be looking at the detail very carefully, and scrutinising their plans against clear objectives. Those objectives are that the public get value for money, that the schemes support economic growth, and that the schemes deliver tangible improvements for road users.
Labour spent £94 billion on the road network between 1997 and 2010, delivering significant improvements in both strategic and local road networks. Can the Secretary of State confirm that, in marked contrast, the Government’s record includes the cancelling of schemes for roads such as the A14 and their subsequent reinstatement, a process that wasted millions of pounds; promises of private investment on which they failed to deliver; and the repeated issuing of deadlines for the completion of improvements, which they missed time and time again? We know that the Government cut £4 billion from Labour’s planned road investments in 2010. Will the Secretary of State confirm that what he has announced today includes no money in addition to that which the Government have previously announced?
The Secretary of State said nothing about tackling the desperate condition of many of our local roads, and the pothole crisis throughout the country. The Department’s own statistics for this year show that spending on local authority minor roads has fallen by 20% since 2010. The latest figures also reveal that over 2,250 more miles of our local roads now need maintenance. That is the equivalent of the distance from Land’s End to John O’Groats and back again. What is the Secretary of State doing about the urgent need to improve the condition of those local roads?
Let me now comment on some of the individual proposals that the Secretary of State has announced today. First, we favour the long-term investment in our roads that the road investment strategy provides, but when will the Government present firm proposals for the new strategic highways company? Secondly, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the possible impact on the five-year funding settlement of a delay in the proposed reform of the Highways Agency? Thirdly, the £l00 million for cycle schemes and cycle-proofing is welcome, but cyclists and transport planners are right to ask what the Government are doing to deliver much needed long-term investment and planning for cyclists. Fourthly, will the Secretary of State publish the environmental impact assessments of all the proposed road plans?
Finally, we know that the current Government’s sudden interest in roads has more to do with the forthcoming general election than the transport needs of the country. This is a sad attempt at motorways for the marginals, new lanes for soon-to-be-defeated Liberal Democrats, and trunk roads for Tories about to be turfed out by Labour.
Ministers will be judged not on what they say they will do after the next election, but on what they have actually done since the last election. The sad truth for Britain’s hard-pressed road users is that this is a desperate pre-election move from a Government who have failed to deliver on our nationally strategic roads, and when it comes to our important local roads, the reality is that things have got much, much worse.
Mr McLoughlin
I think I heard in part of that rant a commitment to support a roads investment strategy. That is much needed in this country. The simple fact is that we have had such a strategy for the railways for the last few years, and we should have one for the Highways Agency and our strategic roads, because big projects like this do take time. On the idea that somehow we have ignored these projects, I would point out that since 2010 we have completed eight major road schemes left to us by the last Government, and we have completed a further six started by this Government. We have also started construction on a further 14 schemes. Mr Speaker, because you like short replies I will not list them all, but I could easily do so if I needed to.
On funding for local highways, between 2005 and 2010, at the time of the last Government—when the hon. Gentleman was a spokesman for the former Prime Minister and for some time did the job of writing his press releases—local highways maintenance funding was £3.7 billion. Between 2010 and 2015, thanks to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the spending on highways authorities has been £4.7 billion. So, yes, Mr Speaker, I make no apologies for the fact that we have had to cut some schemes that were announced in the very late days of the last Government, but we have also invested in the roads programme—and we have invested substantially, and we will continue to do so.
Mr McLoughlin
The answer I have just given was on local roads. As I said, between 2005 and 2010 the funding was £3.7 billion and between 2010 and 2015 the spending going to local authorities is £4.7 billion.
Today we have set out some ambitious programmes, because I am ambitious for the roads of this country, but that should be set alongside the ambition that we have also laid out for the railways and the investment we are making in them, which is seeing more people use the railways today than at any time in our history. We have also got to make sure our road network is sufficient for future generations. That is what today’s schemes will achieve.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the details. They were set out in the written statement I made this morning. Four documents explain what will be expected of the new roads investment strategy and the new highways department.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend not only for helping in the seats identified by the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher), but for giving me the information that the Labour party is going to challenge me in Worthing. There was clearly support for dualling in Worthing and either side of it. There are clear benefits for safety, in air pollution reduction, and for environmental protection for the other roads and the countryside. Were the Dutch to come to the A27, they would say, “Why haven’t you put this dual carriageway in a long time ago?”
Mr McLoughlin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made a strong case for dualling the road around that particular part of his constituency, and we would certainly want to work on that with him and other Members in the area.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
This renewed announcement is certainly very welcome, but does it not mean that the assessment made by the Institute for Public Policy Research that 62% of transformational infrastructure investment is in London remains exactly the same?
Mr McLoughlin
The hon. Lady, the Chairman of the Select Committee, says that this is a renewed announcement. Yes, the figure was set out last year but we are now putting the flesh on the bones in terms of what that figure will buy. I know that her Committee will want to look at the figures in more detail, but when she looks at what we are doing, she will recognise that we have struck a good balance across the whole country. She makes the point about what has happened historically regarding investment in London, but those figures are made larger by the huge investment in Crossrail. I am also keen to see investment in the rest of the country, spread across the whole of England.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I warmly welcome the announcement of investment in the A47. Is the Secretary of State aware that that artery is vital not only to our regional economic success but to west Norfolk’s future? Now that the road has been designated a key strategic route, does he agree that today’s announcement should be a precursor to the dualling of the whole route?
Mr McLoughlin
I have already been accused of being over-ambitious. I am sure that my hon. Friend will repeatedly make the case for the dualling of the whole of that route, but the plans that we have outlined today will go a long way towards providing some of the shorter-term improvements for the road.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
I welcome what the Secretary of State has said about the importance of the A1 linking the Tyne and Wear conurbation with the Edinburgh-Glasgow conurbation. I also welcome the work that he has announced today, but it will still leave 25 miles of single track that ought to be dualled. Will he set out his plans for the future dualling of the road on the English side of the border?
Mr McLoughlin
In Yorkshire and the north-east, there will be 26 schemes worth £3 billion, including 18 new schemes worth £2.3 billion, the A1(M) to Newcastle will be fully open by 2017 and the A1 will be dualled to Ellingham, 34 miles north of Newcastle, so I think we have made a start in the right direction. It is a pity that that start was not made in the 13 years when the right hon. Gentleman and his Government had responsibility for these matters.
Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)
This investment, which will include improvements to the M3 and the M27, will be a particular boon to my constituents, although more work needs to be done on quietening the M27. Does the Secretary of State agree that the dualling of the A303 and the A358 in the south-west, the dualling around Ellingham and the vital reduction of black spots on the A30 will represent a boon for the economy in north Cornwall and the area around Berwick-upon-Tweed and a help for local businesses, as well as helping to reduce pollution and carbon output as a result of the reduction in congestion?
Mr McLoughlin
The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that a good transport system will lead to fewer emissions, which will be welcomed right across the House. As far as the south-east and London are concerned, we are talking about 29 new schemes worth £3 billion, with 18 new schemes worth £1.4 billion.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Given that investment in transport infrastructure has fallen significantly under this Government, and that the Secretary of State’s Conservative predecessor made exactly the same promise about the A303 in December 1996, I hope the Secretary of State will forgive me if I take today’s reannouncements with a tad of scepticism. Given the huge economic damage to the south-west whenever our main rail artery is severed, does he agree that tackling the vulnerability of our rail infrastructure has to be our region’s greatest priority?
Mr McLoughlin
The right hon. Gentleman slightly absurdly chastises me for something that was said in 1996. If my memory serves me correctly, there was a different Government between 1997 and 2010, of whom he was a member. There must therefore have been 13 years in which he failed to make any progress whatever for his area, so I will not take too many lessons from him on that. I agree with him on the question of resilience in the south-west, however, and I am keen to ensure that we look at that whole matter. That includes the railways, but it also involves improving the road network, which has been sadly neglected. The planned improvements for the A303 and the A30 that we have announced today will have a substantial effect on the area, and will be of great benefit to the south-west.
Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
May I tell my right hon. Friend of the gratitude in mid-Essex at his announcement that he has listened to representations over the past year or so and will be upgrading to three lanes the A12 from the M25 to Chelmsford and from Chelmsford to Colchester? That is a strategic feeder road into the east of England and the port of Felixstowe, so it is particularly welcome that the Secretary of State is acting to deal with the congestion and the problems that have, for too long, been associated with that road.
Mr McLoughlin
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his welcome. In the east of England we are talking about 17 schemes worth £3 billion, of which 15 are brand new schemes worth £1.5 billion. He has been a strong advocate for the improvements of the roads to Chelmsford.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
One of my colleagues should have mentioned our also having to suffer the Deputy Prime Minister on Radio 4 this morning. Today’s statement talks about roads and previous statements have dealt with rail, but what we need for the first time—probably since the Romans—is a proper integrated transport statement. When are we going to have that?
Mr McLoughlin
An integrated transport system would address the different components of the transport world, and we have done exactly that by having a rail investment programme and a roads investment strategy. The hon. Gentleman did not point out the number of schemes in the midlands, so it is perhaps worth my pointing that there are 31 schemes in the midlands worth £2.9 billion, with 17 new schemes worth £1.4 billion. This is good news not only for the midlands, but for the construction industry, as it can plan properly to get the right skills and the right people in place.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the already excellent work done recently on the A23, but ask him to have regard in his future announcements to those of us in constituencies where there is very high demand for new housing and where the infrastructure simply cannot cope with existing requirements?
Mr McLoughlin
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct on this, which is why when addressing transport in the whole one cannot just rely on the roads and instead one also looks at the railways. That is why I am particularly pleased that we have managed to find so much money, given the economic problems we face at this time, for enhancements on our rail structures as well.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State’s comments about the importance of resilience in our rail network in the south-west, and I am sure we are all awaiting the statement on Wednesday with great interest. He talked about reforming transport networks. As part of these much publicised reforms, does he intend to extend the national strategic transport corridor to Plymouth?
Mr McLoughlin
I want to see all parts of the United Kingdom well served. A huge amount of investment is already planned on the roads leading to Plymouth and that is very important.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I welcome the announcement of the first ever roads investment strategy, which I know is the culmination of several years of careful preparation by my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that it is the five-year funding deal that is likely to be transformational and to open up efficiency opportunities in both procurement and the supply chain, which will ensure that these schemes can be delivered?
Mr McLoughlin
Yes, and may I say to my hon. Friend how grateful I am to him as although he did not specifically deal with this issue, we did discuss it in general when he was in the Department? He is absolutely right in what he says; we have seen that as far as the railways are concerned—the long-term planning for the rail investment strategy is very important. Likewise, the construction industry will be welcoming this statement as far as its long-term planning is concerned, because it also means that the industry should be able to take on apprentices and plan and train right.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)
Is it right that costs in respect of the Medway tunnel should continue to fall to local council tax payers, when almost every other toll in the country is part of the strategic roads network and, therefore, funded by the Highways Agency?
Mr McLoughlin
It is the first time that the hon. Gentleman has made that point to me. It is amazing how things change on various issues. He will no doubt write to me on the matter.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
White van man and woman travelling to and from Harlow will welcome the investment in the M11. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that £50 million will be spent on upgrading junction 7 of the M11? For the future, will he also look at junction 7a?
Mr McLoughlin
Can we get junction 7 sorted out before we move on to junction 7a? I welcome my hon. Friend’s point about improving the road structure, because although this may—something that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman said—help certain constituencies, it actually helps motorists in general who come from every kind of constituency.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
This morning, when the Chancellor talked about the opening of the A1 north, he mentioned improvements in Northumbria, a kingdom that has not existed for centuries. Perhaps someone should have a word with him about the geography of this country. Last week, the Chief Whip said that the opening of the A1 was all down to the Tory candidate in Berwick. This morning, the Business Secretary said that it was all down to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). The truth is that both those people have done sterling work, as have lots of Members on the Opposition Benches, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown). May I ask the Secretary of State why he has come to the House hours after he spoke on the radio? Does that not show contempt for this House and for the rules that you, Mr Speaker, have made?
Mr McLoughlin
It is true that Anne-Marie Trevelyan has made many representations about the road, but so, too, has the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is pointing to himself and the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown). They doubtlessly made representations, but what I say is that we are not making representations, but taking action. There are many more Members making representations than delivering. The hon. Gentleman chastised me for giving an interview, but I gave no interviews until after I had laid a written ministerial statement this morning.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
: In thanking the Secretary of State for his announcement of substantial dualling and further improvements on the A1 in my constituency, may I also thank my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, without whom these things do not happen? The Liberal Democrats will stay around, making sure that the promise is kept, and continuing to campaign to have dualling the whole way from London to Edinburgh.
Mr McLoughlin
The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in saying that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and others, including the Chancellor, have made many representations about this particular road. I fear that it needs no advocacy from me.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the road investment strategy is an England-only plan and will therefore lead to full Barnett consequentials of around £750 million for Wales over the five years?
Mr McLoughlin
It is an all-England plan, and the Barnett consequentials will follow.
Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)
As the unemployment rate in my constituency has now fallen below 1%, it is obvious that the many jobs that will be filled in my constituency, not least those at Stansted airport, will be for people coming from outside my immediate constituency. In that context, does my right hon. Friend accept that the M11 junction 7 improvement, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) referred, is extremely important, as is the completion of the A11? Will he assure me that he has not completely forgotten the link between the A120 at Braintree to Marks Tey to what will be the much improved A12?
Mr McLoughlin
There are a number of whole-route technology upgrades to the A12, but I will certainly go away and investigate the specific point made by my right hon. Friend.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
As the MP and former local councillor for Mottram and Hollingworth, where the new trans-Pennine investment will go, I am obviously extremely pleased. Ours is a problem that will be fixed only by new investment in new capacity and that is what I want for my area. I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and also the hon. Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham). He and I have campaigned together on this issue since 2010 and we were told that we had no prospect of success, yet here we are with this good result today. The Secretary of State will understand that there is a huge hunger for further details in my area. Can he give us any more information on the time scale of establishing a route and on whether he believes that a public inquiry will be necessary?
Mr McLoughlin
The planning procedures will necessarily have to be gone through and the hon. Gentleman will have seen the details set out in the road investment plans and strategies that accompany today’s statement. I pay tribute to him and my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) for working together on this important matter and will check the wider implications for Mottram and Tintwistle.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend knows, I, my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) and for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) have been campaigning for a long time to have the A1 widened between Welwyn and Stevenage. I thank the Secretary of State, because this has blighted Hertfordshire for a long time. Widening the road, allowing the extra running and the motorway technology that he is introducing are very welcome, so may I thank him on behalf of Hertfordshire?
Mr McLoughlin
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his comments. I know that he is meeting the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), tomorrow to discuss these issues and will no doubt want to look at the plans in more detail.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Earlier, the Secretary of State mentioned projects that are under construction. In the past, I have raised the question of the Tollbar junction just outside Coventry and the Whitley roundabout. We know that the work has to be done, but there have been delays that have prompted questions about business investment in the Coventry area. There are also delays related to transport problems in the area. This is a serious problem and I have asked the Secretary of State to look into it before. Will he look into it again and see what can be done?
Mr McLoughlin
I know that in and around the hon. Gentleman’s constituency there have been a number of pinch point improvements. These sometimes lead to delays and to considerable frustration while the work is being done, but if he has a specific case that he wants me to consider I will of course do so.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the improvements at Dodwells bridge and outside the MIRA enterprise zone on the A5 near Hinckley in my constituency. Will he give serious consideration to further dualling of the A5 in the direction of Tamworth and the M42 because of the importance of the A5 as a relief road when there are problems on the M6 and other surrounding motorways?
Mr McLoughlin
I would point out to my hon. Friend that in the midlands we have 31 schemes worth £2.9 billion. I am obviously always interested when there are specific problems, and if there are problems with opening up areas for investment I would want to consider them separately.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State’s statement refers to the £250 million upgrade of the port access road in Liverpool. The road goes through a largely residential area and there will undoubtedly be large concerns among people living there about congestion and the impact on their homes. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) suggested for the south-west, will the Secretary of State also consider the potential for improving rail access for freight from the port? That should be considered very seriously, rather than our just improving the roads. Rail is a key part of the solution, too.
Mr McLoughlin
We must consider all these issues across the board. We have seen a substantial increase in freight travelling on the railways. My understanding is that there are two possible routes for the scheme to which he refers and we will obviously want to discuss with local communities which should be the way forward.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State, his Ministers and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for meeting my Somerset colleagues and me to hear the case for the planned improvement works for the A303, which will benefit businesses, tourists and visitors to Somerset and which I warmly welcome. Will the Secretary of State speak to the Chancellor about helping businesses further by considering the case for cutting VAT on tourism so that the west country can compete equally on cost with western European holiday destinations?
Mr McLoughlin
There are certain places where the Transport Secretary treads with some peril, and I think that answering that question on VAT rates and different businesses might be one of them.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I did not hear any announcement about investment in roads in Hull. If the Secretary of State is really serious about investing in transport infrastructure, when will he make the announcement about the privately financed electrification of the line to Hull, which we need desperately?
Mr McLoughlin
If memory serves me correctly, I have made some announcements on Castle street, which runs through the centre of Hull, and on meeting the local enterprise partnership to talk abut definite improvements. I think that I also announced at Transport questions a few weeks ago an increase in the GRIP—governance for railway investment projects—funding to look at the whole process for electrification. I think that we have made more progress on delivering infrastructure in Hull than was made in any number of years when it was represented by a number of distinguished other people.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
After years of my pestering, the Transport Secretary will know exactly how welcome today’s new announcement of £50 million for the A34 will be for my constituents, who suffer daily misery on that road, but will he ensure that the new feasibility study does indeed find a long-term, deliverable solution to the A34’s unsustainable capacity problems, and will he promise me not in any way to limit his ambition when it comes to the A34?
Mr McLoughlin
I hope that the announcements I have made today will go some way towards alleviating the congestion on that particularly busy artery, about which my hon. Friend has made many representations. I am sure that we shall have further such meetings to see what more can be done to improve the whole route and to make it an express route that also serves her constituents.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I, too, welcome today’s announcement, but I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) in his hope that we can work towards an integrated transport strategy. Given that one in 12 deaths is linked to poor air quality in some areas, reducing the average life of Britons by six months, what will the Secretary of State do to ensure that these developments do not reduce air quality?
Mr McLoughlin
I have two points for the hon. Lady. First, congested traffic causes more air pollution than traffic that is managing to move along. Secondly, the Government are investing over £500 million in ultra-low emission vehicles and encouraging their roll-out. We are also seeing car companies investing substantial sums of money in new technology.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I welcome the completely new money being put into a new junction 10A on the A14 at Kettering and praise the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), for visiting the site. The new junction will unlock millions of pounds of new private sector investment in Kettering. Without that announcement, traffic in Kettering would have been in grave danger of grinding to a complete halt.
Mr McLoughlin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that welcome. He is quite right that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State visited his constituency and that the new junction 10A on the A14 is contained in the new road investment strategy.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
It is a matter of public record that Labour spent next to nothing on transport infrastructure in the greater Peterborough area during 13 years in power, yet over the past four years we have had £43 million for a remodelled railway station, new rolling stock, better and faster trains on the east coast main line and road improvements on the A1139 and Paston Parkway, and this morning we heard the announcement of upgrades to the east and west of Peterborough. My constituents will be puzzled by Labour’s response, which is “Where did it all go wrong?” Does my right hon. Friend agree?
Mr McLoughlin
I certainly agree that my hon. Friend’s constituency has seen substantial transport infrastructure investment, which is right and necessary. We need to continue doing that, because there is a lot more work to be done. I am pleased that he has welcomed today’s announcement. I very much hope that the Opposition, despite the muddled response from their spokesman, will endorse this plan. If they do not, they need to say which of the schemes they would stop.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
When it comes to cancelling road schemes, I am not sure that we need to be lectured by the party of Lord Prescott. Leaving that aside, we are at present borrowing £100 billion a year and we cannot magic money, so will the Secretary of State assure us that every scheme will meet a rigorous business case on wealth creation and eschew all political pressure and vanity projects? If that means, by the way, that we just have to lay another road alongside the A303 at Stonehenge and not wait another 40 years for a tunnel, let us get on with it.
Mr McLoughlin
I partly agree with my hon. Friend, but I diverge from him in one area. If we are to build in the Stonehenge area, we must do the right thing both for the environment and for that particular ancient monument, which is so important. I suggest that my hon. Friend looks at other examples relating to environmentally sensitive areas, such as the Hindhead tunnel, which has been very beneficial to the environment.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Severe congestion at Arundel damages both the local economy and the environment because traffic is forced up through the south downs. Storrington in my constituency has some of the worst air pollution in the south-east, so I welcome today’s statement and the announcement of an Arundel bypass and thank my right hon. Friend. Does he share my surprise that Opposition Front Benchers should criticise this Government for delivery when it was the previous Labour Government who cancelled the Arundel bypass?
Mr McLoughlin
No, the Opposition’s line does not surprise me. It is a great pity. I have been to see the route supported by my right hon. Friend, which I think will make a huge difference to Arundel. The amount of traffic backing up on that route at present is bad for Arundel, the environment and passengers.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I certainly welcome the improvements to the A417 Air Balloon roundabout; the Secretary of State will know from personal experience just how devastating congestion there can be. Does he agree that the delivery of improved logistics for manufacturers across my constituency is a powerful endorsement of this Government’s long-term economic strategy?
Mr McLoughlin
I have visited that roundabout with a number of hon. Friends from that area. There is no doubt that it needs some work. It is a very sensitive area and it will take some time to evaluate exactly what the right scheme for it is. My hon. Friend is right. It is a bottleneck and I think the proposal will have a transformational effect not just on his constituency, but on the rest of the haulage industry.
Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)
I am grateful for the investment in the A47, including upgrading the A47-A11 Thickthorn roundabout. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the funding will deliver the scheme required to relieve pressure on one of Norfolk’s busiest roundabouts at a time of rapid planned growth in and around the south of Norwich?
Mr McLoughlin
I announced several points that will affect that particular area. They will go a long way to relieving some of the congestion to which my hon. Friend refers, and I think that is welcomed by most Members in East Anglia.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
I very much welcome the announcement of a new junction on the M49 to support the enterprise zone in Avonmouth, which was a local enterprise partnership priority. Could the Secretary of State reassure me that the Government are also considering rail for that area so that this extra junction does not create extra traffic chaos, particularly given the enormous planned housing development there, so we can we can have a western hub as well as a northern hub?
Mr McLoughlin
My hon. Friend has been to see me about rail infrastructure in her constituency. I said then that we would work with her on her suggestions. I stand by that commitment and we will continue to work with her.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
Congestion at the Dartford crossing blights road users in my constituency of Thurrock, particularly those connected with the logistics industry. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for investing in junction 30, which will alleviate that, and, indeed, for the successful introduction of free-flow tolling at the crossing, which commenced this very morning. My right hon. Friend will be aware, however, that constituents in Thurrock are very concerned about the options for a new lower Thames crossing. With that in mind, will he encourage Transport for London to do its bit to introduce new road traffic capacity to cross the Thames?
Mr McLoughlin
The free flow started yesterday and I am watching it very carefully. I think it will be a great improvement in the area. We need to do that and to look at the other options. I fully accept my hon. Friend’s point that it is also for other authorities to try to alleviate the pressure as far as that particular crossing is concerned.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
With the A428 now included as a named scheme, together with the A14 proposals and now the A1 feasibility study announcement, this Secretary of State and this Government are showing a profound understanding of and commitment to developing the infrastructure needed for my constituency and the whole of the east of England. Will he say a little more about the timing of the feasibility study for the A1?
Mr McLoughlin
I have already spoken to my hon. Friend, who came to see me a few weeks ago, about the Cambridge to Milton Keynes route, which, for him, is a first move in the right direction. He is absolutely right about what we have to do in the longer term on a road investment strategy. We have done it for the railways and we should be very pleased that we are going to do it for roads in future. These schemes do not happen overnight—they take planning. It is right that we try to take local communities along with us wherever we can and gather support for sensible proposals, so that we are not rushing forward and turning the tap on and off, but ensuring that people can see that this forms part of an overall strategy.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
The improvement of the M60 will of course be very warmly welcomed by my constituents, especially those who regularly have to commute around Manchester, but for the next two years things are going to get worse—probably much worse. Can the Secretary of State assure my constituents that, as far as possible, the works will be completed on time, and that while they are ongoing every effort will be made to keep disruption to a minimum?
Mr McLoughlin
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is talking about junction 8 of the M60, as well as junctions 20, 10 to 12, 24 to 27 and 1 to 4 of the M62. I appreciate and accept that while these works go on, there is disruption. First and foremost, I ask the Highways Agency to try to be as communicative with travelling passengers and motorists as possible so that they know where the troubles are going to be. It is very difficult to undertake upgrade works and not cause some disruption. However, my hon. Friend makes a valid point. I will talk to the chief executive of the Highways Agency to see whether we can do as much as possible on this concern for the travelling public.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
As the Secretary of State said, he was kind enough to visit the A417-A419 connection—the so-called missing link—where he saw the congestion for himself. He is aware of the death rate and the terrible accident rate on that road. Will he therefore be clear on whether this roads programme includes an allocation of money to sort that problem out?
Mr McLoughlin
As my hon. Friend rightly says, I visited, with him and other Members, the connection of the two dual carriageway sections on the A417 in Gloucestershire. I have announced today that this will be developed for the next road investment strategy, because the scheme is not easy or straightforward and will be very complicated to carry out. However, we will start to look at the options in the next road investment strategy period.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for today’s announcement of £40 million-plus for the new section of the A585 that runs through my constituency. This has been talked about for over 20 years, and now it is finally being delivered. May I congratulate him on taking this very important decision?
Mr McLoughlin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This work will definitely reduce the impact of traffic on two villages and remove a major bottleneck from the main road to Fleetwood. He has been a strong applicant for investment in his area, and I hope that this will help the investment drive that he has led.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Chiverton to Carland Cross A30 section is a notorious bottleneck, and the investment announced today is very welcome. What it may do, however, is shift the bottleneck further along the A30 between Rose-an-Grouse and Long Rock, and a scheme for that was scrapped nearly 20 years ago. Would my right hon. Friend recommend that the local authority bring forward that scheme again? Clearly, the investment is needed across the whole stretch of the A30.
Mr McLoughlin
I am sure Cornwall council will want to look at the implications of the announcements that I have made today. It has often produced imaginative schemes on which we have been able to work with it. If the council feels that the plans will lead to further problems, of course I would want to work with the council to try to alleviate them.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
The statement will be warmly welcomed right across west Sussex, where it will improve east-west traffic flows. What matters most to many of my constituents, though, is getting to work across the A27, the north-south route, particularly from the Manhood peninsula. This will become even more difficult with all the extra housing that the area is expected to absorb. What assurance can the Minister give that this scheme’s implementation will bring sharp and sustained improvements in travel to work times for those constituents who desperately need that?
Mr McLoughlin
I hope the improvements that we have set out will bring improvement to the journey times of the people mentioned by my hon. Friend, but if he has specific problems in relation to his constituency or a specific route in his constituency, I would like to look at that, along with the highway authority in his area.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
For over 30 years my constituents have been stuck in huge traffic jams on the two lanes between junctions 6 and 8 of the A1(M) at Stevenage. Today the Secretary of State announced a smart motorway scheme to introduce three lanes by using the hard shoulder. I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to the campaign from the local Members of Parliament. Does he realise what a massive boost this will give to Hertfordshire’s economy?
Mr McLoughlin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The operation of smart motorways and smart roads is encouraging. We are seeing roll-out. It is not a completely cost-free option. It is quite an expensive option, costing around £8 million a mile, but it leads to significant improvements.
Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
More than 900 new businesses have been created around Basingstoke in the past 12 months, so my constituents will welcome the Secretary of State’s investment in the M3 that will help to tackle some of the problems, which were ignored by the previous Government. Smart motorway technology will make M3 journey times more reliable, and resurfacing will make the M3 safer. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that those sections of the M3 that have not been resurfaced in the past 10 years and are most affected by M3 motorway noise, such as those in Basingstoke, are a priority for his £6 billion plan to put low noise resurfacing on 80% of the strategic road network, as he set out?
Mr McLoughlin
I hope that over the next period of the road investment strategy, we will manage to resurface some 80% of the strategic highway. I know that my right hon. Friend has campaigned for resurfacing in part of her constituency, as I admit I have done for part of my constituency, so I will look particularly at the schemes to which she refers.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
I am delighted with the announcement of a feasibility study for the dualling of the A69, which is long overdue, and I am pleased that my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to see some of the issues there. Does he agree that connectivity between the east and the west of this country is often poor, and that dualling such roads as the A69 will help enormously, as well as boosting the economies of Cumbria and the north-east?
Mr McLoughlin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I visited his constituency and he showed me at first hand some of the pinch points around it. I hope we can work with him on dualling and alleviating pinch points in his constituency so that he can get the opportunities and the traffic easing that he rightly asks for.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
The Secretary of State visited my constituency three times in May, and from May to December what a difference he has made for the people of Newark and Nottinghamshire—a new southern link road, more services on the east coast main line, a doubling of services on the castle line from Lincoln to Nottingham, and today a full design for the dualling of the A46 from Farndon up to the A1. That is a huge change for the people of Newark and across the east midlands. Will my right hon. Friend promise me that he will keep up the pace and see that redualling delivered in Nottinghamshire?
Mr McLoughlin
I am not quite sure that I can keep up that pace. My hon. Friend may well have had his fair share of investment. He failed to say that the castle line he mentioned actually starts in Matlock.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Today’s changes at the Thames crossing mean a bigger rip-off for drivers. Will the Secretary of State say whether the 84 new schemes in the road investment strategy include the A120 east and west of Colchester and the A12 around Colchester?
Mr McLoughlin
I am not sure about the hon. Gentleman’s first point about the tolling on the Dartford crossing, because if people pre-register and sign up to the system, the amount they actually pay comes down. On the other roads he mentioned, the schemes are very clearly set out in the road investment strategy, as I have said, but if a part is missing I am sure that he will let me know.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that investment on the M42 means that we are serious about rebalancing the economy and further helping Birmingham International airport to bring more flights and more jobs to our region?
Mr McLoughlin
The announcements for the midlands, which is a very important part of the country as far as infrastructure is concerned, involve 31 schemes worth £2.9 billion. As I have said, in bringing forward the road investment strategy, we have looked at the whole of England and tried to be as fair as possible in announcing road investment across the whole country.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
May I tell my right hon. Friend that there will be dancing in the streets of Lancing, Sompting and Worthing this evening, not least amid the static traffic on the A27 itself? For the avoidance of doubt, will he confirm that the option of full dualling through Worthing, the largest town in Sussex, is very much on the table as part of his announcement?
Mr McLoughlin
I do not encourage anybody to dance on the roads. On the point about dualling the area mentioned by my hon. Friend, that is certainly on the table. It is for local people to show their enthusiasm for such a scheme, so that we can move it forward.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
May I thank the Secretary of State for and congratulate him on the very welcome and desperately needed investment in capacity at junction 6 of the M5, which will unlock growth in local businesses in Worcester? However, after a decade of lost investment in local roads, we desperately need more investment in the southern link, particularly at the Carrington bridge on the A440.
Mr McLoughlin
I take my hon. Friend’s first point about the M5. I will need a bit more notice of his other point, but no doubt he will write to me.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
I am sure that the Secretary of State had a very happy birthday yesterday, but my constituents in Glossop will have a very happy day today following the announcement about the trunk road on the A57, the Glossop spur. They will also be delighted to hear that there will be a consultation on extending it beyond Tintwistle. Will he listen on that point, as he has listened to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and me, about bringing much needed relief to my constituents who live and work in and around Glossop?
Mr McLoughlin
I know that my hon. Friend has worked very closely with the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) on this matter. We have deliberately said that we want to put the route around Tintwistle and Mottram out for consultation, because that is something which I am more than prepared to listen on and evaluate properly.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
Anyone who has driven across the Pennines will know what a horrible journey it can be, with bottlenecks right across the M62, and that inevitably affects economic activity. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the measures on that route and on the M621 at Leeds will help us to make the northern economic powerhouse a reality?
Mr McLoughlin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In this whole programme, we have tried to be fair to the whole country. However, I have been very mindful of connections between the east and the west of our country, particularly in the areas referred to by my hon. Friend—up and around Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle and Sheffield—and I hope that, in the document, we have addressed some of the most contentious hot spots.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
I heartily welcome the investment in the M42, which will be good for commuters in my constituency and make Tamworth an even better place to live, work and bring up a family. Will my right hon. Friend have it in mind that after years of failure to invest in the centre of the town, there is still a need for road improvements, so that we can continue to build all the houses that we need on brownfield sites and not greenfield ones?
Mr McLoughlin
I hear what my hon. Friend says. No doubt he has made representations to Philip Atkins, the leader of Staffordshire county council, because those are local highway authority roads. I will join him in making those strong representations. I agree with him that Tamworth is an excellent place to invest.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I warmly thank my right hon. Friend for visiting the missing link on the A417. He therefore knows what an important economic link it is from the M4 to the M5. Will he put a bit more flesh on the bones than he did in his answers to my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) and for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson)? Is it his intention to solve this problem? We have had feasibility studies for years. When does he expect work to start?
Mr McLoughlin
I am not sure that I can add much to the last two answers I gave on that point. There is a desire to find a solution, but it is not the easiest area to deal with. I have made a commitment to start work on it during the RIS programme so that a solution can be found in the longer term to this serious bottleneck.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I warmly welcome the statement and, in particular, the planned works on the M62 and the first increase in trans-Pennine capacity since 1971. Does my right hon. Friend agree that improving the connectivity between our great northern cities will provide a significant boost to the economy of the north?
Mr McLoughlin
I agree with my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken a keen interest in doing that. That is why we have money not only for the road investment strategy, but for rail improvement over the coming years. Our work on the northern hub will go a substantial way to addressing that area of concern. I also announced extra services last week under the new franchise on the east coast main line.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
My constituents in Winchester will feel very listened to today. I have badgered my right hon. Friend about junction 9 of the M3 for many years, so he knows the importance of today’s comprehensive package of improvements for my area. It is a huge issue for us locally, because whenever there is a problem on the motorway, it backs up right into Winchester and especially into Winnall. It is a huge issue for the country as well, because it is a major freight route from the midlands to the south, including to the ports in the south.
Mr McLoughlin
I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. He showed me some of the transport problems in his constituency. He has been a leading advocate of the case for better road infrastructure. I hope that we have gone some way towards showing how that will be achieved.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Pursuant to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) and my recent Adjournment debate about the A5 between the M42 and the M69, will my right hon. Friend consider the request for an in-depth feasibility study to search for a long-term solution to what is one of the most congested sections on the strategic road network?
Mr McLoughlin
My hon. Friend raised that issue in an Adjournment debate a few weeks ago. It was framed as a debate about congestion problems in the midlands, but I know that they affect his constituency specifically. He has often made the case for improvements to road infrastructure. I hope that some of the announcements that I have made today will lead to some improvements, but we will no doubt have to go further.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
I, too, welcome the £41 million for the improvement of the bottlenecks on the A585 into and out of Fleetwood. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that builds on his announcement last year of £5 million for Lancashire county council to fill in potholes and the £111 million that was announced in 2011 to complete the M6-Heysham link road around Lancaster? Does he agree that in my part of Lancashire, we are finally beginning to make up for the 13 years of neglect by the previous Government?
Mr McLoughlin
My hon. Friend is right about levels of investment, not only in his constituency but elsewhere in that area. That is a marked change in the way transport infrastructure is addressed by the Government, and I hope that that continues whichever Government are in office—it certainly will under this Government.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
The managed motorway scheme from Huddersfield to Leeds was completed on time and under budget, and I hope that the scheme announced from Huddersfield to Manchester will be completed with as little disruption to my commuting constituents as possible. Will my right hon. Friend’s Department and the Highways Agency continue to work with me on a possible new west bound exit off the M62 at Outlane in Huddersfield, which would ease pressure further up the motorway at Ainley Top?
Mr McLoughlin
Of course I will work with my hon. Friend. He referred to one part of the managed motorway scheme that was delivered on time and on budget. Another part is about to start, which I hope is delivered on time and on budget, with as little disruption as possible. As a member of the Transport Committee, the way my hon. Friend has addressed the importance of transport infrastructure shows that he understands what is needed in his area for the economy to prosper.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I join right hon. and hon. Friends from West Sussex in welcoming today’s announcement about £350 million to upgrade the A27. That will enhance the whole county economy and reverse the cancellation of some of the plans by the previous Labour Government. I thank the Secretary of State for upgrades that have already been delivered to the A23. Will he consider resurfacing parts of the M23 to reduce the impact of noise on constituents in neighbourhoods in Crawley that border that part of the motorway?
Mr McLoughlin
A sizeable amount of money has been made available in the next road investment programme for resurfacing roads—it has been estimated that we will be able to resurface something like 80%—and I will obviously look at my hon. Friend’s representations.
Andrew Bridgen
I feel as if I have been at the back of a long traffic jam to comment on this issue. After decades of promises and work authorised by this Government, the dualling of the A453 will soon be completed, linking my constituency with Nottingham and the east. Since a third of jobs in my constituency are distribution related, my constituents will welcome all today’s announcements about road infrastructure investment. Is my right hon. Friend as incredulous as I am that the shadow Transport Secretary should claim that the motorist has been let down, when Labour represents the party of the fuel duty escalator and the self-confessed failed transport policies of Lord Prescott?
Mr McLoughlin
On the A453 I congratulate Councillor Kay Cutts, who was leader of Nottinghamshire county council and did a fantastic job in making the case for that road. The improvements that will be made to junction 24 on the M1 will be important, and that will serve my hon. Friend’s constituency directly. He is right to say that the Government are putting the motorist centre stage. These road improvements are necessary, and I hope that they receive cross-party consensus. This plan will be delivered under a Conservative Government; I do not think the same can be said for a Labour Government.
Guy Opperman
I may be at the end of the road when being called at questions, but the triumphant campaign to dual the A69, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), and the feasibility study announced by the Secretary of State, are most welcome. Is the Secretary of State interested to note that although Conservative Members welcome the announcement about dualling the A1, the Leader of the Opposition was in Newcastle on Friday and made it clear that Labour does not intend to do that?
Mr McLoughlin
I was not aware of what the Leader of the Opposition has said, but if my hon. Friend continues to make his case, more people will get to know about it. I think the road investment programme is essential. It is a balanced programme between road, rail, and the importance of public transport, as well as ensuring that motorists get their opportunity. That is right and I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments.
NHS (Five Year Forward View)
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
I wish today to make a statement on the future of our NHS, one that I hope everyone in this House will welcome. In October, NHS England and its partner organisations published an ambitious “Five Year Forward View” that was welcomed across the political divide. Today, I will announce how the Government plan to implement that vision.
Our response has four pillars. The first pillar is to ensure that we have an economy that can pay for the growing costs of our NHS and social care system: a strong NHS needs a strong economy. Some have suggested that the way to fund extra cost pressures is through new taxes, including on people’s homes. However, through prudent economic policies the Government can today announce additional NHS funding in the autumn statement without the need for a tax on homes. The funding includes £1.7 billion to support and modernise the delivery of front-line care, and £1 billion of funding over four years for investment in new primary care infrastructure. That is all possible because under this Government we have become the fastest growing economy in the G7.
The NHS itself can contribute to that strong economy in a number of ways. It is helping people with mental health conditions to get back to work by offering talking therapies to 100,000 more people every year than four years ago. The NHS can also attract jobs to the UK by playing a pivotal role in our life sciences industry. We have already attracted £3.5 billion of investment and 11,000 jobs in the past three years, as well as announcing plans to be the first country in the world to decode 100,000 research-ready whole genomes. Today, I want to go further by announcing that we are establishing the Genomics England clinical interpretation partnership to bring together external researchers with NHS clinical teams to interpret genomic information so that we go further and faster in developing diagnostics, treatments and therapies for rarer diseases and cancers. Too often, people with such diseases have suffered horribly because it is not economic to invest in finding treatments. We want the UK to lead the world in using genetic sequencing to unlock cures that have previously been beyond our reach.
The second pillar of our plan is to change the models of care to be more suited to an ageing population, where growing numbers of vulnerable older people need support to live better at home with long-term conditions such as dementia, diabetes and arthritis. To do that, we need to focus on prevention as much as cure, helping people to stay healthy without allowing illnesses to deteriorate to the point where they need expensive hospital treatment. Some have argued that to do that we need to make clinical commissioning groups part of local government and force GPs to work for hospital groups, but because that would amount to a top-down reorganisation we reject that approach. We have listened to people in the NHS who say that more than anything the NHS wants structural stability going forward, and, even if others do not, we will heed that message.
We have already made good progress in improving out-of-hospital care. This year, all those aged 75 and over have been given a named GP responsible for their care, something that was abolished by the previous Government. From next year, not just over-75s but everyone will have named GPs. Some 3.5 million people already benefit from our introduction of evening and weekend GP appointments, which will progressively become available to the whole population by 2020. The better care fund is merging the health and social care systems to provide joined-up care for our most vulnerable patients. Alongside that, the Government have legislated, for the first time ever, on parity of esteem between physical and mental health. To deliver world class community care, we need much better physical infrastructure. Today, I can announce a £1 billion investment fund for primary and community care facilities over the next four years. This will pay for new surgeries and community care facilities in the places where people most want them: near their own homes and families. These new primary care facilities will also be encouraged to join up closely with local job centres, social services and other community services.
Additionally, from the £1.7 billion revenue funding we are also announcing, we will make £200 million available to pilot the new models of care set out in the “Forward View”. To deliver these new models, we will need to support the new clinical commissioning groups in taking responsibility, with partners, for the entire health and care needs of their local populations. So as well as commissioning secondary care, from next year they will be given the opportunity to co-commission primary care, specialist care, social care, through the better care fund, and for the first time, if local areas want to do it, public health. The NHS will therefore take the first steps towards true population health commissioning, with care provided by accountable care organisations.
A strong economy and a focus on prevention are the first two pillars of our plan. The third pillar is to be much better at embracing innovation and eliminating waste. We are making good progress in our ambition for the NHS to be paperless by 2018, and last month the number of A and E departments and ambulance services able to access summary GP records exceeded a third for the first time, while from next spring, everyone will be able to access their own GP record online. However, today, I want to go further: £1.5 billion of the extra £1.7 billion revenue funding will go on additional front-line activity. To access this funding, we will ask hospitals to provide assured plans showing how they will be more efficient and sustainable in the year ahead and deliver their commitment to a paperless NHS by 2018.
We also have to face the reality that the NHS has often been too slow to adopt and spread innovation. Sometimes this is because the people buying health care have not had the information to see how much smart purchasing can contain costs, so from next year CCGs will be asked to collect improved financial information, including per-patient costings.
The best way to encourage investment in innovation is a stable financial environment, so I can today announce that the Government, in collaboration with NHS England, will give local authorities and CCGs indicative, multi-year budgets as soon as possible after the next spending review. We expect NHS England and Monitor to follow this by modernising the tariff to set multi-year prices and make the development of year-of-care funding packages easier.
The NHS also needs to be better at controlling costs in areas such as procurement, agency staff, the collection of fees from international visitors and reducing litigation and other costs associated with poor care. I have announced plans in all these areas, and we will agree the precise level of savings to be achieved through consultation with NHS partner organisations over the next six months. This will lead to a compact signed up to by the Department, its arm’s length bodies and local NHS organisations, with agreed plans to eliminate waste and allow more resources to be directed to patient care.
The final pillar of our plan is the most important and difficult of all. We can find the money; we can support new models of care; we can embrace innovation, but if we get the culture wrong, if we fail to nurture dignity, respect and compassionate care for every single NHS patient, we are betraying the values that underpin the work done every day by doctors and nurses throughout the NHS. We have made good progress since the Francis report: a new Care Quality Commission regime, six hospitals turned around after being put into special measures, 5,000 more nurses on our wards, the My NHS website, and 4.2 million NHS patients asked for the first time if they would recommend to others the care they received.
In the next few months, however, we will go further, announcing new measures to improve training and safety for new doctors and nurses, launching a national campaign to reduce sepsis and responding to recommendations made in the follow-up Francis report, tackling issues of whistleblowing and the ability to speak out easily about poor care.
Under this Government, the NHS has, according to the independent Commonwealth Fund, become the top-ranked health care system in the world. In 2010, we were seventh for patient-centred care, and we have now moved to the top. Under this Government, we have also become the safest health care system in the world. But with an ageing population, we face huge challenges.
How we prepare the NHS and social care system to meet those challenges will be the litmus test of this Government’s ambition to make Britain the best country in the world in which to grow old. We are determined to pass that test, and today’s four-pillar plan will help us to do just that. Our plan will need proper funding, backed by a strong economy, so I welcome yesterday’s comment by Simon Stevens that when it comes to money, the Government have played their part.
However, we also need ambitious reforms of the way we deliver care, focusing on prevention, innovation and a patient-centred culture that treats every single person with dignity and respect—proper reforms not as a substitute for proper funding, but as a condition of it. A long-term plan for the economy; a long-term plan for the NHS—I commend this statement to the House.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
This weekend a 16-year-old girl in need of a hospital bed was held for two days in a police cell because there was not a single bed available for her anywhere in the country. As we have warned before, this is by no means an isolated example: the BBC reported on Friday that seven other people had died recently waiting for mental health beds. But it is not just mental health: last week I told the House of a stroke patient ferried to hospital by police on a makeshift stretcher made from blinds in his house. That patient later died. This is one of a number of alarming reports of people waiting hours in pain and distress for ambulances to arrive.
Listening to the Secretary of State for over 10 minutes today, one would have no idea that any of that was happening in the NHS right now—and that is the problem: nothing he has said today will address those pressures ahead of this winter. On mental health, does he not accept that there is an undeniable need to open more beds urgently —right now, this week—to stop appalling cases like the one we heard about at the weekend? What assessment has he made of the ability of the ambulance service to cope this winter? Is there a case for emergency support, on top of what has already been announced?
This statement offers no help now to an NHS on the brink of its worst winter in years, but there is another major problem with it. The weekend headlines promised £2 billion extra for the NHS, but the small print revealed that it is nothing of the sort. I note that the Secretary of State did not use the figure of £2 billion once in his statement, but that is what the NHS was led to believe it was getting. False promises and cheques that bounce one day after they are written are of no use to doctors and nurses struggling to keep services going. We all remember the omnishambles Budget unravelling the day after it was given, but an autumn statement unravelling three days before it has been delivered is a first even for this Government.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that £700 million of the £1.7 billion he talked about is not new money, but already in his departmental budget? A few weeks ago his Department told the Public Accounts Committee that it expects to overspend this year by half a billion pounds. His Department is in deficit right now. If that is the case, would he care to tell us where this £700 million is coming from and what services he will be cutting to pay for it? He mentioned research. At the weekend we exposed NHS England’s plans to cut the funding for clinical trials, which would have affected thousands of very poorly patients. Was that one of his planned central cuts to pay for this funding? Will he now guarantee that funding for research and clinical trials will not be cut?
But it gets worse. Not only is £700 million recycled; we gather that the other £1 billion will be funded by cuts to other Departments. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned of “staggeringly big cuts” to local government in the next Parliament. The NHS Confederation has said:
“If additional NHS funding comes at the expense of tough cuts to local government budgets, this will be a false economy as costs in the NHS will rise.”
Have the Government not learnt the lessons of this Parliament: that the NHS cannot be seen in isolation from other services, particularly local government, and that cutting social care only leads to extra costs for the NHS? Figures released on Friday revealed record numbers of older people trapped in hospital because the care was not there for them at home. That is happening on the Secretary of State’s watch.
This is the human consequence of the severe cuts to social care in this Parliament, and it is clear that this Government are preparing to do the same again in the next Parliament if they are re-elected. This is why hospital A and Es have missed the right hon. Gentleman’s own target for 71 weeks running. We also have cancer patients waiting longer for treatment to start, and everyone is finding it harder and harder to see a GP.
Is it not the case that most of what the Secretary of State has announced will go to patching up the problems he has created, leaving less than a quarter for the new models of care outlined in the “Forward View”? Let me remind him that policies such as a year of care for vulnerable patients and having accountable care organisations were developed by the Opposition, and for him to stand there today and lecture us about reorganisations of the NHS—well, I did not think that even he would have the nerve to do that.
The truth is that what the Secretary of State has announced provides nothing for the NHS now and is not what it seems, and because of that it will not be enough to prevent the NHS from tipping into full-blown crisis if the Tories are re-elected next year. They will not be able to find any more money for the NHS than this, because they have prioritised tax cuts for higher earners and have not yet found the money to pay for them. That explains their desperate attempts to inflate these figures and make them sound more than they are. Is it not the case that to deliver the “Five Year Forward View”, the NHS needs truly additional money on the scale proposed by Labour—an extra £2.5 billion over and above everything the Secretary of State has promised today, and an ambitious plan for the full integration of health and social care.
They said they would be the Government who cut the deficit, not the NHS, but it is the Health Secretary who has created a deficit in the NHS. It is because of that deficit that cancer patients are waiting longer, A and E is in crisis and children are being held in police cells, not hospital beds. He had nothing to say to those people today. They deserve better than a Chancellor fiddling the figures and a Health Secretary spinning the facts.
Mr Hunt
This is the day on which Labour’s attacks on the NHS have been shown up for what they are—every bit as shallow as their attacks on the economy. The country knows that we are addressing the squeeze on NHS funding caused by Labour’s wrecking of the British economy.
The right hon. Gentleman called today’s announcement “patching up the problems”. If growing the economy so that we can put more money into the NHS is patching up problems, how would he describe shrinking the economy and then cutting the NHS budget, as he wanted to do? He said that £2 billion of new money was a false promise. It was not a false promise: it was the truth—£1 billion of additional funding from the Treasury and £1 billion from the forex fines. That is £2 billion of new money, which has been welcomed by the King’s Fund today as a big step forward, and by the NHS Confederation, the Foundation Trust Network and Simon Stevens, the head of NHS England and former Labour No. 10 health adviser. This is a very significant moment when, after years of taking painful decisions to get the economy back on track, we can at last put more money into the NHS. The right hon. Gentleman should welcome it, not scorn it.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about deficits in the NHS. We will take no lessons on deficits from the Labour party—the party that left the country its biggest level of unfunded spending commitments in peacetime history. The truth is that now, with a strong economy that Labour could never deliver, we are putting things right.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about problems with care in the NHS, and the one thing that no one ever says about me is that I am a Health Secretary who shies away from those problems. The trouble is that every time I talk about problems with care in the NHS, he says it is running down the NHS. It is not running down the NHS to confront the problems of poor care. He also talked about the issue of police cells, but we are on track to reduce the number of mental health patients using them by 50% over the next few months.
As for pressures on the NHS front line, it is not that all Health Secretaries do not have to confront them; it is whether or not we sort them out. When it comes to poor care in hospitals such as the Medway and hospitals in Colchester, Basildon and Burton, this Government are sorting out those problems, while the previous Government swept them under the carpet. The right hon. Gentleman used the word “spin”, but he might like to reflect on the massive harm done to patients when under a Labour Government poor care was covered up by Labour spin—surely it was Labour’s darkest period ever when it came to running the NHS.
Government Members have a long-term plan for the economy, and a long-term plan for the NHS. By contrast—[Interruption.] Opposition Members might listen to the truth about the NHS. By contrast, the Labour leader said recently that he wanted to “weaponise” the NHS. He wanted to turn the NHS into a weapon—a weapon to get Labour votes. No, Mr Speaker, the NHS is not a weapon for political parties. It is there to help patients and to save lives, not to save political spins. Under this Government, it will always be there for patients: that is what this Government will deliver.
Mr Speaker
Order. For the avoidance of doubt—because there was some consternation about this matter—let me say that I am sure the Secretary of State is not making an allegation of any personal dishonesty on the part of any Member. It would simply not be legitimate to do so.
Mr Speaker
The Secretary of State confirms that he is not making any allegation of personal dishonesty against any individual. Enough: we are grateful. We will leave it there for now.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I warmly welcome the statement. The extra funds for the NHS constitute a clear endorsement of Simon Stevens’s excellent “Five Year Forward View”. I particularly welcome the announcement of multi-year budgets and investment in patients’ ability to control their own records. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the process of creating paperless NHS hospitals will move seamlessly from primary to secondary care, and will be controlled by patients themselves?
Mr Hunt
The commitment to a paperless NHS is not a commitment to the creation of paperless hospitals by 2018; it is a commitment to the creation of a paperless NHS so that, with patients’ consent, information can flow seamlessly between different parts of the system. The interface between primary care and secondary care, and social care, is a very important part of that process.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State tell the House how much money is now being diverted from patient care to the negotiation of legally binding contracts between commissioners and suppliers of services, or will he confirm that he cannot do so because he does not bother to collect the information?
Mr Hunt
What I will confirm to the right hon. Gentleman is that the rules on the contracting out of services are the rules that we inherited from the Labour Government, although he personally might not have introduced them had he remained Health Secretary throughout those 13 years.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
May I focus for a moment on a constituency case? Last Thursday, a 16-year-old was placed in the custody centre at Torquay police station. What is of concern is that there is nothing new about that. In Devon and Cornwall alone, there have been 700 cases of people with mental health problems being placed in police cells. The problem for this young woman was that, at that point, not a single facility could be found anywhere in England to meet her needs. It really is outrageous that that could happen to a 16-year-old girl in this day and age. Where does the statement mention the fourth-tier funding to provide facilities that are clearly needed, and have been needed for years?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is totally unacceptable for someone with severe mental health problems to be placed in a police cell. We are making very good progress in reducing the use of police cells for that purpose, with the active support of the care services Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). In the specific case to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, a bed was available but there was poor communication on the ground, which is why we were not able to solve the problem as quickly as we would have liked. As soon as NHS England was informed of the problem, it was able to find a bed within, I think, about three hours. However, as he says, this is a problem that we must eliminate.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
If that amount of new money is indeed going into the NHS, will the Secretary of State tell us how much of it will be dedicated to—perhaps even exclusively used for—better delivery of mental health services, not least services for child and adolescent mental health patients?
Let me point out to the Secretary of State that this is not the first occasion on which the House has raised with the Government the total failure to provide adequate services for people with mental health issues. The matter was most recently highlighted at the weekend, but it has been highlighted in the Chamber more than once in the recent past. What the Secretary of State has said today certainly does not calm my fear that if my constituents need a mental health bed, they will not find one in London, and heaven only knows how many hundreds of miles they may have to travel before they do find that security.
Mr Hunt
I hope I can reassure the hon. Lady, because today’s announcement includes £1.5 billion extra for the NHS front line next year. That will include mental health services, and we would expect commissioners to observe parity of esteem as they decide how to allocate those additional resources. It also includes £1 billion to improve primary care facilities, which will be used by many mental health patients. There is a lot in today’s announcement that I hope will relieve pressure. She is right to say that we need to do better on child and adolescent mental health services. This has been a long-standing problem, but we have been taking forward some important work to make a reality of our commitment to parity of esteem, which is something we are very proud to have legislated for.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
May I report to my right hon. Friend that, despite the dismal rant he heard from the shadow Secretary of State, the Princess Royal hospital in Haywards Heath and the Royal Sussex county hospital in Brighton, and their doctors and nurses, are doing a magnificent job in treating local people? Will he also accept that the problem with mental health services in this country goes back a long way? It will not be fixed overnight. I have had the same problem in my constituency of someone being put in a police cell. The problem fell entirely on the staff of the local trust, who simply did not deal with the matter properly. This is going to take a long time to fix, and I greatly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement.
Mr Hunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comment, because the use of police cells is not an issue with which we should be playing party political games. As it happens, their use was much higher under the last Labour Government. We are starting to address that issue, and he is right: even one person spending a night inappropriately in a police cell is one person too many. That is why we are making good progress, but in the end it will require people who purchase health care in local areas to look at people with mental health needs in a holistic way—not just trying to solve issues problem by problem, but looking at and addressing the whole problem and making sure they get the treatment they need.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Secretary of State should not be at all surprised by this terrible case of the young girl kept in a police cell in Devon over the weekend, because I and other Members have been raising this personally with him for at least the last three years. What has he been doing over that period to address the scandal of young people’s mental health services in Devon and nationally?
Mr Hunt
I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what I have been doing: I have been putting in place a strategy that will see over the next few months a reduction of 51% in the number of mental health patients who use police cells. That is progress. It still means that there are too many people in police cells, but I would just gently urge him not to try to make party political capital out of this, because a higher number of them were used under the last Labour Government. We are addressing a long-standing problem in a responsible way, and are determined to go further.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I welcome every word of my right hon. Friend’s statement, not least because his fourth pillar on culture change echoes the work done by the Public Administration Committee on complaints handling and the need for openness. His statement addresses all the needs and challenges we face in north-east Essex: the problems of openness and transparency in the local hospital and the need to transfer more of what the hospital does back to the community providers—to the multidisciplinary providers that need to be in the community. I welcome the £1 billion fund for developing community facilities, but how is he going to persuade the CCGs to transfer some of their commissioning power to these units? A hospital in Harwich, which was built under the last Labour Government, has two operating theatres that have never been used because the CCG, and its predecessor the primary care trust, would not commission services through those facilities.
Mr Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his long-standing support for the importance of transparency in driving up standards in health care. He has championed that for his own hospital, which has had particular issues on that front, but also through his role in this House, and he is absolutely right to do so. On his substantive point, we will get CCGs to do what he suggests through the reforms that I have announced, which will encourage them to take a holistic view of the health care received by the patients for whom they are responsible. In particular, we have got to move away from commissioning care piecemeal—commissioning a certain number of hips or a certain number of mental health consultations—and start looking at patients and all their needs in the round. If we commission in that way, we can avoid a number of the human tragedies that have come to light.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
Will the Secretary of State kindly confirm that the Chancellor will include in his autumn statement on Wednesday an obligation on the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that if, as we expect, further funding for health is devolved to Northern Ireland, it is ring-fenced so that it is spent exclusively on health? In that way, GP beds in community hospitals such as mine in Bangor—in North Down, not north Wales—can be reopened. Those beds were closed today, 1 December, causing enormous trauma and distress to the patients and staff there.
Mr Hunt
The system involves Barnett consequentials. As a result of today’s announcement, extra money will go to the devolved Administrations and we hope that they will use it for health purposes, but they do have a choice. The hon. Lady has just made the case extremely elegantly for that money to be put into health. She mentioned north Wales, and I know that Members on this side of the House will be hoping that the Welsh Government will also use the extra money for the NHS, given the profound problems in the Welsh NHS.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
Dementia care for our parents, grandparents and loved ones is a growing issue for my constituents, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on putting dementia care at the centre of what he is trying to do. I also congratulate the Bedfordshire clinical commissioning group on its recent review. Will he tell us what today’s announcement will do to help to support those parts of the country that are trying to make progress on dementia care?
Mr Hunt
I am happy to do so. We have made good progress during this Parliament, increasing by 10% the proportion of people with dementia who receive a diagnosis. This is not just about getting a diagnosis, however; it is the care and support that people get when the diagnosis is made that really matter. That is the reason for giving the diagnosis. Let me characterise the change that we want to see for people with dementia over the next few years. When someone gets a diagnosis, we want to wrap around them all the care and support that they and their family need to help them to live healthily and happily at home for as long as possible, so that they do not get admitted to hospital in an emergency or need to go into residential care until the very last moment. Of course that will cost the NHS less, but it is also far better for the individual concerned.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State talks about party politics, but he cannot get away from the fact that the number of mental health beds in this country has dropped by 1,500 on his watch. We have heard about the scandal in Devon last week, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) has told the House how some patients have to travel up to 200 miles to access an emergency bed. What is the Secretary of State going to do to deliver those beds where the mental health patients who are in crisis actually need them, which is close to their homes?
Mr Hunt
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to address the issue of availability of mental health beds for crisis care, but we also need to recognise that the model of care for people with mental health needs is changing. We think that it is much better to avoid long-term institutionalisation if we possibly can, and that is why there has been a process of reduction in the number of beds. That happened under the Labour Government as well. If he wants to know what I am doing, I will tell him. I am part of the Government who are delivering a strong economy, which means we can put more money into the NHS.
Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for securing £1 billion from the Chancellor to modernise primary care services. I know that the GPs in my constituency will welcome that, because they often cannot provide additional services owing to capacity constraints. May I urge him to ensure that, when money is spent from the fund, it is linked to delivery in relation to the proposals set out by Simon Stevens for improving primary care, for better provision locally and for closer integration with hospitals?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This will help to improve primary care premises and facilities. I know that there is an urgent need to upgrade a number of GP surgeries and primary care facilities, but this is not essentially about buildings. It is about new models of care. The single big change that we need to see over the next five years is in the role of GPs, so that they have the capacity and the desire to take proactive responsibility, particularly for the most vulnerable people on their lists, including people with long-term conditions such as dementia, diabetes and asthma. To do that, they will need better facilities—bigger facilities—and the ability to carry out more diagnostic tests in their surgeries, and I think that this funding will make a big difference.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State confirm a report in The Guardian today that he shelved the downgrading of the majority of accident and emergency departments in England under the Keogh review because that is “political suicide” and because of criticisms from the College of Emergency Medicine, the Care Quality Commission and chief executives of trusts? Will this mean that he can now suspend Shaping a Healthier Future and remove the threat to the Charing Cross and Ealing A and Es?
Mr Hunt
I am always happy to confirm that a Guardian story is wrong. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that there was no plan to downgrade the majority of A and Es. The plan is to invest in A and Es—to continue with broadly the same number of A and Es as we currently have but to recognise that some of them will need to specialise in different things. We will stick to that plan—it is a good one.
Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I very much welcome the statement and, in particular, the Secretary of State’s ambition that Britain should become the best place in the world to grow old in. Given that home care is an essential part of maintaining frail older people and enabling them to remain in their own homes, and given that well-paid, well-trained and well-motivated home care staff enable people to stay in their own homes and families to juggle work with caring responsibilities, will he direct some of the extra £2 billion to the better care fund, so that it goes directly into social care so that these services can actually be provided?
Mr Hunt
First, I agree with the point that my right hon. Friend is making: home care is going to become an increasingly important part of what the NHS and social care systems deliver. I want them to deliver it in an integrated, joined-up way, and £200 million of the £1.7 billion going to the NHS front line is to help develop new models of care. I think that improved home care could be a very real way we do that.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The “Five Year Forward View” recommended a five-year programme to prevent type 2 diabetes that is evidence-based. How much of the money that the Secretary of State has announced today will be specifically about preventing diabetes, so that in the long run we will save even more money? At the moment, health and wellbeing boards are under no obligation to spend any part of their budget in a specific way on diabetes.
Mr Hunt
First, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his campaigning on diabetes. I have looked at this carefully as Health Secretary and I looked at the possibility of ring-fencing certain sums in the budget for conditions such as diabetes, but the advice I received was that the broader change we need to make is in the whole mentality across the NHS for dealing with all long-term conditions, not only diabetes, but arthritis, dementia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. That is because within a couple of years we will have 3 million people who have three or more long-term conditions, one of which is often diabetes. Will a real focus of the change we want to see in the NHS be on people with long-term conditions? Yes, I would say that that is the biggest focus of all in the change we want to see over the next five years.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am keen to accommodate as many colleagues as possible on this extremely important set of issues, but may I appeal to colleagues to exercise a certain self-denying ordinance, whether they are speaking from the Back Bench or the Front Bench?
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I welcome today’s announcement of the national sepsis prevention campaign, which will make a such a difference to people in Cornwall and all around the UK. Will my right hon. Friend continue to work with the all-party group and the UK Sepsis Trust to implement the sepsis six, which it is estimated will save 12,500 lives and £2 billion for the NHS every year?
Mr Hunt
Yes, I will. I have to say to the House that the importance of being better at tackling sepsis was brought home to me personally by two moving meetings with Scott Morrish, the father of Sam Morrish, who was from the west country—perhaps near my hon. Friend’s constituency. His son’s tragic death from sepsis was avoidable, so this is an absolute priority for me in the next couple of months.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Two weeks ago, the Secretary of State could not muster enough Conservative MPs in this House to defend the Health and Social Care Act 2012, particularly those elements of it that have allowed competition regulators into the NHS to second-guess decisions of local commissioners. If he wants to save money in the NHS, he can do away with that element of the 2012 Act and stop money being diverted from patients to pay for lawyers and accountants to oversee a tendering process that is wasting money.
Mr Hunt
If we stopped the NHS using the private sector, which seems to be Labour’s direction of travel, 330,000 people every year would have to wait longer to have their hips or knees replaced. We will make decisions on the basis of what is right for patients, and not of ideology.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his remarks and thank him for the extra £1 billion for primary care. In South Dorset, I hear many complaints about the agency fees for recruiting staff, which is one reason why trusts tend to recruit nurses from abroad—from places such as Spain. Will he look at that and see if there is some way we can save a bit of money and act a little more efficiently?
Mr Hunt
We are spending too much on agency staff. It is fair to acknowledge that one reason why NHS trusts are doing that is in reaction to the Francis report. They want to ensure that they have proper staffing on their wards and proper staffing quickly. We have introduced transparency to encourage them to do that. As things settle down, they need to transfer more of those staff on to proper permanent contracts, because it costs the NHS too much to pay those exorbitant agency fees.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
I welcome any extra funding for the NHS, but will the Secretary of State ensure that it is fairly distributed, as on the current funding formula, Stockport is 4.9% from target, and that is affecting the ability of the clinical commissioning team to develop health services in the community as an alternative to emergency admissions to Stepping Hill hospital?
Mr Hunt
I recognise the hon. Lady’s concern about the way funding is allocated, and it is a concern that is shared in all parts of the House. It has been very difficult to get that right in a period when NHS funding has not been going up by large amounts, but that matter is now decided at arm’s length from Ministers by NHS England. It will make its decisions at a board meeting on 17 December, and I will make sure that I relay to it her concerns.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that all patients, especially older and vulnerable patients, deserve the security of an NHS funded out of general taxation rather than part-funded by an unpredictable and opportunistic tax on people’s homes as proposed by the Labour party?
Mr Hunt
The trouble with a mansion tax is that, in the end, it will apply not to mansions but to homes, flats and people on low incomes. That is why it is the wrong way to put more funding into the NHS. The right way to do it is to have a strong economy, and only this Government can deliver that.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Up until her retirement, my mother was a very proud and committed nurse in the NHS. The Secretary of State wears a lapel badge pretending his love for the NHS. Today, my mother asked why, if the Secretary of State had £700 million in his Department, could he not have afforded the measly 1% pay rise for our committed nurses in the NHS, which would have cost £200 million.
Mr Hunt
It really demeans debate in this House to go on about some phoney argument that one side of the House cares about the NHS while the other does not. We have shown our commitment to the NHS by announcing today £2 billion of additional funding. That is a big deal and it shows our commitment. We have also given all nurses a 1% pay rise.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I welcome the additional money. My right hon. Friend is right that health providers need a stable financial environment, but many of them have been left with a debilitating legacy of debt. The Royal Cornwall Hospitals Trust in my own area has a legacy of debt, which is just a fraction of the amount by which the Government have admitted that they have underfunded the local health economy over many years. Rather than having distorting activity going on in that trust, would it not be better for it to start with a clean sheet of paper and to build for the future rather than constantly having to work from a position of debt?
Mr Hunt
I sympathise, because the previous Labour Government left hospitals with more than £70 billion of PFI debts. Those debts must be paid off and that money cannot be spent on front-line patient care. We have done what we can on a case-by-case basis to help trusts deal with those debts. It is extremely difficult when resources are tight and of course I will consider the trust’s particular case.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Any new money for health is, of course, welcome, but it has only come because of acute need in the English NHS. If there had been acute need in the Scottish NHS or further acute need in the Welsh NHS, we could whistle for it. Surely this is one reason for us to have full fiscal autonomy in Scotland so that we can control the spending and raising of money in Scotland rather than relying on mismanagement in England or on electoral advantage. What will be the consequences of this announcement for the Scottish NHS, the Welsh NHS and the Northern Irish NHS per annum?
Mr Hunt
I am very happy we devolve responsibility for the NHS to the devolved Administrations, because it means that people can compare performance and that we can learn from each other. For example, patients wait a shorter time for operations in England compared with in Scotland and Wales.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Giving clinical commissioning groups the opportunity to commission GP services as well as secondary care will provide an amazing opportunity for there to be whole-population commissioning. Does it not also provide an opportunity for health and wellbeing boards? It provides an opportunity for elected councillors to work with clinical commissioning groups to try to design health care services, both primary and secondary, for the whole of the local population.
Mr Hunt
It absolutely does. My right hon. Friend makes his point very powerfully. This year, the better care fund—a programme derided by the Labour party, which said that it would not work—has been a huge success, with a £5 billion integration of the health and social care systems. The enthusiasm that that unleashed encouraged me to propose today that we should go further, so that where both parties are willing, local authorities and the local NHS should consider jointly commissioning public health as well. There would be huge benefits if they chose to do that.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
Is it still the Government’s case that the emerging deficits across the English hospital trusts can be dealt with by efficiency savings alone?
Mr Hunt
There are huge pressures in the NHS. By the time of the election, we will have nearly 1 million more over-65s than there were at the last election. That means that people have to redouble their efforts to live within their means. At the same time people are trying to deliver the higher standards of care that we have talked about following the Francis review of what happened in Mid Staffs. It is challenging, but we expect all trusts to live within their budget. In all cases, they have recovery plans that we expect them to stick to.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
I pay tribute to the medical and support staff at Colchester hospital for their work to bring it out of special measures. Twice the Secretary of State referred to focusing on prevention. May I suggest that a contribution to that admirable aim would be for first aid to be included in the national curriculum for schools?
Mr Hunt
No one campaigns more for first aid than my hon. Friend. I would certainly encourage all schools to teach first aid, as I think it is a very important skill and we should consider that as part of the prevention agenda. There is also a broader point, which is that we can do a lot with the Department for Education on this agenda.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
In my constituency, people are increasingly finding it difficult to access GPs and the local hospital, Warrington and Halton, is in deficit and is missing its A and E targets. I therefore have a simple question for the Secretary of State. How many additional GPs will this money find, over and above the number of GPs who are in post today?
Mr Hunt
It takes seven years to train a GP, so the long-term solution is to train an additional 5,000 GPs, which is what the Government have decided to do and have announced. While they come on stream, this additional money will fund up to 20,000 additional posts, a number of which will be in the community.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his emphasis on prevention. Has he had a chance to read Public Health England’s report “From evidence into action”? It encourages him to place greater emphasis on risk factors that contribute to an early death, such as tobacco, blood pressure, diet, inactivity and alcohol, rather than the actual conditions that people die from. That would cut demand for services.
Mr Hunt
That document is very powerful and I have said before that I hope that in our lifetimes this will become a smoke-free country. It is shocking that we still have 85,000 deaths every year linked to smoking. However, we are a free country so this is about supplying the information, incentives and nudges and not about compelling people.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman knows that GPs in my constituency have, on average, 4,500 patients on their list, which is about twice the average for England. Earlier he told my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) that in constituencies such as hers and mine, where funding is so far from the target, we have to depend on NHS England, not him, to remedy the gap. How can we influence NHS England? What pressure is he putting on it to get fair funding for every area?
Mr Hunt
The reason we decided to give that decision to NHS England—it is now decided at arm’s length from Ministers—was to remove the worry people had that politicians might make these decisions for political purposes, rather than for what is right for the NHS. I encourage the hon. Lady to make representations to NHS England before its board meeting on 17 December.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
I very much welcome the “Five Year Forward View” and the new investment, but does the Secretary of State agree that it is not so much a five-year forward view we need as a 20 or 50-year forward one, if we are to begin to meet the tsunami of demand we face? We will have to work together across the House as we face the tough questions on how to fund and manage the NHS. Otherwise, we will be accused by future generations of bickering while our NHS burns.
Mr Hunt
I hear what my hon. Friend says, but it is also important to have a clear plan of action to take us in the right direction over the next six years, which is what the plan from NHS England and Simon Stevens provides and what the Government have said we support. She is right that the demographic trends will get worse. By 2030 the number of over-80s will have doubled to 5 million. That is the sobering reality that we all have to face up to.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Secretary of State aware the some of us on the Opposition side feel a bit sorry for him? This is the third “pie in the sky” statement we have had recently—we have heard statements on rail, on roads and now on health—which basically say that things might get better in future, and of course the election is in five months. The fact of the matter is that when I go back to Huddersfield, I see a health service in which all the players, who used to work together in partnership for something they believed in, are now at each other’s throats, as a result of his reforms: not collaborating, but fighting, disagreeing and making bids against each other.
Mr Hunt
Let us take one example. The better care fund has meant that for the first time—this did not happen in 13 years under Labour—local authorities are sitting around a table with the local NHS, working out how to jointly commission care for the most vulnerable patients in the community. That is a huge step forward. The hon. Gentleman should talk with the people in his local authority, because he will hear about the incredible progress that is being made. This is not pie in the sky; it is £2 billion of new money for the NHS. That will make a big difference to doctors and nurses in Huddersfield, just as it will everywhere else.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
I welcome the announcement of additional funds for the NHS and give my support to the Minister for putting patients first and driving up the quality of care. However, does he agree that it is not all about money and that quality, committed and motivated staff are central to a successful NHS, as is good leadership and management, particularly at the local level?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For every hospital in difficulty—he has had many discussions with me about his hospital, which is going through a very difficult period—there is another with the same funding settlement that is able to deliver good care with motivated staff. Leadership is extremely important for motivating staff, and the one thing that staff say matters most to them is having leaders who listen to what they say and, when they have concerns, take them seriously. That is a change that we are beginning to see throughout the NHS.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
On that subject, I can advise the Secretary of State that last week I spoke to nurses in the hospital near my constituency, and they told me that as a result of the cuts in their pay, which have been going on for many years, they are seriously considering setting up shoebox collections to help their members get through this Christmas. At the same time, the chief executive of that trust has had a 17% pay increase, and the governors have had an 88% increase in their allowances. Is that what he means by all being in this together?
Mr Hunt
I am afraid we will not take any lessons from the party that increased managers’ pay at double the rate of nurses’ pay when in office. I will tell the hon. Gentleman what this Government have done: because of our increases in the tax-free threshold, the lowest paid NHS workers have seen their take-home pay go up by £1,000 a year.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Despite all the claims and counter-claims, does the Secretary of State agree that in the long term, with a taxpayer-funded NHS, Government will only ever be able to increase resources and meet the public’s expectations if UK plc is thriving and we have a growing economy?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party thought it would win this argument by pledging extra money for the NHS at its party conference, but that will not actually happen until the second half of the next Parliament and it may not happen at all if it has got its sums wrong. The public reaction was simply not to believe it, because they know that what Labour does to the economy actually puts all NHS funding at risk, which is something we must never allow to happen.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)
Earlier this year, the Secretary of State announced a welcome £6.12 million grant for Medway, and on Tuesday he referred to the extra doctors and nurses being taken on in a special measures regime for Medway hospital. Could he assure us that extra and recurring funding will also be available to cover the costs in future?
Mr Hunt
The funding I have announced today—the £1.5 billion for front-line NHS services—is recurring, as is the additional Treasury funding of £1 billion. That is being added to the NHS baseline so that it can be invested in long-term increases in staff numbers, among other things.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
What impact will the extra money have on hospitals in special measures, such as the Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust? Could he assure the House that any extra moneys will reach clinicians and patients and will not be swamped by the disastrous private finance initiative that the previous Government signed?
Mr Hunt
Of course, that has been a huge problem for Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. I have met the chief executive, who is doing a very good job in turning around the trust, but there are huge challenges. What doctors and nurses in failing hospitals or hospitals in special measures want to know is that they have a Government with a long-term commitment to the NHS and who will deliver the economy that can fund the NHS. They also want to know that they have a Government who will tell the truth about problems so that they get sorted out, which never used to happen before.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Last week, as chair of the all-party group on motor neurone disease, I took evidence from professionals and patients who had been promised that £14 million would be available for communication support from April this year. Not a penny has been spent yet on equipment or new staff. I took phone calls from people who are end-stage kidney diseased who are frightened by the announcement that kidney dialysis is to go from NHS England to clinical commissioning groups. Will the Secretary of State get a grip, make sure that the money that is there is spent, and stop the disastrous move of kidney dialysis to CCGs, which are not functioning?
Mr Hunt
With the greatest respect to the hon. Lady, I will very happily look into the concerns she raises, but what we are talking about today is more money going into the NHS because the Government got a grip of public finances and got the economy growing. That means more money for people with long-term conditions, including people with motor neurone disease. The hon. Lady should therefore welcome today’s announcement.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
According to clinicians in charge of health care and budgets, this Government have done much to take the politics out of running the NHS. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that average productivity in the NHS has improved under this Government, and does he agree that, given the outrageous comments of the Labour leader, it is clear that Labour is happy to see the NHS used as a political football?
Mr Hunt
I think what the public find very perplexing about this is that the Labour party opposed reforms that mean we have 10,000 more doctors and nurses on the front line. Labour is now not welcoming additional financial investment in the NHS that means we will have even more doctors and nurses, and it does not recognise the fundamental point that affects the whole NHS, which is that, in employing those extra doctors and nurses, we have to back them with a culture of safety and compassionate care that we never saw under Labour.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Our NHS is indeed reliant on a strong economy, but we should note that the UK’s state deficit is the worst in the European Union at the moment and our state debt has more than doubled since May 2010. Can I take it from the Secretary of State that I can go back to the constituents of Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland and tell them that their acute hospital trust will have its £91 million deficit removed; that its PFI, which was opened up in the Major years, will be dealt with properly; that Hemlington, Park End and Skelton medical centres will stay open: and that minor injuries units in Guisborough and Brotton will remain open?
Mr Hunt
I warmly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being the first Labour Member to say in this House that a strong NHS needs a strong economy. May I encourage him to transmit that message to those on his Front Bench, and perhaps to the shadow Chancellor, who might then understand why people in the NHS are backing this Government because they know that we will deliver a strong economy? I do not know whether we can do all the things the hon. Gentleman talked about, but we will have a better chance with the fastest-growing economy in the G7.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the support that he has personally given to Medway Maritime hospital in my constituency, including, at a meeting last week, a commitment of £5.5 million to increase its A and E capacity. Can he assure me that hospitals in special measures that have problems going back to 2006 with high death rates will be given extra resources from the funding announced today to ensure that they are turned around as quickly as possible?
Mr Hunt
I assure my hon. Friend, who has campaigned very hard to improve standards at Medway hospital, that, first, we want to support its doctors and nurses, who are more passionate than anyone about putting this difficult period behind them; and that secondly, I have no greater focus than on making sure that we do turn around these hospitals in difficulty. It is a challenging process, but the extra funds that I have announced today will benefit all hospitals, including Medway.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has boasted about the numbers of doctors and nurses coming through on his watch, but that actually started on Labour’s watch because, as he has said, the process takes seven years. What proportion of this new investment in the national health service is to be invested in Coventry, particularly given the disparity regarding doctors’ surgeries and the loss of doctors?
Mr Hunt
The training may have started under Labour, but if we do not have enough money in the NHS budget, we cannot pay for these doctors and nurses. We can do that because we took a decision, bitterly opposed by Labour, to disband the primary care trusts and the strategic health authorities and to lose 21,000 administrators so that we could pay for 10,000 extra doctors and nurses, including in Coventry.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
The achievement of parity of esteem between mental and physical health in the NHS is absolutely fundamental to its future. As the Secretary of State will know, the Government have a reasonably good record on moving towards parity of esteem. Does he agree that we need not only more investment in mental health services, but, more importantly, better commissioning and a change of culture towards viewing patients as a single whole?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend has campaigned incredibly hard on this issue. I totally agree that the key aspect is a change in the approach of commissioners. People with mental health needs often have physical health needs and different needs relating to gambling and alcohol addictions, for example, that are connected to their mental health problems. Unless all these issues are tackled together, we are unlikely to make progress. We are very proud to have enshrined in legislation parity of esteem as something that we must achieve in the NHS. Today’s announcement will help this to go further.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Given that delayed discharges have reached a record high, what guarantee can the Secretary of State give that this money will not be paid for by further cuts to local government social care budgets?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Gentleman will have to wait to see what the Chancellor says on Wednesday about the Department for Communities and Local Government settlement. This Government have recognised that the fate of the social care system and the fate of the NHS are closely entwined, and that we cannot support the NHS at the expense of the social care system because the two go together. That is why we see close working with the Better Care fund.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) highlighted, Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust remains in special measures. I know that the Secretary of State has taken an interest in this. The trust has many failings, but it also has one hand tied behind its back in the form of a particularly egregious PFI deal that takes up 16% of its budget every year. Is there anything he can do to review trusts that are in special measures and have particularly difficult PFI settlements?
Mr Hunt
I remember visiting Newark hospital with my hon. Friend before he was elected, and I know that he campaigns very hard on the issues facing the trust. I will happily take that issue away and look at it. It is worth saying that the doctors and nurses at that hospital are working incredibly hard to turn things around, and they have already made great progress.
Andrew Stephenson
Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am honoured.
I very much welcome the £2 billion of additional funding announced today. This morning, I was at Airedale hospital for the preview of its new £6.3 million A and E department, which will open to the public this Wednesday. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to all the hospital’s NHS staff and management, and its patients, who have been involved from the start of the process in making sure that the new A and E department, which is more than double the size of the old one, is now a reality?
Mr Hunt
I am happy to do so. It is an absolutely brilliant hospital. I was really impressed when I saw that it has integrated its IT systems with those of local GPs better than anywhere else I have seen in the UK, and it is now looking at integrating those systems with local residential care homes. It has a fantastic Skype system for patients who are vulnerable and have mobility problems. It is an amazing place, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to it.
Mr Marcus Jones
The previous Labour Government left my constituents with one of the worst health funding allocations in England. Despite the extra investment that this Government have put in, the issue still has not been properly resolved. Having heard my right hon. Friend’s advice earlier, I will be making representations to NHS England. Will he join me in supporting my constituents in getting a fairer funding deal?
Mr Hunt
I want everyone to have a fairer funding deal, and today’s announcement is significant in that respect. One of the reasons it has been difficult to help people to move closer to their target funding allocations is that the increases in the NHS budget have been only 0.1% every year, so we have not had the margins necessary to make changes. Precisely by how much, and where, we make those changes is a matter for NHS England, but I will happily refer my hon. Friend’s concerns to it.
Foreign Affairs Committee (Hong Kong Visit)
Mr Speaker
I call Sir Richard Ottaway to make an application for leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration under the terms of Standing Order No. 24. He has three minutes in which to make such an application.
Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
I seek leave to propose that the House should debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration —namely, the decision of the Chinese Government to ban the Foreign Affairs Committee from visiting Hong Kong.
In 1984, Britain and China signed a joint declaration on the future of Hong Kong when the UK’s lease expired in 1997. It included a commitment to a “one country, two systems” style of government and to its rights, freedoms and way of life remaining unchanged for 50 years. In August this year, the Chinese National People’s Congress issued a decision changing the way in which the chief executive would be elected. This confirmed earlier suspicions and has led to widespread protest in Hong Kong. In the Government’s latest six-monthly report to Parliament on Hong Kong, the Foreign Secretary said:
“the important thing is that the people of Hong Kong have a genuine choice and feel they have a real stake in the outcome...there is still some way to go for consensus to be reached.”
As a result of this concern, the FAC decided in July to hold an inquiry entitled “The UK’s relations with Hong Kong: 30 years after the Joint Declaration”. In August, I was invited by the Chinese ambassador to discuss the inquiry. At the meeting, the Committee was abruptly accused of meddling in China’s and Hong Kong’s internal affairs. We were asked to discontinue our inquiry and told that we would be unwelcome in Hong Kong. The Committee gave full consideration to the ambassador’s views and decided to continue with its inquiry; indeed, we felt it would be an abrogation of our duties not to do so.
Since then, the rhetoric from the Chinese Government has intensified. Ten days ago, we were informed that some would consider our visit to Hong Kong to be of support to the protestors of Occupy Central and other illegal activities. Last Friday afternoon, I was formally informed—by the deputy Chinese ambassador, the chargé d’affaires, because the ambassador is abroad—that the Committee would be denied entry to Hong Kong. The Government have rightly said that the ban is mistaken and counter-productive. I agree. It is an affront not just to this House but to the men and women of the free world. I believe that this House should have the opportunity to express its views as soon as possible.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely “The ban by China on the Foreign Affairs Committee visit to Hong Kong”. This is an extremely serious matter for which, I confess, I can think of no exactly comparable precedent in my 17 and a half years in the House. As is my duty, I have listened carefully to the application from the right hon. Gentleman and I am satisfied that the matter raised by him is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24.
Has the right hon. Gentleman the leave of the House?
Application agreed to.
Mr Speaker
Thank you. The right hon. Gentleman has obtained the leave of the House. The debate will be held tomorrow, Tuesday 2 December, as the first item of public business. The debate will last for up to three hours and will arise on a motion that the House has considered the specified matter set out in the right hon. Gentleman’s application. I hope that that is pleasing to the right hon. Gentleman, to members of his Committee and to the House.
Criminal Justice and Courts Bill: Programme (No. 3)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 24 February 2014 in the last Session of Parliament (Criminal Justice and Courts Bill (Programme)) as varied by the Order of 12 May 2014 in that Session (Criminal Justice and Courts Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 10.00pm at today’s sitting.
(2) The proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
(3) The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
Table | |
|---|---|
Lords Amendments | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
Nos 97 to 107 | 7 pm |
Nos 74 and 127 to 131 | 8.30 pm |
Nos 1 to 73, 75 to 96, 108 to 126 and 132 to 143 | 10 pm |
Subsequent stages
(4) Any further message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(5) The proceedings on any further message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mark Lancaster.)
Question agreed to.
Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 319 / Noes: 203 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 315 / Noes: 203 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 312 / Noes: 200 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:41 - The House divided: - Ayes: 314 / Noes: 198 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 316 / Noes: 194 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 34, 75, 123 and 124. If the House agrees to them, I will cause an appropriate entry to be made in the Journal.
Clause 64
Likelihood of substantially different oucome for applicant
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 97.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 98 to 106 and Government motions to disagree.
Lords amendment 107, and amendments (a) to (e) in lieu.
Chris Grayling
Before I move on to the detail of the amendments, it might be helpful to remind the House why these reforms are so important. Judicial review was developed as a tool for citizens to challenge decisions taken by public bodies that unlawfully and adversely affect their lives. That remains as important today as ever, and nothing in these reforms will prevent those citizens from using judicial review in the future. As Lord Chancellor I take my responsibility to uphold the rule of law very seriously, but I do not believe that the way in which it has evolved in relation to the current use of judicial review is consistent with or necessary to uphold the rule of law, and I believe the time has clearly come to set some limits to prevent misuse.
Judicial review was never intended to be a tool for pressure groups to seek to disrupt perfectly lawful decision making in Government and Parliament, it was never designed to be used as a political campaigning tool, and it was never intended to put the courts above the elected Government in taking decisions over the essential interests of this country. Yet, in far too many examples, that is precisely what it has become and it is why reform is necessary. It is also why the three areas of our proposed reforms covered by this debate tonight are so important.
Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the judicial process must be robust and fair, it must not be open to constant abuse?
Chris Grayling
Indeed. I am genuinely baffled as to why the Opposition are so set against many of these reforms when many of their predecessors as shadow Ministers or in government raised many of the same concerns. I will challenge them over one or two of the issues later, because I find their position inexplicable.
Whoever wins the general election will have to take some very difficult decisions in the next Parliament. Those decisions are not ones that any of us would wish to have to take, any more than we in government wanted to take some of the difficult decisions that we have faced in this Parliament, but tough times mean tough decisions—decisions in the interests of this country. And yet, whichever party is in government after next May will face a wave of pressure groups trying to use judicial review to delay decisions, to avoid spending reductions, and to generate publicity for their own cause.
If a group can find a clever enough lawyer, almost any Government decision can be judicially reviewed, and very many are, not necessarily on the basis of specific breaches of specific laws, but far too often on a loose argument that something was not quite right with the consultation paper, that there should have been a bit more consultation, or that a tough decision seen in isolation was irrational. Without undermining the essential core of judicial review, we need to restore common sense to the way in which the judicial review system works, and that is what we are working to do.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree with the important point made by Lord Horam that there is a difference between a balance to protect the rights of the citizen in specific cases and a situation where, sadly, judicial review can be moved through pressure groups to what is effectively a review of the merits, rather than of the procedures, often contrary to the wishes of the communities that are most directly affected?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend is right. Judicial review has become a vehicle that is used as one of the tools to campaign, to delay and to challenge, not necessarily in the interests of the broader society or the broader community, but because it provides a vehicle to make a point or to delay something for financial reasons. It makes no sense to have a system that can be abused in the way it often is.
We listened carefully to the debate in the House of Lords, and as hon. Members will see from the amendment paper, we have suggested some modifications to ensure that we avoid unintended consequences of what we are working to do. I hope that the House will say clearly today that having agreed those safeguards, we want to see this package of reforms pass into law.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
On safeguards, can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that local authorities will not be able to dumb down their standards, knowing that there is not likely to be a judicial review, and that they will still always go through the correct process, as they need to do, and not think that they are beyond reproach?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend is right. It is important to say that the Bill will not stop organisations being judicially reviewed where they are at fault. It does not stop organisations being judicially reviewed for constant or serious underperformance or failure to fulfil their duties. What it stops is judicial review on technicalities. It stops the system being used for purposes for which it should not be used.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Does the Lord Chancellor view as a technicality the recent consultation on changes to legal aid ignoring the Welsh language aspect altogether and allowing half the time for the consultation to go into the Welsh language issue, as opposed to the whole time? Is that something that we should just ignore?
Chris Grayling
In that particular case, we fulfilled the orders of the court after the first judicial review hearing. I did not agree with the judge in that initial ruling. I considered an appeal, but looking at the detail of the ruling, I decided that it was more in the interests of the system that we were trying to protect and develop to move ahead with a further period of consultation. That is what we did, and we have published our responses arising from that consultation. We took the opportunity to revisit our original decisions and to look at whether any further changes needed to be made. That was embodied in the document that we published last week.
There are three simple principles in the areas of debate covered by these motions. I challenge the Opposition to explain why they so strongly disagree with those principles. First, parties should not be able to use minor technicalities in process as an excuse to bring a judicial review in order to delay an essential decision when there is very little likelihood that the outcome would be affected by that technicality. It is a simple principle. There is an exceptional circumstances clause which still allows judicial discretion in cases where there is a particularly distinctive characteristic, but this is designed to stop organisations judicially reviewing a process on the basis of a minor flaw in process, only to have the effect of delaying a difficult change—delaying for financial reasons and trying to push a change back a few months so that the financial impact is not felt as soon.
That is the reality of what is happening, and this proviso seems a perfectly sensible means of ensuring that the Government can take decisions in a timely and necessary way. In the unhappy event that the shadow Secretary of State finds himself in my chair or his colleagues find themselves in other Ministers’ chairs, they will think that it is sensible and logical way to make sure that the wheels of government move at an appropriate pace.
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
I hope that my right hon. Friend accepts that some Government Members, and I include myself, have some concern about the reforms he is promoting. Will he help me to resolve a very difficult dilemma by telling me and the House what he regards as a minor technicality? Judges do not generally grant leave for judicial review on minor technicalities—it has to be based on matters of serious abuse of fair process—so I am concerned and troubled by what he considers a technicality.
Chris Grayling
I hate to disabuse my hon. and learned Friend, but such cases happen all the time and very regularly. Very early in this job, I faced a judicial review—we eventually won it after a hearing, but only following a delay and some considerable cost—from a representative group that argued that changes to a part of the compensation system should not proceed because of a technical detail concerning how the consultation had been carried out. It went to a hearing, which we won, but it cost the taxpayer substantial amounts of money and delayed the process. It was on a technicality, and there was no likelihood of there being a different outcome. If he talks to Ministers from across the Government, he will find that such cases happen regularly—for example, if a nuance of a consultation has not been done thoroughly or properly, or if it was fractionally shorter than the precedent for similar consultations. I am afraid that such cases do happen, and they delay the wheels of government. Let me talk about the other two areas, because they are also acute problems.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman says “all the time”. Will he give us a notion of how often that is—once a day, once a week, once a month? How many times have such cases happened since April, for instance? He is giving the impression that they happen all the time, but what does that mean?
Chris Grayling
A Minister is confronted by the practical threat of the arrival of a judicial review case virtually every week of the year. It is happening all the time. There are pre-action protocols all the time, and cases are brought regularly. Looking across the majority of a Department’s activities, I would say that Ministers face judicial review very regularly indeed. It happens weeks apart rather than months apart.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Chris Grayling
Let me set out the other two areas covered by the reforms, and I will then give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
The second thing we are trying to do is to stop third parties using people with no means as human shields, and effectively bringing broad-ranging cases on public policy by acting as interveners behind and alongside them, while being immune to financial risk if they lose. That is customarily discussed in terms of pressure groups, but it actually applies to big corporations as well.
The third reform applies in a similar way. If an organisation brings a judicial review, we should know who they are and who is backing them. Of all the disagreements of the House of Lords, I understand this one least. How is it possible for a judge to take a decision on costs and other aspects of a judicial review if he or she has absolutely no idea who is responsible for bringing it? Is it not right and proper for the court to know?
Let me give an example to challenge Labour Members. If a large international, such as a tobacco company, wants to challenge the Government on a public policy decision, it can, under the current rules, set up a shell company, with a single—probably impecunious—director and use it as the front for the judicial review. If that happens, is it not right, proper and sensible for us to know which corporation is backing the judicial review? Labour Members may say that it could never happen, but it happened in the Richard III case, when a shell company with a single impecunious shareholder brought a judicial review against the Government, which cost the taxpayer a significant six-figure sum. It can and does happen.
Why on earth would anybody disagree with the principle that if an organisation brings a judicial review, we should know who it is and who is backing or supporting it? Why is that so unreasonable? I simply do not understand why the Labour party lined up with Cross Benchers in the House of Lords to oppose it. What is wrong with the principle? I challenge shadow Ministers to say—I will happily take an intervention—what is wrong with the idea that a court should know who is backing a judicial review or who is behind it?
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I would love the Secretary of State for once to use an example or any example that does not involve Richard III. He knows very well that the intention of his approach on clause 67 is not to be transparent, but to discourage small litigants—individual groups wishing to take on a big corporation—who would fear that all their funds were at risk. The vast majority of such cases are of that kind. He wants to suppress viable litigation, rather than in any way to be transparent.
Chris Grayling
I am afraid that that is complete nonsense. The amendments that we are discussing do not involve any financial risk at all. They are simply about the court knowing who is backing the judicial review. They are purely for information. I do not believe that it is unreasonable for a court considering a judicial review to know who is backing it, and I am baffled as to why the Labour party opposes that.
We do not have much time for this debate, so I will focus my detailed remarks on clause 67, but I said that I would take another intervention.
Frank Dobson
The right hon. Gentleman talks of technicalities, but the law is full of technicalities—that is all it is. He says that Ministers and officials are frightened of judicial review, and so they should be. The pressure on them is to comply with laws and regulations that we have passed. We are encouraging law breaking if we let someone say, “Well, it’s okay. You can skate over that, or you can skate over this. You can get away with it. It was only a minor technicality.”
Chris Grayling
I am afraid that that is simply not right. Very many judicial reviews are not about whether we have broken a law passed by this place—of course, we must be challenged if that happens—but are based on a much looser interpretation of what should or should not happen. They are based not on statute, but on, for example, why we have run a consultation for six rather than nine weeks, given that the previous one was for nine weeks. The truth is that such arguments are brought to the courts by people who seek to delay the impact of decisions. I must say that if Labour Members find themselves taking difficult decisions in government after the election, they will discover that a judicial review’s ability to delay key decisions is against the interests of this country, and they will wish that they had supported rather than opposed us.
As hon. Members will see from the amendment paper, we will ask the House of Lords to reconsider its opposition on most of the measures. We listened very carefully to the concerns expressed on clause 67. We disagree with the Lords amendments, which undermine the clauses agreed by this House. Each amendment would take the heart out of the reforms by undermining any duty to give effect to the key requirements. However, we have listened very carefully to the concerns expressed on clause 67, and we have moved by proposing an alternative model.
If this House approves the amendments in lieu, clause 67 will continue to give the courts significant leeway in making cost orders. It will be for the court to consider whether any of the four conditions have been met. It will preserve the court’s role in deciding whether costs were caused by the intervener and incurred by the party reasonably. Where the court is of the view that exceptional circumstances would make the award of costs under the clause inappropriate, it need not make an award.
That is a crucial point on all of this. There are still provisions that give the judiciary the freedom, in exceptional circumstances, to say, “This is a particularly distinctive case, and we need to pursue an approach that is different from the norm.” We have left in provisions for such exceptional circumstances, but on clause 67 we have taken on board some of the concerns expressed. The amendments in lieu are not about preventing legitimate intervention in support of a case brought on behalf of a disadvantaged individual, but are about preventing a powerful group from using someone with no money as a human shield for a case in which the group intervenes behind that individual, with the public picking up the cost regardless of whether the case is won or lost. That should not happen.
We believe that the amendments in lieu strike a sensible balance. They meet the concerns expressed by hon. Members from different parts of the House in a way that will reassure both them and those in the other place that our intention is to tackle the challenge of such human shields, not to remove altogether the ability to intervene in cases where there is a legitimate reason for doing so.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is therefore re-establishing judicial discretion?
Chris Grayling
As I just said, we have never taken away judicial discretion. We have left in place the clause on exceptional circumstances. Almost every week, this House passes measures that set tramlines for the courts to operate within. We set maximum sentences, but if the maximum sentence for a crime is five years, we do not say that judges should give a five-year sentence; we give them the flexibility to decide what is the right length of time below that.
We are taking a similar approach with these proposals. We are saying to judges, “Look, you’ve got some flexibility, but there are parameters that we need you to operate within.” To my mind, that brings common sense back to the system of judicial review and deals with the frustrations with a system that can be abused. It does not create a situation in which legitimate judicial reviews cannot be brought.
Surely my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) would admit that an organisation should not be able to bring a case to court free of financial risk because it is shadowing behind somebody who has no means and therefore cannot have costs awarded against them; that an organisation should not be able to set up a shell company to bring a judicial review without any information being available to the court about who is behind the shell company; and that an organisation should not be able to delay a difficult spending decision by arguing to a court that the whole process should start all over again because of a minor technicality. Those things happen on a regular basis and they must change.
These reforms are essential in restoring common sense to judicial review. I hope that the House will back the motions to disagree and the amendments in lieu.
Mr Slaughter
Although it is some two and a half years since I last spoke on a series of Lords defeats of Ministry of Justice legislation, I have an acute feeling of déjà vu. On 17 April 2012, this House considered the 11 defeats that their lordships had inflicted on the infamous Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. Today, we examine the four considerable dents that have been put in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill. The three that we are considering in this group of amendments substantially amend part 4 of the Bill, which seeks to hobble the administrative law remedy of judicial review.
LASPO is fresh in my mind today for two reasons. First, those 11 defeats were whittled down, in the course of ping-pong, to some important but narrow wins. Secondly, the Government have spent the past 30 months trying to squirm their way out of even those concessions. The MOJ is still deciding what to do about the High Court decision that its review of costs rules for mesothelioma cases was unlawful. Let us remember that it is trying to enforce, against the will of Parliament, the payment by sufferers of that terrible disease of up to 25% of their damages in legal fees. Further proceedings are pending on the evidential requirement for obtaining legal aid in domestic violence cases—another defeat for the Government.
Both Houses may wish to note how the Government have sought to dodge the undertakings that were given to two of the most vulnerable groups in society—terminally ill cancer sufferers and domestic violence victims—when they look at any purported concessions in the Bill. Of course, the fact that a Government who go back on their commitments to Parliament and let people down are held to account by the courts is at the root of this attack on judicial review. The Lord Chancellor has lost six judicial review actions in the past year and there are several strong cases in the pipeline. Might that have any bearing on his current attack on judicial review?
For once, notwithstanding the truncated nature of the debate, I feel that we have enough time to debate an issue that the Government find very uncomfortable. That is not because there is a lack of arguments to put against part 4, but because they have already been put many times and have not been rebutted. On Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading in both Houses, there have been long debates on the dangers and inequities of this attack on the rule of law and the rights of the citizen against the state.
An unprecedented alliance of charities, the legal professions, the judiciary and victims of Government injustice has come together to support the Lords amendments. On the “Today” programme this morning, the noble Lord Woolf, who was a sponsor of the Government’s defeats, said that the Bill undermined the independence of the judiciary and, thereby, the rule of law. All the arguments are on one side. Against the clear voice of the experts, which says that this attack on judicial review is a constitutional provocation, we have the childish statements from the Lord Chancellor, who says that judicial review is a left-wing conspiracy. He should tell that to those who are reliant on the independent living fund, the Gurkhas and the victims of care home abuse, or indeed the Countryside Alliance and Stop HS2, all of which are successful challengers of his Government’s arbitrary exercise of power.
The only thing going for the Government is the majority that they hold in this House. The real issue today is whether they can use it to batter the other place into submission. Sadly, there are too few supporters of individual freedom on the Tory Benches. Tory Members either support the big corporation over the little man or have swallowed the Lord Chancellor’s infantile line that judicial review is all about subversive left-wing groups stopping the wheels of commerce turning. We are left to hope—I find it difficult even to say this—that the Lib Dems will wake from their comfortable ministerial sleeps to remember the time when they claimed to be the party of civil liberties. To wait is to hope, but as only one Liberal Democrat MP has bothered to attend this important debate on civil liberties and the rights of the individual, I do not think that we can have much hope.
Frank Dobson
My hon. Friend mentioned Lord Woolf. Will he remind the House which judicial position was held by Lord Woolf? Would he, like me, be more likely to agree with Harry Woolf than with the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling)?
Mr Slaughter
We do indeed stand on the shoulders of giants in conducting this debate. The names that graced the amendments that were made in the House of Lords included not only the former Lord Chief Justice, but other esteemed lawyers such as Lord Pannick, the Labour spokesman Lord Beecham, Lord Carlile and many other senior jurists. Indeed, the President of the Supreme Court and the Master of the Rolls have also spoken out in clear and emphatic terms to say that the Government proposals are not just folly, but dangerous steps to take. I am amazed that any Lord Chancellor—even this one—would ignore those protestations.
It is not wrong to see this concerted attack on judicial review as of a piece with other reductions in access to justice that this Government have advanced, such as on legal aid, on no win, no fee, and on court and tribunal fees. However, judicial review seems to receive particular opprobrium from this Lord Chancellor. That is strange in many ways. Judicial review is already a remedy of last resort and already includes a permission stage. Its accessibility has been limited by the changes to the rules on legal aid for judicial review and the shortened time limits for applying. Indeed, Lord Justice Jackson, some of whose recommendations on costs and civil claims the Government have grabbed on to, advised that it was already very difficult for the ordinary citizen to apply for judicial review for want of funds and expert knowledge, and that we should look at broadening the basis for bringing a judicial review claim.
The attack on judicial review should be of concern to us all. It is a remedy that can protect the rights of very vulnerable individuals, such as young prisoners and dementia sufferers; that can save whole communities from wrongful decisions by the state, such as when the closure of Lewisham’s accident and emergency department was ruled unlawful; and that can establish the law on important points of policy, often with the help of expert bodies that intervene to assist the court on a point of general principle. It is, as Liberty says,
“a crucial tool which allows ordinary people to challenge decisions by the authorities—either because they’re unlawful, irrational, or made in the wrong way.”
I suspect that if their lordships had not been interrupted by other business, they would have continued to neuter the clauses that deal with judicial review. As it is, they stopped at just three defeats for the Government, each of which was important. We urge all Members of the House to vote against the motions to disagree in respect of each of the clauses at issue. For the avoidance of doubt, we will press to a vote, just as their Lordships did, the matters that relate to the “highly likely” test, financial information, and interveners.
Chris Grayling
Since the hon. Gentleman has indicated his intention to support all the Lords amendments, will he explain why he thinks it appropriate to allow organisations that back judicial reviews to remain anonymous?
Mr Slaughter
I will not speak for long because we have limited time, but I will come on to those matters in a few moments.
It is not only Labour peers who were rallied by Lord Beecham who share our view. Indeed, as he pointed out, the Lord Chancellor’s proposals have been roundly condemned by every independent and bipartisan body that considered them, including the Joint Committee on Human Rights and other Committees of both Houses. Furthermore, the former Conservative party chairman Lord Deben referred to the changes as “out of line” and “unacceptable”, and Baroness Williams called them an “act of absolute tragedy” that she was “very troubled” by. Lord Howe voted against the Government, as did many pillars of the legal establishment—so much for the Lord Chancellor’s left-wing plot.
Each amendment that the Government have resisted has a particular point to make. On the “highly likely” test, all their lordships are saying is that judicial discretion should be retained, and that the court may refuse judicial review if it concludes that it is “highly likely” that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different had the conduct complained of not occurred. If we stick with the Government’s proposal and disagree with the amendment, public bodies will be allowed to escape responsibility for unlawful decisions. In the long run it would change the role of judges in judicial review cases as they would be invited to second-guess how decisions have been taken. The Government are confusing remedy with unlawfulness, and potentially creating far more problems at earlier stages of judicial review cases—and causing far more court time to be taken up—because the court will have to consider the implications of its decisions and not the process under review, as is the case at the moment.
On financial barriers, the evidence—I emphasise that word—of practitioners and those who have represented parties on all sides suggests that the chilling effect of the clauses will be felt first by people of limited means who look for support in their judicial reviews. That could be family members—for example in a care home case—or individuals in a community, perhaps on a planning case, but it could also be charities and other not-for profit organisations. Such organisations have said clearly that although they are currently prepared to support judicial review proceedings, if there is a risk that the court will look at the funders and potentially penalise them in costs, their trustees will not be prepared to continue doing that, whatever their support for the individual action. Each clause in part 4 purports to be a simple tinkering change and a way of dealing with things at the margin to ensure that unmeritorious cases do not come forward. However, evidence from the judiciary, practitioners, interveners and everyone who has participated in the process suggests that the clauses will have a chilling and discouraging effect. That is as true for provisions on financial barriers as for the “highly likely” test or interveners.
The issue of interveners has taken centre stage, and at an early point in proceedings the Government said that they would table amendments to deal with the concerns expressed. We had one of those little dances that takes place between the Liberal Democrats and the Government, when the Liberal Democrats say, “We’re not happy with this, can we have a concession?”, and grudgingly, at the last minute—last Friday in this case—we have a concession.
Let us consider the concession the Government are proposing. What they originally proposed, and what the House of Lords disagreed with, is the idea that only in exceptional circumstances and very rare cases would interveners be protected from paying costs. That does not mean their own costs, which interveners customarily pay, but those of all parties involved. That was clearly wrong, and the Government appear to accept that. As the deputy president of the Supreme Court said, interventions are of great assistance to the court and there can be merit in interventions. Therefore, amendments have been tabled. It is clear why Labour supports what the House of Lords said, and that the matter should be—as it is now—at the discretion of the court. The court has completely adequate powers, should it wish to exercise them, to punish or find against interveners on costs if it believes there is no merit in the intervention or if it believes—this is unlikely—that time has been wasted during proceedings. That matter is currently, and should properly remain, at the discretion of the judge.
Let us consider the amendments, because this is the most disingenuous part of the debate. We waited months—since June, I think—to see what concession the Liberal Democrats with all their bravery had wrung out of the Government. The opinion of everyone who has considered the amendments since they were published just before the weekend is that not only do they not address the issue, but they make the situation worse. The reason for that is simple. Previously, there could at least be exceptional circumstances. Now, a series of criteria must be met, otherwise a mandatory duty means that all costs associated with the intervention would be recoverable by all other parties, including losing parties. Therefore in certain ill-defined circumstances, the court would have no discretion to act to prevent an unjust outcome, despite interveners having been granted permission to intervene by the court, and encouraged to proceed. That will have a more damaging effect than the Government’s original proposal to create a presumption that costs would be payable except in exceptional circumstances. Only this Government could make the situation worse by making a concession.
In a way, the wording does not matter. The net result of those criteria is to set up retrospective tests that mean that the chilling effect will apply. Interveners are typically charities, not-for-profit organisations and others who may perhaps have funds to pay their own costs, but will not risk the definition of terms such as “in substance”, “taken as a whole”, “significant assistance”, or whether something is “necessary” for the court to consider whether someone has behaved unreasonably. A judicial review often develops from the permission stage through to a full hearing, and during that time it is perfectly possible that certain facts become more or less relevant. What impecunious charity will take those risks? This is another attempt to pull the wool over our eyes by setting up impossible hurdles and mandatory tests where matters should be left to the discretion of the judge.
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. Why should those who row in to back a judicial review that they lose be automatically insulated from the costs of doing so? He knows that time after time the taxpayer picks up the bill. This measure is simply to ensure that those who row in behind a judicial review but do not make a valid contribution to the process cannot be immune from facing the costs if they lose.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. May I remind both Front-Bench speakers, one who has already spoken and the other who has been speaking for rather a long time, that the debate ends at 7 pm and other Back Benchers wish to participate? The Secretary of State has got his points on the record, and perhaps Mr Slaughter will conclude his remarks so that we can call the Back-Bench speakers.
Mr Slaughter
I give up with the Secretary of State. We are talking about interveners, who are there to assist the court and broaden the issue where it is helpful for matters of public policy. If he cannot see that after having discussed the Bill since February, I really do give up on him.
The Government proposals would prevent judicial review if they can persuade a court that it is highly likely that an unlawful act would have been lawful if done differently. That is a recipe for poor decision making. They will hobble the attempts of people to raise the considerable funds needed to bring a case and weaken their ability to have protection from the Government’s costs if they lose. Most bizarrely, they discourage the intervention of expert bodies, such as charities and civil society organisations, which often assist the court in making the right decision. Under pressure on this last point, or to give the usual fig leaf to the Liberal Democrats, a series of last-minute amendments have been tabled by the Lord Chancellor on interveners, but the opinion of experts who have looked at them is that, if anything, they make the Bill worse.
Labour MPs will therefore vote to uphold judicial review and the rights of the individual against the state. We will oppose the motion to disagree with each and every one of the Lords amendments in this group. We will vote against the Government’s amendments in lieu. We may, I hope, be joined by one or two libertarian Tories, although I am not holding my breath. It will be interesting to see how many Liberal Democrats, so keen to shout about their love of liberty before voting for legal aid cuts in secret courts, will join us in the Lobby.
Mr Cox
I regret the tone of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), which fell beneath the standards the House is entitled to expect on so important a matter. The tone was cynical and frankly insulting to those of us on the Government Benches who have spent many years of our lives fighting for the rights of individuals in the courts.
I should, before I begin, draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I appear in courts, specifically in the administrative court, quite frequently. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, hurling yet another insult. I do not know what he was like in the legal profession, but if he won as few arguments by his gracelessness and charmlessness as he is winning this evening, no doubt he switched professions with very good reason indeed.
In substance, many of the points the hon. Gentleman makes—they are not, I think, his; he is merely puppeting and gibbeting the points made by his betters and those more equipped than he to make the criticisms—are, I have to say, correct in the substance of the matter. That is why I say to the Secretary of State that, although one cannot always choose one’s friends in this House on specific topics, I am extremely troubled by what he is introducing. I sympathise with and understand the frustration that, he feels with the industry, it may well seem to those in charge of the Executive, that judicial review has become. I understand that, but my concern is that the measures my right hon. Friend is introducing are not well targeted or adjusted to the mischief he is seeking to suppress.
One of the examples I give is the provision to introduce a likelihood test as to the outcome of any judicial review. The problem with this measure is that it does two things, unintended no doubt in their consequence by the Secretary of State. First, it will turn permission hearings, and substantive hearings if permission is granted, into an immensely detailed and cumbersome process of trawling through fact and evidence so as to equip the judge to take a decision on whether it was more likely than not that the decision would have been taken anyway, and in order to demonstrate that it would have been taken anyway if the flaw had been identified by the judge. The presupposition is that the judge has identified a technical flaw, as my right hon. Friend would call it, either in consultation, natural justice or perhaps even discrimination. The public authority will then seek to justify its position by saying, “Well, it would have made no difference and you, the judge, on all of the evidence, can take the view yourself that this would have made no difference.” That converts the judge into the decision maker.
Chris Grayling
The “exceptional circumstances” provisions would allow a judge to say, “This is a flagrant case and must be heard.”
Mr Cox
I hear the Secretary of State, but the Bill does not refer to “minor technicalities”; as the Bill reads, the default position would be that any abuse of due process or power could be justified and defended on the basis that the decision would in any event probably have been taken. It is difficult to make “exceptional circumstances” clauses work, because the courts say, “Well, ‘exceptional circumstances’ cannot mean a lack of fairness or an abuse of power.” I have spent many years examining these kinds of clauses and arguing them in the courts, and I know that “exceptional circumstances” clauses are rarely invoked, because courts are reluctant to acknowledge them as a standard resort in such circumstances. It would take something extreme indeed for a court to be persuaded it was exceptional. On the other hand, abuses of power happen quite often, I am afraid, and the clause is likely to condone those abuses of power, whereas often where there is an abuse, it is right that the decision be taken again.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Lords amendments 97 to 102 were carried in the other place to ensure that courts maintained their discretion in determining whether to grant a judicial review by making use of the “highly likely” test. Groups such as Justice have rightly concluded that if these amendments are defeated, it will change the role of judges by inviting them to second-guess how decisions might otherwise have been taken. From his experience, the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) has detailed some very potent arguments why the amendments should be upheld. Parliament should never seek to undermine the courts’ discretion; courts should be free to determine whether to apply the “no difference” test, and to legislate otherwise would impede the integrity of our legal system. I therefore support these amendments.
Lords amendments 105 and 106 would allow the courts to consider the circumstances of individual cases in determining whether to grant an application for judicial review, even in cases where third-party information is not readily available. In clause 66, the Government have tried to find yet another means of limiting the circumstances where applications for judicial review can be heard. The amendments seek to ensure that applications can be heard in cases where third-party information is not easily available.
Judicial review is often the only means by which individuals can hold the Executive responsible for wrong -doing, yet the Government are trying to shut down that avenue for redress. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has said it sees no evidence to support the Government’s reforms, and neither does Justice, Liberty, JustRights, Human Rights Watch, the Howard League, Redress, Inquest, Mencap, Amnesty International—the list goes on. Can anyone report which groups actually support the Government in these changes? [Hon. Members: “The Whips.”] Yes, the Whips.
On clause 67, Lords amendment 107 would maintain courts’ discretion over whether to order an intervener to pay the costs of relevant parties and vice versa. As drafted, the Bill would compel the court to order interveners to pay such costs, other than in exceptional circumstances, as we have heard from the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon. The provisions in clause 67 are among the most disturbing in the Bill. Unamended, the clause would ensure that charitable organisations and individuals with expertise could no longer enrich the opinion of the courts by intervening in cases where their expertise would be of use because they could not justify the risk to their trustees, funders or members of supporting litigation. As the noble Lord Carlile asked in the other place:
“How could trustees reasonably agree to support an intervention when it could result in losing tens of thousands of pounds or more in costs, jeopardising, in some cases, the existence of small charities?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 June 2014; Vol. 754, c. 1607.]
Yet the plans would still allow Departments and corporations with huge funds to intervene and hence play a pivotal part in the development of public law.
I ask the House to reconsider the Government’s proposals in the context of the various and—I am trying to avoid vitriol—crippling reforms to access to justice in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. As a result of the significant cuts in that Act, more individuals will be looking to charitable organisations for support in getting justice. It seems to me that clause 67 will take away this last resort. I am afraid the Government seem intent on restricting access to justice so that only those with the least to lose can gain redress. Why do they think it necessary to pursue this agenda, which will throw the baby out with the bathwater, despite the perceived misuses of the law relating to judicial review? The hon. and learned Gentleman, a far more experienced lawyer than me, has referred to the time-honoured practice of judicial review—the Wednesbury principles and so on—and the practices in place to ensure that Departments act reasonably in all circumstances. Why should we not uphold the individual’s rights to ensure that Departments act reasonably?
In conclusion, Justice said:
“Punitive and disproportionate, these measures are designed to deter any organisation with limited funds acting as an intervener. In practice, this means that – even in important cases with a constitutional impact which reaches far beyond the immediate interests of the parties - the court will no longer benefit from expert advice and information provided from cash-poor and experience rich charities and NGOs.”
I think that says it all. As we heard earlier, senior judges themselves are on the record as saying that the courts are enriched by the interventions of these people, who know exactly what they are talking about.
Robert Neill
I commend to this House the words of the former Lord Chancellor, the noble Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in the other House. He supported the Bill and set out a sensible balance, as did the Minister, Lord Faulks, himself no slouch as a Minister. It is right that those who come to the Queen’s courts in a public hearing should not shield their true identity or who truly funds them. The Government are right to insist on that point.
It is legitimate for Parliament to set the parameters within which the undoubtedly important system of judicial review works. That is what the Bill seeks to do: it strives to strike a fair balance. I hope the House will support the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor. It is absolutely critical that we have a comprehensible and credible system of judicial review. I want to see that as much as anyone else, but the mission creep of some areas of judicial review, very often for politically motivated purposes, undermines the true purpose of judicial review as a legitimate and important remedy for the individual. I believe that the Government’s proposal, despite the rather hyperbolic—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Andrew Selous)
I beg to move, That the House disagrees with Lords amendment 74.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments 127 to 131.
Andrew Selous
As it has been some months since we last debated the Government’s plans for secure colleges, let me briefly remind Members of our ambition for secure colleges to transform the experience of young people in custody. At present, 68% of detained young people reoffend within 12 months of release—that is the highest reoffending rate of any group of offenders. Despite that poor outcome, we are paying on average about £100,000 a year for each place in youth custody—the figure rises to more than £200,000 a year for places in secure children’s homes, though the reoffending outcomes are no different. So it is clear that carrying on as we are is simply not an option. The Government believe that we must have higher ambitions for turning around the lives of troubled young people who end up in custody, and that putting education at the heart of youth custody, properly integrated with health and other support services, is the way to equip these young people with the skills and self-discipline they need to build productive, law-abiding lives on release.
Secure colleges will do that by being places of education first and places of detention second. We want to move away from the culture of bars on windows, and foster one of engagement and personal development. Our intention is to test the secure college model by opening a secure college pathfinder in Leicestershire in 2017. This purpose-built facility will, for the first time, provide detained young people with a secure learning environment in which education has been designed as the core of a regime tailored to the specific needs of young people.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I understand the aspiration to try to provide something that is educationally rather than penally driven, and we all hope it works. Does the Minister accept that there is a risk that it will not quite work? Would it not be sensible to phase things in, starting off by involving just boys over 15 and then expanding the scheme only if it actually works?
Andrew Selous
The intention is not to introduce girls and children under 15 at the start. We have engaged throughout this process and we intend to carry on doing so. We will, through a competition to be launched next year, invite potential operators to demonstrate how they would deliver innovative education and rehabilitation services to these young people. I am disappointed that we are today discussing Lords amendment 74, which excludes girls and under-15s from secure colleges, denying them access to the substantial benefits that we believe the secure college model will deliver for detained young people. I recognise the arguments that have been made during the passage of the Bill, both here and in the other place, about the particular needs of girls and under-15s detained in custody. I recognise also the need for establishments to put in place appropriate protections to ensure that these more vulnerable groups are kept safe. Those are valid arguments, and the Government are extremely mindful of their responsibilities to these vulnerable young people.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The lack of any improvement over 40 years by any Government in reducing recidivism condemns us as politicians. We welcome any fresh initiative, but can the Minister tell us whether there is any model, anywhere in the world, where the system he is introducing has worked?
Andrew Selous
As the hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out, we have lamentably failed to reduce reoffending over a very long period. In addition, we spend a huge amount of taxpayers’ money per place to achieve very poor results. I have seen good education in our current establishments, but I believe we can do better. The time is ripe for us to try something different, based on sound principles, putting education and health at the heart of what we are doing, and making appropriate interventions, all of which will be in place. We are confident that secure colleges can not only meet the needs of girls and younger children in custody, but improve on the education and reoffending outcomes that current facilities achieve.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I agree with the Minister that we should put education at the heart of the rehabilitation agenda for young people. Will he say what educational qualifications the staff at the secure college will have?
Andrew Selous
As the hon. Lady may know, we are going to run a competition, which I will describe shortly, to find an education provider. But we are committed to increasing the amount of time in education and we want innovative responses to raise standards further because, as she will know, the results at the moment are simply not good enough.
As I have said, at this stage the Government have plans only for a single secure college pathfinder that will open in 2017, and it has been designed so that it is capable of housing about 300 young offenders aged 12 to 17. It is true that the majority of the young people in this first secure college will be boys aged 15 to 17, but that does not mean that girls and under-15s could not be safely accommodated on the same site and provided with the tailored services required to rehabilitate and educate them. Girls and boys aged 12 to 17 are already safely accommodated together in secure training centres, as well as in secure children’s homes.
Our designs for the secure college pathfinder have been specifically developed to ensure that if girls and under-15s were to be placed there, they would be accommodated in separate and smaller living units, entirely distinct from the accommodation for the majority of older boys. In our consultation on our plans for secure college rules, we also proposed a rule that girls must be separately accommodated from boys.
Mr Llwyd
The Minister has more or less taken my speech away from me, because to a large extent my concerns have been allayed and it is good that he is running a pilot for boys to see how that works. But how long does he think an individual youngster has to spend in that set-up in order to gain education. In other words: is there a minimum time?
Andrew Selous
Obviously, how long children spend in these institutions is not up to us but up to the courts. What I say to the right hon. Gentleman is that significant improvements can be made in a short period. I have seen huge advances in a child’s reading within an eight-week period, so significant advances in education can be made in relatively short periods and, of course, many children are sentenced for considerably longer than that, as he will well know.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
Does the Minister envisage the girls and younger boys being educated completely separately from the older boys?
Andrew Selous
What we have committed to is separate living accommodation. When I visited a secure training centre recently, I saw young children—both girls and boys—happily learning how to put up wall paper and to cook banoffee pie. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the accommodation will be separate. The whole set up and design of the secure college will be such that it will be possible to have considerable separation if and when we need it. I hope that he is reassured by that.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
The Minister may be aware that when the Bill was in Committee, we heard from a number of experts, including charities, doctors and other people working with young people and offenders, and they said that the way that the secure colleges had been set up as large institutions was completely unsuitable for young people.
Andrew Selous
I hope that I can reassure the hon. Lady on that point. I understand the concerns that she raises. Is she aware of how the secure college is designed? We will, for example, have 12-bed units for the more vulnerable groups, which could include girls and children under 15. There are 20-bed and 10-bed units. We believe that it will be possible to offer that proper support. The set-up will allow smaller groups of young people to foster that sense of community, belonging and close relationship with those that will be looked after.
Andrew Selous
I will just finish this point and then I will let the hon. Lady in, not least because her mother is one of my constituents. There will be no occasion when all 300 or so young people will be milling around together in any part of the secure college. I hope that that allays the hon. Lady’s concerns.
Julie Hilling
I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). Nobody involved in rehabilitation or education has said that this is a good idea. The Minister did not quite answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) about whether the teaching staff will be qualified teachers. Moreover, what sort of ratio of children to teachers does he expect in that learning environment?
Andrew Selous
As I think the hon. Lady knows, we will be running a competition, and we will be looking for innovation and creativity from providers. We will assess the bids very rigorously on the basis of the best quality of education, so we are a little way off being specific on that at the moment. The hon. Lady will have heard me say very clearly that this is an institution that will have education at its core, and that we would not be doing this if we were not absolutely determined to do better than is currently done on the education front.
Now, if colleagues will allow me, I will make a little progress. Both measures will ensure that girls, and boys aged under 15, receive the tailored support that they need in secure colleges. Throughout the passage of the Bill, and indeed the development of our plans for the secure college pathfinder, we have actively engaged with interested parliamentarians in both Houses and wider stakeholders and experts, including both NHS England and the Department for Education. In the light of the feedback that we have received from peers, we have made changes to the plans to enlarge the site of the pathfinder by two acres to ensure that the younger and more vulnerable groups have sports and recreational facilities near their accommodation, and that there is greater separation between the larger and smaller units on the site. I am therefore satisfied that the secure college pathfinder would be able to deliver a distinct regime that caters for the specific needs of girls and under-15s while always keeping them safe.
Dr Huppert
I thank the Minister for giving way a second time; he is being very generous. We all hope that everything works out as he anticipates. What assurances can he give us that the contract that would be signed would be such that if there were a decision not to go ahead with extensions, the taxpayer would not be financially penalised?
Andrew Selous
I am not sure whether the contract would specifically relate to the number and type of young people who were on the site, so I think that those would be separate issues. However, there is a strong argument for not discriminating against girls and young people. As a father of three daughters, I would not want to think that we were in any way discriminating against girls. That is an important principle.
I should stress that although the other place has proposed amendment 74, the Government have been clear that no final decisions have been taken on who will be accommodated in the secure college pathfinder. That will be determined in the light of analysis of the make-up of the youth custodial population ahead of the pathfinder opening in 2017. We have also given our commitment that girls and under-15s will not be placed in the pathfinder from its opening, and that any decision to introduce them would be carefully phased.
I hope that Members will agree that girls and under-15s should not be prevented from benefiting from the enhanced opportunities and facilities provided by secure colleges. Members should acknowledge the careful consideration that we have given to these matters, and the efforts we have made to ensure that girls and under-15s could be accommodated safely in the secure college pathfinder. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject Lords Amendment 74.
Lords amendments 127 to 130 are minor Government amendments consequential to earlier amendments made by this House to extend the secure college provisions to Wales. Those amendments were necessary to ensure that principals of secure colleges were treated under the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 in the same way as those in charge of other types of custodial establishment.
The purpose of amendments 127 to 130 is to ensure that the Welsh language text of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) 2014 Act is consistent with the English language text of the 2014 Act as amended by schedule 5. That is necessary because the two instruments are legally separate. I can assure the House that the effect of the amendments is unchanged from the English version seen earlier, and I ask Members to agree to Lords amendments 127 to 130.
Lords amendment 131 concerns the process for approving secure college rules. In its third report of the Session, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that if the Bill is to enable secure college rules to authorise the use of force for the purpose of ensuring good order and discipline, those rules should, to the extent that they authorise the use of force, be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government were pleased to accept that recommendation on Report in the Lords and consequently ask the House to support this amendment.
As the first set of secure college rules will contain provisions authorising the use of force, an effect of this amendment would be to make the entire first set of rules subject to the affirmative procedure. That will give Parliament additional oversight of the first set of secure college rules. The Government’s consultation on their plans for secure college rules closed on 27 November. We are considering the responses that we received. I urge Members to agree to Lords amendment 131.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I rise to speak against the Government’s motion to disagree with the other place, and in favour of Lords amendment 74. I give notice of our intention to vote against the Government’s motion tonight.
This debate is about sparing girls and young children—the most vulnerable offenders—from a flawed, expensive and potentially dangerous institution, with which the Government should not be going ahead. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said and will respond to some of his specific points in a moment, but would not the Government’s proposal for secure colleges be a step in the wrong direction for our youth justice system? It is a plan without any real supporting evidence.
Even the Government’s own impact assessment accepts that their plans are untried and untested and the Government have not been able to produce a single independent expert to vote for the proposal. The NSPCC, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and nearly 30 other leading children’s charities have publicly condemned the plans as “expensive and dangerous”.
Let me be clear: improvements need to be made to youth custody. Reoffending is still too high and education can and should play an important role in the rehabilitation of young offenders, so I welcome the efforts that Ministers are making to improve the delivery of education in young offenders institutions where it is not good enough. At a time when the youth custody population is falling, however, Labour does not think that construction of a new type of prison is the correct way to proceed.
Yasmin Qureshi
Does my hon. Friend agree that one aspect of rehabilitation is being able to keep in contact with family and close ones? It is proposed that this college will be in Lincolnshire and there will be only one in the whole country, so my hon. Friend can imagine the travelling that the parents of the children will have to do to visit. That completely defeats the object of rehabilitation.
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All the evidence explains that small units that are closer to home with a higher staff ratio are more suitable, particularly for girls and young offenders who have complex needs.
Let me respond now to some of the Minister’s points about the accommodation of girls and young children. We know that girls and children under the age of 15 are overwhelmingly in the minority in the youth custody population. In 2012-13, 95% of children in custody were boys and 96% were aged between 15 and 17. If those ratios were reflected in the 320-bed secure college, the Government would be accommodating fewer than 20 girls and about a dozen younger children together with nearly 300 older and troubled teenage boys. That has all the makings of an incredibly intimidating environment with real safeguarding concerns for the most vulnerable offenders and it is why large facilities such as young offenders institutions only accommodate boys over the age of 15. It also helps explain why, as I have just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), all the evidence shows that small units closer to home with a higher staff ratio are most suitable for girls and young offenders with complex needs. Ignoring the evidence in deciding the composition of the secure college would create a near impossible task for the college principal as the regime would inevitably need to be designed to cater for the needs of the majority, making it all the more likely that the needs of the minority would slip through the cracks.
The problem is compounded by the fact that Ministers have not carried out an equality impact assessment on how girls and younger offenders would fare in a secure college. That was confirmed in a written parliamentary answer to me on 16 June and by the Joint Committee on Human Rights earlier this year. The Committee’s report on the scrutiny of the Bill stated:
“We note that the Government does not appear to have carried out any equality impact assessments of the proposed secure colleges policy, and we recommend that such assessments should be carried out and made available to Parliament at the earliest opportunity.”
I remind the Minister of his Department’s response to the Committee’s report. It claimed:
“We believe that the pathfinder Secure College, an establishment”
comprising
“distinct accommodation units and capable of supporting different regimes for the various groups of young offenders, will provide…an individualised service.”
My simple question for the Minister is as follows: how? How will those warm words be delivered in reality? The House has been given no credible information about what life inside a secure college would be like for those young people.
We know that young people in custody have complex needs: mental health issues, learning disabilities, drugs, alcohol and problems of domestic abuse and family breakdown. However, the Government have proposed no credible plan for how the secure college would cater for those needs. They have not explained how they will be able to deliver better results at a lower cost than has been possible in other youth custody environments or how they would do so when the average time young offenders spend in custody is only 79 days.
Right hon. and hon. Members do not have to take my word for it. Let me remind the Minister of the Secretary of State’s letter to the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights earlier this year. Describing the secure college proposals, he said:
“The Bill establishes the secure college in law. Beyond the legal framework, the legislation does not specify details of the regime to be delivered within the secure college.”
The most obvious example of that is the secure college rules.
Yasmin Qureshi
Effectively, the secure colleges are the old-style Borstals, and everybody knew that they did not work.
Dan Jarvis
Indeed. One of the fundamental problems is that there is no credible evidence to support the proposal and no independent experts who are prepared to put their names to it.
Let me ask the Minister for a number of guarantees. If separate facilities are his solution to the issue, why are they not provided for in the Bill? Even if they were, fencing off girls and the youngest offenders is not the answer. It is likely that they would still be in the minority in the separate areas and they would also be cut off from the facilities on the main site for most of the time. There would also still be times when girls and children as young as 12 would need to be moved and escorted across the main site. That would be a recipe for intimidation and it is precisely why youth custody has moved away from accommodating different age groups on the same site. Such sites are more difficult to run and mean that children have to spend more time locked up and fenced off for their own protection, hindering any hope of rehabilitation.
Let me finish by putting it on the record that if we are elected in five months’ time, the next Labour Government will not wish to go ahead with this poorly thought through proposal. The Government have said that they want to cut the cost of youth custody, but wasting £85 million of public money on a vanity project that will do little to rehabilitate young people is no saving at all. Last week, Leicester city council refused a planning application that looks likely to delay the project. Will the Minister say when he expects construction to start and whether the final contract will be signed before the election?
Anyone and everyone who has scrutinised the secure college proposal has seen it for what it is: an ill thought through cost-cutting exercise with a veil of education draped over it. Throwing girls and the youngest children into the mix would be an accident waiting to happen. The other place has had the wisdom and common sense to say so and this House should agree with them.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The Minister is aware that I am strongly against the creation of his secure college. Of all the witnesses we saw in Committee, not one was in favour of creating this prison for children. Indeed, most considered it a joke as it goes against the evidence and recommendations on rehabilitating vulnerable young children. The Government’s proposal for a secure college will introduce a new and dangerous kind of child custody. The Government plan to detain girls and boys aged between 12 and 17 in a 320-bed prison.
There is no doubt in my mind that if these plans go ahead, younger children will be extremely vulnerable. It is inevitable that they will experience higher levels of intimidation by older children and that their needs will be relegated because of a focus on the majority. Evidence shows that girls and younger children are likely to withdraw by refusing to engage in educational programmes or other activities in that environment, which completely counters the professed reason for creating this prison. There has been no impact assessment, so it is impossible to comprehend the implications for those groups.
Currently, young offender institutions only hold boys over 15 because it is recognised that larger institutions are unsuitable for younger children and girls. Girls and under-15s are currently held in secure training centres or secure children’s homes, which are smaller and have a higher staff-to-child ratio. Why cannot that tried and tested model be allowed to continue?
The reality of the secure college is that girls and younger children will still be sharing the same resources. Yes, they may have segregated use, but they will still see, hear and be intimidated by older boys. The vast majority of girls in the penal system have a history of sexual abuse. Imagine what it will be like for them in a testosterone-fuelled environment of boys trying to out-macho each other for fear of appearing weak. The Minister said that he has daughters so I am sure he can imagine how it will be for those girls when they try to sleep at night. How will they move on from the horrors that plagued their earlier lives or be able to develop as individuals when they are outnumbered by 19 to one?
The idea of a giant prison for children is a bad one. We have excellent youth offending schemes that have very positive results in rehabilitating young people. However, I have been in Parliament long enough to know that once the Government have decided on something, they plough on regardless. I beg the Minister to do the right thing and allow Lords amendment 74 to stand.
Julie Hilling
The notion of a secure college is flawed. Nobody except Ministers thinks it is a good idea—no educationalist, nobody who works in young offender institutions, nobody who works in the criminal justice system and nobody who campaigns for improvements in the way we treat children and young people in the criminal justice system. It seems to be based on a notion that going off to boarding school is a good thing, but this is not going to be like Eton. It will bring together large numbers of young people from very disturbed backgrounds who have committed serious offences. That is not a good idea.
Let us think about many of the young people who are in custody. Many have spent time in care and are likely to have had an absent parent. They have probably experienced neglect or abuse, and the prevalence of mental illness is high. Some 86% of young people in the criminal justice system have been excluded from school, 23% have learning difficulties and 36% have borderline learning difficulties. Boys aged 15 to 17 in prison are 18 times more likely to commit suicide than children of the same age in the community, and 11% of children in prison have attempted suicide. Simply trying to put knowledge into these young people without addressing their fundamental issues is doomed to failure. Young people need to be in the right place psychologically before they can start to learn. Simply trying to shove knowledge into young people who are disturbed, who have come from bad backgrounds and whose mental health is rubbish will not work; they need to be in the right place if they are to learn.
The average length of time spent in custody is 79 days, so how are those young people really going to learn a great deal in that period? The Minister talked about young people learning to read in a short period of time. There might be some successes in basic literacy and numeracy, but I do not see how it can work for their wider education process. We will be putting them in a college many miles away from home and the other support services they will need after their time in custody. They will then, after 79 days, have to reintegrate into their old school, or into a new school, and into those support services, which will not be on the doorstep to help them with their drug problems, mental health problems or all the other issues that young people face.
In Committee it was indicated to us that the teaching staff will not necessarily be qualified teachers. We are not sure about that, because the Minister will not tell us. The Government cannot just say that they will leave it until they have had a competition for people to apply to run the institution. Surely to goodness they need to lay down some firm guidelines on the qualifications and experience that those who will be working with the young people should have.
Why on earth will the Government not look at models that actually work? They should look to Scandinavia, where learning environments are in the community, where people down the street will not even know that the house on the corner is a youth custody premises, and where young people are treated holistically so that not just their education is dealt with, but all the other problems that have lead them to offend and have messed up their lives. They need that whole range of support services. We need that sort of therapeutic community, not a place where 320 young people will, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) said, vie for attention and to prove who is the most macho.
I do not believe that a secure college is a place for 15 to 17-year-olds, but it is very definitely not a place for girls and younger children, who should be in the community. The therapeutic programmes that work for young people are those that are close to the community and that are small and specific. As my hon. Friend said, so many of the young women who end up in the penal system have suffered sexual abuse and other forms of physical abuse. The Government should rule out ever putting them in a place with 320 young boys, which would make the experience awful for them.
I do not believe that we will change reoffending by locking up 320 young people together. I do not believe that we will change educational outcomes for those young people by doing that. I really wish that the Government would accept the Lords amendment, but I also wish that they would reconsider the whole proposal. If nobody else thinks that it is going to work, why are the Government arrogant enough to believe that it will? Surely they should start listening to the professionals, to those who work with young people and understand them, and not go ahead with the college, and they should certainly never contemplate putting young children and women into that place.
Andrew Selous
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The Government are committed to improving outcomes for young people in custody. As I said, 68% of young people reoffend within a year of leaving custody, at an average cost of £100,000 a year to the taxpayer. We simply cannot be satisfied with the status quo and need to try something new. Education needs to be at the heart of the offer we put in front of those young people, and so does health.
We have engaged with parliamentarians, stakeholders, practitioners, experts and young offenders themselves on our plans and, in response to Parliament’s concerns, have amended the Bill to ensure that secure college rules are subject to the affirmative procedure to the extent that they authorise the use of force. We want to continue that dialogue as we implement our vision for secure colleges.
I say to the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) that our vision is to have, rather than just a prison with some education in it, a building that is designed as a school—the plans have changed considerably since the first version. We do not think that it is right to educate those young people somewhere with bars on the windows; we think they deserve a better environment in which to learn. The published plans have changed hugely and, as I have said, there will be a considerable health offer within the establishment. Girls are already taught and looked after alongside boys in secure training colleges and children’s homes. We do not expect a delay. Blaby district council supported the proposals unanimously and the local further education college is very supportive of what we are doing.
On the equality impact statement, in accordance with the Ministry of Justice’s duties under the Equality Act 2010, we considered the impact of the proposals set out in the Government response to the transforming youth custody consultation in January 2014. That was made clear in the parliamentary question, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, on 16 June. I say to the other Members who spoke from the Opposition Benches that girls are already in youth custody, in secure training centres and in secure children’s homes, and many are sentenced there for a considerable time. We have a duty to give them a better offer. What we do at the moment is simply not good enough, and it costs us a huge amount of money. A Government with ambition are right to try to do the best for those young people.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 74.
Andrew Selous
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 73, 75 to 96, 108 to 126 and 132 to 143.
Andrew Selous
We have heard today passionate arguments from all parts of the House on parts 2 and 4 of the Bill on secure colleges and judicial review. The Government amendments made to parts 1 and 3 of the Bill in the House of Lords have significantly enhanced it. I do not intend to explain every amendment at great length, but I will touch on some.
Lords amendments 70 to 72, 116, 117, 126 and 142 introduce important changes to the law by creating a new criminal offence that specifically targets the behaviour commonly referred to as revenge pornography. I am sure that hon. Members across the House will agree that this behaviour is intolerable.
Dr Huppert
As the Minister says, this is a very important issue, and I raised it when the Bill was here before it went to the other place. It is very good to have this criminal sanction, but does he agree that it will be effective only if it is matched by education so that it is not necessary because people simply do not do these things?
Andrew Selous
I pay tribute to the part that the hon. Gentleman played in earlier debates on this issue. He is of course right: the law can go so far, but people need to be educated, and that is absolutely part of what we need to do to stamp out this despicable practice.
The malicious disclosure of intimate sexual photographs and films is undoubtedly an extremely distressing experience for victims. Most are left distraught, not only by the disclosure of images that they once thought were private and personal, but by the breach of trust perpetrated by this abhorrent offence. Careers and subsequent relationships have often been ruined as a result.
Mr Slaughter
Even by the Government’s standards, making 140 amendments in the other place, ranging from new offences and procedures to a plethora of corrections to drafting and operational errors, is remarkable. In the end, most of the matters are uncontentious or the Government have had notice of our objections in terms, so I can be succinct. We do not intend to press any of the Lords amendments in this group to the vote.
However, some issues require considerably more explanation and reassurance, not least the new role of the recall adjudicator. We welcome the fact that Ministers have recognised the additional burdens placed on the Parole Board. Labour has made that point repeatedly during the Bill’s passage. The Government’s impact assessment accepts that the Bill will create at least 1,100 extra Parole Board hearings at a time when its work load is rising and its staff numbers are falling. Nearly one in five staff has been cut since the last election, many of whom were vital supports to the 232 Parole Board members, who are paid per hearing. The staff left in place have to clear a substantial backlog of outstanding cases, while recent Supreme Court judgments have also impacted on its case load. With that in mind, we do not oppose the Government’s efforts to redress the burdens on the Parole Board in principle, but we need assurances on several points.
Introducing the provisions in the other place, the Minister accepted that
“the Bill is silent on the precise workings of the recall adjudicator”,
and that there is
“a great deal of further work to be done on the detail.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 November 2014; Vol. 757, c. 14-15.]
Yet Ministers seem determined to rush through the changes with many questions left unanswered.
The Bill currently does not make it clear who the recall adjudicator would be, what the nature and scope of their role would be limited to, how the appointment process would work, what the costs of the new system would be, or how adjudicators would co-operate with other criminal justice agencies to ensure a fair, robust and effective system of recall. It is not clear what experience, training or expertise would be required of recall adjudicators.
So far, the Government have gone only as far as saying that they intend the positions to be filled by people with “significant criminal justice experience”. The point is best summarised by their impact assessment:
“Recall adjudicators will need to be carefully selected and trained and provided with a clear process and guidance to mitigate the risk of their release decisions either being too risk averse, which would add to the pressure on prison places, or failing to take full account of relevant risk factors, which could lead to the release of prisoners who breach their licence conditions and/or re-offend. This would have adverse consequences on the system as well as incur reputational damage to the MOJ.”
Such “reputational damage” to the Ministry of Justice means a risk to the public that decisions are wrongly taken. Can the Minister give the House any further detail on that point? The Government confirmed in the other place that they had
“certainly not ruled out the possibility of using magistrates.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 November 2014; Vol. 757, c. 15.]
That has raised particular concerns, because magistrates have varying levels of experience and, as adjudicators, would be dealing with prisoners on sentences over and above their usual sentencing powers.
Furthermore, there has been no formal process of consultation on the adjudicator proposals, despite the significant changes that they would mean to the scope and function of the Parole Board. The Government committed themselves in the other place to present further reports to Parliament before this policy is taken any further. Will the Minister confirm what these reports will contain, when he expects them to be laid before Parliament and whether any further consultation will be carried out in the meantime?
The Government have failed to carry out an equality impact assessment on the introduction of adjudicators. Will the Minister explain why? This is perhaps the most crucial point. Until we know what proportion of those who are subject to recall have protected characteristics—I include in that young people, elderly people, people with a physical disability, those who suffer from a mental illness and those with other protected characteristics—and until we know whether those who will undertake the job are qualified to deal with those characteristics, we will not know whether the new system is fit for purpose.
Ministers have cited the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Whiston to show that the creation of a recall adjudicator will not be incompatible with human rights obligations. However, Justice has suggested that
“the case does not provide a full proof justification for the new position, as compared with the independent and suitably qualified Parole Board.”
Can the Minister offer the House any specific assurances on that point?
Finally on this matter, what assurance can the Minister give that the new system will be as robust as the current process? Risk assessing whether prisoners can be released back into the community is a complex judgment and the Parole Board has more than 40 years’ experience in it. Reducing administrative burdens is all well and good, but the cost of it must not be to cut corners and jeopardise public safety.
I welcome the Lords amendments that clarify the sentencing for driving and knife offences, as well as the new offences of police corruption and ill treatment or wilful neglect by care providers. The last of those was recommended by the Francis report. Although the Opposition are disappointed that the Government are not implementing Robert Francis’s recommendations in full, we are pleased that they are implementing his recommendations in this instance.
Those changes highlight the fact that this is a rather different Bill from the one that was first presented to the House earlier this year. The Government’s initial impact assessment confirmed that the measures in the Bill would create nearly 1,000 additional prison places. Since then, the Government have added several new offences to the Bill, many of them tabled just days before a debate in Parliament, with no specific impact assessment, and rushed through with limited opportunity for proper scrutiny. That is not a proper way to legislate. At the same time, our prisons have lurched further into crisis, with overcrowding and violence spiralling. Now that the Bill is back in the Commons, will the Minister give us the updated number of prison places it will require and where they will be provided?
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on her proposals that became Lords amendments 73 and 143, which tackle child exploitation. She has championed those changes since the Bill’s Committee stage in the Commons. It is a testimony to the campaign that she has run and to the parliamentary inquiry she led alongside Barnardo’s that the Government have accepted her amendments and included them in the Bill. I also welcome Lords amendments 70 and 71, which relate to the creation of a new offence to tackle the increasing problem of so-called revenge porn.
The Lords amendments that relate to personal injury and fundamental dishonesty are very flawed. They will require a court to dismiss in its entirety any personal injury claim when it is satisfied that the claimant has been fundamentally dishonest, unless it would cause substantial injustice to the claimant so to do. Last Wednesday, I spoke at the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers’ autumn conference, where I heard the concern that, once again, the Government are stacking the deck in favour of defendant insurers. On these proposals, APIL commented that
“there is no provision in this clause for the defence to be dismissed. The rule of law demands a level playing field”.
It stated that the clause
“tilts that playing field firmly in favour of defendants and their insurers who pay compensation to injured people.”
It might be more appropriate to have a criminal standard of proof when questions of fundamental dishonesty are at issue.
There are minor changes on the new sentencing scheme for serious offences and to allow the President of the Supreme Court to report to Parliament on matters that concern that Court and its jurisdictions—those, we approve. There is also a large number of technical amendments. As I said, those are uncontentious.
The Bill has been going through the two Houses for almost a year and there are some things that we welcome either for technical or policy reasons, but there are a number of issues, which we debated earlier this evening, on which we are fundamentally at odds with the Government, principally in relation to secure colleges and judicial review. Any impartial observer would say that whatever the merits or demerits of the Bill, the way it has been presented has been somewhat chaotic. It is not good practice to begin with a moderately sized Bill and have to pack it with additional amendments throughout Committee, Report and Third Reading in both Houses, and on that basis it is perhaps not surprising that the other place has found so much to criticise.
Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
Lords amendments 70 to 72, 116, 118, 126 and 142 will make posting revenge porn a criminal offence, and I rise to support them. I have been campaigning on behalf of women who have contacted me to get a change in the law to make posting revenge pornography a crime, and today we have a chance to make a change that will literally transform the future for many people in our country. Nude or sexually explicit images taken as part of a private relationship and always intended to be private should stay private. People should expect better treatment under the law, and the amendments would ensure that that is the case in future.
The seemingly growing industry of revenge pornography, where images are posted for all to see, is completely unacceptable in our country and the law must reflect that. The current mishmash of legislation does not provide adequate protection. The posting of such images is often a one-off and therefore not subject to harassment legislation, or an image could be deemed not to be grossly offensive and therefore not subject to the Communications Act 2003 or the Malicious Communications Act 1988. There is therefore a need for a new law, and the Bill provides that opportunity.
I pay tribute to the Crown Prosecution Service which has attempted to provide better guidance in this area. However, as the police made clear in evidence sessions on revenge pornography with the Lords Bill Committee held during the summer, it is not necessarily against the law to post such pictures online. The amendment to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill will close that loophole and provide comfort to hundreds or perhaps even thousands of men and women in this country who have had nude or sexually explicit images of them posted without their permission.
The law must keep up to date with the ever-evolving changes and challenges thrown down to us by the internet and digital technology. What is illegal offline is illegal online, but the impact of having a nude or sexually explicit image posted on the internet for thousands or even millions of people to see is entirely different from the impact of a similar image being distributed offline, and I believe that the law should reflect that. We need the law to keep pace with the internet, and I commend the Minister for listening to the arguments and being prepared to take action.
There are those who have said that a new law is not needed. Some have gone so far as to say to me that if a woman has a nude or sexually explicit photo taken in private, she has no right to expect protection under the law if that image is made public without her permission; that in some ways it is as if she was “asking for it”. I completely reject that argument as, I hope, will every Member of the House. The law needs to protect men and women and to send a clear message to the perpetrators of these heinous acts that their actions are not tolerated by this society or in criminal law.
I pay tribute to the work of Baroness Trish Morris and Elizabeth Berridge in the other place for working with me, and for making the case so powerfully and so successfully to enable us to debate these amendments today. I also pay tribute to Women’s Aid, the Safer Internet Centre, Ban Revenge Porn, and many others who have written to me in support of the amendments over the past six months. I thank the ministerial team and their officials for listening to the arguments and for acting, and I urge Members across the House to support the amendments.
If images are posted online, victims want them to be taken down quickly. Protocols put in place by internet service providers and social media in relation to child abuse images prove beyond doubt that the industry can, through its own actions, come together to remove illegal images effectively and swiftly. Good progress on child abuse has been made by the industry, working with the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre and other law enforcement agencies. The Minister perhaps needs to look at that work as a template for the sort of action the industry needs to take on the issue of revenge pornography. We need an industry-wide code of practice for removing revenge pornography to ensure that people have certainty that action will be taken.
The incidence of sexting among under-18s is now put as high as 20%, so the volume of potential revenge porn images in the future is alarming. Indeed, one in five reports from industry received by CEOP relates to self-generated indecent images of people under the age of 18. What will the Government do to put a stop to the already illegal practice of sending nude images of under-18s through mobile phones and then uploading them on to websites? This seems to be becoming increasingly accepted as part of society today, but it should not be. It is illegal and the Government need to act to stop this ticking time bomb of images that could haunt the next generation of people into adulthood.
Victims want help. They want an industry-wide reporting regime. They want help to be available. The Safer Internet Centre, which was established to support professionals who work with children, is now receiving calls from adults affected by revenge pornography, as they have nowhere else to turn to. In September, I met the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, the industry board that looks at these issues. I set out my concerns and asked the industry to take action. I asked for there to be an industry-standard reporting mechanism, an industry-standard response time for taking down illegal images of adults and support for victims through a helpline. This sort of industry-wide approach is what we should all expect from a mature multinational sector of our economy. We should not expect the burden of removing illegal images from commercial websites to be solely the responsibility of the police—the industry has an obligation to act too. If websites are hosted in more obscure countries, splash pages should be used to block illegal pornography images from being viewed in the UK in exactly the same way as they have been used to block child abuse images. It is a tried and tested methodology that can address this problem. I look forward to the Minister confirming today how he can handle the logistics in the future, working of course with other ministerial colleagues in other Departments.
I applaud the Government for acting when some were resistant. The Ministers have shown foresight and their actions will be warmly welcomed by those who have had to endure the appalling consequences of revenge pornography being posted online without their consent. On behalf of all those women—and the men affected, too—who have contacted me, I thank the Ministers for their work. I hope that in their response today they are able to provide some reassurance on the questions I have posed.
Dr Huppert
I, too, would like to speak to amendment 70. I will not detain the House for too long, as some of the points have already been raised. I called for this amendment when the Bill was going through this House and in the Queen’s Speech. It was very helpful after that to get the support of the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) in her Westminster Hall debate.
There is a gap in the law that we are closing. It is surprising that, while there are many laws that touch on the issue of revenge porn, none of them quite tackles the essential issue. People were being harmed and a clear wrong was being done, but nothing could be done because there was a hole in the law. I am therefore delighted that the Government accepted the case. There has been substantial debate in the other place and I pay particular tribute to my colleagues Baroness Grender, Baroness Brinton, Baroness Barker and Lord Marks who tabled amendments in the other place. Between us, we have managed to get the Government to work out the amendments.
I pay tribute to the victims. I have spoken to many of them, but in particular I pay tribute to Hannah Thompson who has played a very key role in speaking out publicly. That was a very brave thing to do about something that feels very shaming. We should remember her work and pay tribute to her. She will protect many people in the future. The psychological trauma can be huge, as the right hon. Lady has already said. We have seen people face the shame—the sense they did something wrong—when it was someone else who behaved badly. People have lost confidence, they have lost their jobs and, in some cases around the world, they have committed suicide. I therefore welcome the Government’s steps to make this a new offence. It is absolutely the right thing to do. It sends a message that revenge porn should not be tolerated and people should not be able to share these intimate images, entrusted to them, and expect their actions to be completely unpunishable.
That will not be enough, however. Although the right hon. Lady spoke about automatic processes to filter these things out, there will be challenges. The work of the Internet Watch Foundation—I declare an interest as one of its champions—on child abuse images is fantastic, but it cannot be directly mapped on to images of revenge porn, because the images themselves are not the issue; it is about intent and consent. It is hard to distinguish automatically between an image shared voluntarily, which we should not be criminalising if the person is over 18, and an image shared involuntarily, which is the issue that the amendment would tackle. It is not as easy as in the case of child abuse images—not that that is trivial or easy either.
Maria Miller
For clarification, I was clearly pointing out that once an image had been identified as illegal, the same technology could be used to remove it from the internet. Obviously, this is about data-matching the images.
Dr Huppert
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right about there being scope for data-matching images, and there is some nice work being done on technologies for hashing an image so that it can be identified, but it will be harder than in the case of child abuse images.
As I said in an intervention on the Minister, we need a substantial improvement in education not just around this offence—ideally we want a situation where no one is ever prosecuted under the offence because the message has been sent so clearly that people simply do not share intimate images of former partners or whomever—but on the much broader issue of sex and relationships education. For me, this is fundamentally an issue not about revenge or pornography—the term “revenge porn” is not ideal—but about consent. We need a system where, particularly through education, we get people to understand what consent is about: what can be agreed to and what cannot be agreed. Whether it is sexual assault and physical violence, emotional assault or the taking and spreading of such images, it should be about whether consent has been given. That is the education I would like to see. The Government should have compulsory sex and relationships education for everybody at school to tackle these issues of consent, and they should do what they can to ensure society changes so that we have that focus on consent. I welcome the amendments very much, and I am grateful the Government have agreed to them.
Very quickly, amendment 73 was led by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who did a fantastic job. I had the privilege of co-sponsoring the amendments, but she did the work, and I am not in any sense trying to claim credit. The amendment will make a big difference to grooming. Her approach to the amendments—working constructively with Ministers, discussing the issues, not trying to play party politics, but making the case sensibly and pragmatically—has delivered her success, and she should be very proud of getting the law changed to protect young people. Perhaps there is a lesson there for other right hon. and hon. Members about how to get the law changed.
Andrew Selous
I thank all Members who have contributed to this wide-ranging and considered debate; the number of points raised confirms the importance of the amendments we have made during the Bill’s passage. As I set out, the Bill represents the next stage of our reforms to deliver a cost-effective system in which the public can have real confidence. The amendments in the other place have advanced and improved the Bill, and I thank its Members for their continued scrutiny.
Hon. Members have raised several issues that I shall address as best I can in the time left. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) touched on the issue of recall adjudicators. He will be aware that the Government decided to legislate now because of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Whiston, which was handed down on 2 July and so only recently opened the door to an alternative mechanism that does not require determinate sentence recall cases to be reviewed by a court-like body. I am of course conscious that the change has been brought forward at a late stage in the Bill’s progress, but it was necessary for us to use the opportunity that the Whiston judgment has afforded us.
Maria Miller
Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the industry to take action and put in place a code of practice to ensure that those affected by this dreadful crime know where to go, who to report the offence to and how long it will be before the images are taken down? People want certainty; they do not want the uncertainty that currently prevails.
Andrew Selous
Yet again, my right hon. Friend speaks very wisely. I agree with the challenge she has put to the industry. She is right to do that and I hope it will pay attention to the debate in this House. I am with her in the demands that she has quite properly placed on the industry in expecting it to fulfil its proper social responsibility in this regard. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge talked about the important role that victims have played, and I think he did the House a service by putting on record the role that victims have played in describing the terrible ordeal that they have been through. That has certainly helped inform our debate.
These amendments address a number of issues that have been brought to our attention by Members in the other place as well as those brought forward by the Government. I firmly believe that they enhance and improve the Bill, and I am proud to say that we are tackling the appalling behaviour known as revenge pornography, which has featured considerably in tonight’s debate. We are also addressing an important lacuna in the reporting restriction framework and introducing recall adjudicators to go some way to alleviate the pressure on the Parole Board. These and other measures are not only critical, but absolutely necessary. I urge the House to support them.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Remaining Lords amendments agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 5 to 34, 75, 123 and 124
Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments.
That Dr Julian Huppert, Andrew Selous, Mr Andy Slaughter, Karl Turner, and Mr Ben Wallace be members of the Committee;
That Andrew Selous be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Damian Hinds.)
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.
Business without Debate
Political and Constitutional reform
Committees
FIFA World Cup Bids (Serious Fraud Office)
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I have called this debate after several weeks in which FIFA, the governing body of world football, has once again been dragged through the mud. FIFA stumbles from one crisis to another, dogged by persistent allegations of bribery and corruption, involving some of its most senior officials, and unable to shake off the perception that it is a rotten organisation that is not fit to lead the world’s most popular game. It appears that some very ugly people have control of a beautiful game, and I believe that it is time that FIFA was subject to the full force of international law, not just left to investigate itself.
At the heart of the current crisis lie the persistent claims of bribery and corruption surrounding the bidding process to host the World cup tournaments in 2018 and 2022. These are serious allegations—that millions of dollars were paid by bidding nations in bribes to members of the FIFA executive committee in return for their votes. These are not just private matters for the FIFA family, as its president, Sepp Blatter, seems to want the world to believe. They are potentially criminal matters, which are of interest to law enforcement agencies around the world. For several years the FBI has been running its own inquiry into the bidding process, investigating whether corrupt payments were made to officials in return for their votes using servers and payment systems based in the jurisdiction of the United States of America.
In response to the widespread allegations that have been made, FIFA—through its ethics committee—launched its own investigation, led by the American attorney Michael Garcia. We were all promised that the process would get to the truth, that it would be transparent and that it would be independent from FIFA, but that has been far from the reality. FIFA has investigated itself, and has found itself to be not guilty. It set up a process which was always guaranteed to fail, and which is at the heart of my reason for initiating this debate. It was always going to fail because FIFA has no legal powers to pursue an investigation even against people within the organisation, let alone people outside it. It does not have the judicial powers that would enable it to request access to private correspondence and bank records. In fact, it could only request evidence that people were willing to supply.
According to information published in the most recent edition of The Sunday Times, it was also clear that FIFA could offer no anonymity or protection from prosecution to people who complied with its requests and took part in the investigation. Indeed, members of the England bid team told the newspaper that they had felt able legally only to supply information for which FIFA asked, and had not felt able to volunteer information that would otherwise have been helpful.
We know that the Russians told FIFA that all the computers containing e-mails and documents relating to their bid had been destroyed, and that they therefore could not comply with its request for information. As for the Qatar bid, we know that FIFA’s investigation report highlighted its concern about the role of consultants in that campaign, but stated that as those consultants had no official role in football, it had no jurisdiction to pursue them.
What angered me, and angered many football fans around the world, was the fact that, instead of acknowledging the limitations of its own inquiry, FIFA pretended that this was the last word, that there was nothing more to be said, that the World cups would go ahead in Russia in 2018 and in Qatar in 2022, and that no action would be taken against the bidding nations—although there remained the option of taking action against individuals. FIFA seems to pursue a line which involves corporate innocence, but individual potential guilt that warrants further investigation.
The world responded with alarm to the results of Michael Garcia’s inquiry. Of course, FIFA has banned the publication of the full Garcia report. Sepp Blatter is sitting on it personally, and does not want the full 430 pages ever to see the light of day. However, Hans-Joachim Eckert, chairman of the FIFA ethics committee, published a 43-page summary of the report, which Michael Garcia said contained
“numerous materially incomplete and erroneous representations”.
FIFA has now realised that people will not buy its white-wash, and has handed over its own investigation of the allegations of bribery and corruption surrounding the World cup bidding process to the Swiss authorities and the Swiss Attorney-General, believing, it said, that the report contained evidence of “unlawful” activity. FIFA has also stated that other “relevant national investigatory authorities” have a responsibility to investigate the allegations of bribery and corruption in the World cup bidding process.
Over the past few weeks I have written to the director of the Serious Fraud Office, David Green, asking him whether the SFO—as one of the '”relevant national investigatory authorities” described by FIFA—would look into these matters. He has assured me that the SFO has been monitoring the situation closely, and that it would act if it believed that it had the jurisdiction to do so. Furthermore, in a letter to me dated 25 November 2014, Alun Milford, the SFO’s general counsel, wrote that
“every reasonable line of inquiry, including working closely with appropriate overseas authorities, is being pursued to ascertain whether the director has grounds to open an investigation.”
I want to ask the Solicitor-General a number of questions. Can he confirm the following: first, that the Serious Fraud Office has entered into a process to determine whether or not it will open an inquiry or criminal investigation; secondly, whether the SFO has received a request for mutual legal assistance from other bodies, including the FBI; thirdly, whether the SFO has approached the FBI and the Swiss authorities regarding their investigations into FIFA; and fourthly, whether the SFO has, or might reasonably expect to, make a request to the Swiss authorities to view the Garcia report produced by the FIFA ethics committee?
The SFO has the jurisdiction to investigate events involving UK companies and citizens around the world, and under the Bribery Act 2010 has far-reaching powers to investigate any organisation that has commercial operations within the UK. I would be grateful if the Solicitor-General could confirm that it does indeed enjoy those powers and that there is a substantial difference between the powers that existed before the Bribery Act was passed by Parliament and the situation now.
A series of events falls within the jurisdiction of the SFO to investigate. We know from reports that the FBI has been working with the former FIFA official Chuck Blazer, that he has held meetings on behalf of the FBI where he has sought information from other football executives and other people he has met, and that he conducted some of these meetings, where he was under FBI surveillance, in London during the London Olympic games. Those meetings would be under the jurisdiction of the SFO and with the knowledge of the National Crime Agency, as is normal practice.
We know from the reports published in The Sunday Times this weekend that the England bid team gathered intelligence from around the world on not just the activities of members of the FIFA executive committee, but the World cup bids being prepared by other nations. It was alleged in these reports that this information contained intelligence passed through the British diplomatic network and intelligence services back to the FA. This information has never been fully published.
I served on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in 2011 when we conducted a brief inquiry into the FIFA bidding process and invited people to submit evidence. The FA had the chance to respond at that time and did not do so. We took evidence from Lord Triesman, where he laid out substantial allegations against members of the FIFA executive committee, in his view seeking bribes in return for their votes. The FA launched its own inquiry into that and made no reference at any time to this intelligence information that it had gathered. I certainly believe that that information should be made available to the SFO to support its investigations and inquiries and to help it determine whether it can open a criminal investigation.
We know from Lord Triesman’s evidence that there were allegations against key FIFA executive committee members, including that Jack Warner—who is a senior member of FIFA, and who became embroiled in a scandal with Mohamed bin Hammam around the attempt to rig, as people saw it, the presidential elections—was at the heart of the substantial allegations made against the Qatar bid and that he received from Mohamed bin Hammam large payments that were intended both for himself and to be channelled to other FIFA executives. That is the substance and meat of the serious allegations that were made, and we know he had meetings with England officials during that bid process, including Lord Triesman, who states that Jack Warner effectively asked him for payment to secure rights to broadcast football matches in the Caribbean that Jack Warner already owned.
We heard that UK companies were involved in the Qatar bid and that PR executives, including Mike Lee of Vero Communications, worked closely with the bid process. We also know that other executives and companies were involved, such as Nigel Rushman and Rushmans, which offered a specialist service. It helps its clients bid for major global events. On its website it states that it was cheering Qatar all the way in 2010—and there are other reports that it still works closely with Qatar—and that its services to clients boast
“insightful people with enormous amounts of data and knowledge at their finger tips. Much of this sports event bidding information is not available elsewhere.”
If it has relevant information related to the FIFA World cup bids, perhaps it would be interested in sharing some of that with the SFO. There is also the role played by people like Peter Hargitay from ECN consulting group, who made millions from its consultancy work for the Australian 2022 World cup bid, and had previously asked for over £4 million to do the same for the England 2018 bid.
There is also the role of the Qatar bid whistleblower Phaedra Almajid, who provided information to The Sunday Times newspaper regarding the Qatar bid for the FIFA World cup, alleging that Mohamed bin Hammam, the former vice-president of FIFA, had established a network to support the payment of FIFA officials, to secure their votes for Qatar in the World cup bidding process. Phaedra Almajid gave evidence to Michael Garcia’s inquiry into this matter, including the reason why she had later retracted the evidence that she had first produced for the UK media as a whistleblower. Despite being promised anonymity by Michael Garcia, she was clearly identified in the summary of his report produced by Hans-Joachim Eckert. She feels that there has been a deliberate attempt to discredit her, and she has given me a statement to support that. In it, she discusses for the first time the pressure she was placed under to withdraw her allegations.
That statement is relevant to the debate and to the jurisdiction of the Serious Fraud Office to investigate these matters, and I should like to share part of it with the House. She says:
“I never set out to be a whistleblower. I have provided the information about what I witnessed as part of the Qatari bid in confidence, because I believe the World Cup bids should be won honestly. I continue to support an honestly awarded World Cup bid for the Middle East. The most publicised effort to discredit me relates to an affidavit I executed in July 2011. The facts surrounding that affidavit demonstrate that it was coerced and based on a promise that was never kept. I provided documents, emails, recordings and data to Mr Garcia showing the following facts:
In early June 2011, a senior official of the Qatari bid contacted me, urging me to recant information I had provided anonymously to the British media in late 2010 and early 2011. Initially, I refused to recant, as I knew what I had witnessed. I was then informed that a legal injunction had been issued against me in the State of Qatar in the amount of one million dollars for breach of my non-disclosure agreement. The Qatari official threatened to enforce the judgment against me internationally. I finally agreed to sign a recanting affidavit upon the Qatari official’s promise that I would receive in exchange a legal letter that they would not sue me. Their agreement to this deal is confirmed in numerous documents and recordings.
In early July 2011, a lawyer from a London law firm representing Qatar’s Supreme Committee for Delivery & Legacy came to Washington DC and presented an affidavit to me. I resisted signing it because it alleged that I had lied about what I had witnessed and altered documents, which I had not done. Finally, under threat of being sued and upon a promise that I would receive the legal letter, I agreed and signed the affidavit. I then requested my letter, but the Qatari officials changed the deal saying that, before I would receive it, I had to give media interviews about my affidavit, contrary to their promise of anonymity. After objecting, I gave those interviews, as the Qataris and their lawyer kept assuring me that I would receive the legal letter. Those assurances are recorded.
In September 2011, as I was continuing to demand my legal letter, three FBI agents came to my house unannounced. I had not contacted them. I told them all I knew about the Qatari bid, the threats against me, the affidavit and the Qatari refusal to give me the legal letter. At their request, I agreed to co-operate with them. In October 2011, at the FBI’s request, I spoke to a Qatari official who confirmed that there was a deal to give me the legal letter in exchange for the affidavit. The FBI agents recorded that conversation on their equipment. I continued to demand my letter from the Qataris and their lawyers. Finally, in October 2011, instead of sending the promised legal letter, the London lawyers for the Qataris sent me a letter accusing me of harassing them and threatening to sue me if I continued contacting them. I discontinued demanding my legal letter under that new threat of being sued by the Qataris’ lawyers.”
Ms Almajid does not name the London law firm in her statement, but I have been told that it was Olswang.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I sought his permission beforehand to intervene on him, and I apologise for not being here at the beginning of his speech. He has outlined clearly the position that the whistleblower took in outlining what had been happening. Does he believe that it is now time for our Government to call on FIFA to give protection to whistleblowers, wherever they might be within that organisation, to ensure that they keep their jobs, despite what they have said, and that they are protected from prosecution?
Damian Collins
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes a serious point. That is at the heart of my reason for raising this matter in the House tonight and for contacting the Serious Fraud Office about it.
What Phaedra Almajid’s story tells us is that she co-operated fully with Michael Garcia’s inquiry and feels that her evidence has not been treated seriously and that, if anything, FIFA sought to discredit her for coming forward and co-operating with its inquiry. It also demonstrates that the FIFA process offers no guarantees to whistleblowers—people coming forward with information—whereas if they approach the proper authorities in this country, such as the SFO, or the FBI in America, they could discuss in confidence serious matters of concern to them. That is why a proper investigation and inquiry led by international agencies, including the SFO, will be the only way to get to the truth, and to encourage whistleblowers and protect them in coming forward to share their information with us. I believe some of these whistleblowers have genuine grounds to be fearful of the consequences of coming forward.
Other individuals supported the network that Phaedra Almajid describes and supported Mr Mohamed bin Hammam in his work, and little has been understood or acknowledged about them, and certainly not fully investigated. They include Najeeb Chirakal, who was suspended from football by FIFA in 2012 for failing to co-operate with its investigation into bin Hammam; Amadou Diallo, who worked for FIFA’s Goal Bureau for six years and was later alleged to be involved in bribing African football officials on behalf of the Qatar bid; Mohamed al-Mehshadi, a former FIFA Goal Bureau chairman and an insider who accompanied bin Hammam to key meetings in 2010 in Cairo and Moscow connected with the World cup bids; and Rahif Alameh, who resigned in 2012, having been for more than 50 years the general secretary of the Lebanese football association, following years of allegations of bribery and corruption.
There is a huge list in press reports and documents of names of people and allegations of the roles they played in seeking to secure votes for money in the bidding process for the World cup, and I think we see a system that was corrupt. People have been asking whether it was the fault of individual nations bidding, but we see a total system that had been corrupted and by an organisation that people have no confidence in. In 2010, when the 22 members of the FIFA executive committee cast their votes, they were determining which countries should host the next two World cups. That was unprecedented, and people have their own ideas about the reasons for it. Since that time 18 of those 22 members have faced allegations of some sort or current investigations into their conduct and whether they were involved in some sort of scandal involving the way they cast their votes. Just less than a third of the 22—seven of them—have been forced out of football because of their actions and activities. They have been banned by FIFA and forced to stand down because of their involvement in practices that were not considered suitable for a member of the FIFA ethics committee. That includes people such as Jack Warner, Chuck Blazer and Mohamed bin Hammam.
When we consider that 18 of the 22 face some sort of questioning of their role, that seven out of the 22 have resigned and that Russia and Qatar, coincidentally, both won the right to host the World cup by winning margins of six votes, we see why many people would say that the weight of allegations is so great and the stink of corruption that has stayed around this process for more than three years now is so strong that we can have no confidence in that process and therefore no confidence in the decision to award the World cup to those host countries. Those host countries deserve to have these allegations brought out and the world of football deserves to know what happened. If the SFO or the FBI were able to investigate these matters and bring criminal charges against people involved in that process, it would be impossible to see how it could continue. My concern and the reason for raising this tonight, is that without the involvement of organisations such as the SFO and the FBI, which is already involved, it seems impossible that we will ever get to that truth. It is only external pressure that will lead FIFA to change, and we need to act together to save football from FIFA.
The Solicitor-General (Mr Robert Buckland)
It is a pleasure to respond to the debate called by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), and I congratulate him on his terrier-like tenaciousness in pursuit of this matter. It is a serious matter because football—the beautiful game—has occupied the lives and memories of millions of us. A lot of us, as children and young people, looked forward to the World cup, which came round every four years, with great enthusiasm. I must confess that rugby is my first love, but World cups very much form part of my memory. That shows why this is serious, because anything that calls into question the integrity of those responsible for administering the biggest tournament in the world has to be a matter of huge public interest, both here and abroad.
The issues that my hon. Friend raises tonight are clearly important. I have to say that it is not within my living memory that Wales has been in a World cup—1958 was the last occasion. None the less, it is right to say that I have had a fraternal interest in the prospects of the England team in all the World cups that I have watched over the years.
But seriously, tonight we are here to deal with the question of jurisdiction and the potential role of British prosecuting authorities, which could include the Serious Fraud Office. I say that because the SFO has criteria that allow it to become involved in the investigation and prosecution of serious fraud. It is not perhaps correct to make an assumption that if criminal offences were disclosed within the jurisdiction that it would indeed be the SFO that would be the investigating authority. My hon. Friend is right to couch this debate tonight in the terms that he has, because what is being alleged is potentially serious fraud. The question is the position of British prosecutorial authorities in relation to that conduct, wherever it was committed and at what time it was committed. I will deal in turn with the questions that he raises.
My hon. Friend has already referred to the fact that the SFO has been following closely the emerging allegations about the bidding process, and that the director of the SFO, David Green, is considering whether it is appropriate to open a UK-based investigation. It would not be right for me to go into the detail, but I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that the SFO is engaging with appropriate overseas authorities in this matter, and is seeking their co-operation in terms of the sharing of material that would allow the SFO to make an informed determination about whether there are reasonable grounds to investigate an alleged offence in this jurisdiction.
Damian Collins
Is the Solicitor-General able to say with which authority the SFO has been engaging?
The Solicitor-General
My hon. Friend has echoed some of the detailed questions that he has asked, and it would not be right for me either to confirm or deny the existence of any mutual legal assistance arrangements that may have been reached. That is an operational matter that is beyond my remit. I am afraid that I will have to disappoint him in that respect, but what I will say in response to his main question about the process is that the SFO will consider all information brought to its attention, and that includes information from any alleged whistleblowers. The director may then decide whether it is appropriate to open an inquiry and whether he has jurisdiction to do so.
The director has demonstrated that the SFO is well prepared to take on difficult and high-profile cases. Currently, there are investigations into LIBOR manipulation, Tesco, Rolls-Royce, Barclays and GlaxoSmithKline, and the manipulation of foreign exchange rates. Those are all matters of great public interest that have a considerable international dimension. I recognise that the FIFA matter falls very much into that category, but the jurisdictional issues that are at the core of this debate are complex.
I am unable to comment on the allegations relating to the bidding processes for the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World cups except to say that it is clearly in the interests of football generally for this matter to be resolved properly and for any wrongdoing to be fully investigated. That is why I fully support the move by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who has written to FIFA to ask for full disclosure of the Garcia report. FIFA has in the past asserted a commitment to be more transparent and accountable. Obviously, the best way to do that would be to release the full report. Members will be aware from media reports of the steps that FIFA has been taking in the past week or so and of the criminal complaint it has made to the Office of the Attorney General in Switzerland.
As I have said, the jurisdictional issues are complex, but I shall dwell on them for a moment for my hon. Friend’s benefit. He has asked two questions, one about jurisdiction and another about the applicable law at the material time. FIFA’s headquarters, as we know, are in Switzerland, and it was in Zurich that the bidding process was concluded back in 2010. The FIFA executive committee comprises 28 employees originating from 27 different countries.
I hope that hon. Members will agree that the SFO’s jurisdiction over any allegations surrounding the bidding process is not clear cut. It is entirely possible that allegations surrounding the behaviour of one country during the bidding process might be best dealt with by the authorities in that country, or that allegations relating to the process as a whole might be best dealt with by another. I accept, however, that my hon. Friend has raised his concerns that the constitution of FIFA has the effect of making it difficult for law enforcement agencies in different jurisdictions to apply the law, but it is clear that FIFA’s constitution does not shield its members from criminal liability. The fact that the individual concerned might be a member of FIFA is irrelevant to the question of criminal jurisdiction, and when that is the case I would expect the law enforcement agencies in the jurisdictions concerned to work together to achieve the right results. If UK jurisdiction is engaged, the SFO will play its part.
If the SFO uncovers offending over which our criminal courts have jurisdiction and that meets the director’s criteria, the director will consider whether to open an investigation, whether it points to wrongdoing abroad or here. Relevant to the decision would be the issue of whether the SFO would be the best placed body ultimately to investigate and prosecute offences. As I have said, that depends very much on the facts. Other international partners might prove to be better placed to investigate and prosecute.
Let me deal with the applicable law. Bribery can be prosecuted under more than one piece of UK legislation, depending on the facts of the offence and its timing. The Bribery Act 2010 came into force on 1 July 2011. It has a more developed extraterritorial reach than its predecessors, but it is not retrospective and so applies only to offences committed wholly after that date. Actions before that date are covered by other legislation, which in the case of England and Wales law is the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906, and its jurisdictional requirements are not identical. Therefore, as I have said, the timing of each allegedly corrupt act and its location affects the ability of the SFO to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute.
Those are just some of the factors relating to jurisdiction and applicable law that might be relevant to the director of the SFO’s decision on whether to commence an investigation in the UK. Depending on the particular facts, UK legislation might not cover the allegations.
Let me turn to the discretion of the director of the SFO. When determining whether to commence an investigation, the director must have “reasonable grounds” to suspect serious or complex fraud. Even when there are such grounds and the SFO case acceptance criteria are otherwise met, offences might still be able to be prosecuted in more than one jurisdiction. When that is the case, prosecutors will work together to determine where allegations are most suitably dealt with.
A number of issues must be considered. Prosecutors need first to identify where a prosecution can take place and how many relevant jurisdictions there are. There is usually a preliminary presumption that prosecutions should take place in the jurisdiction where most of the criminality occurred, but other factors need consideration, such as delays that might be caused, the likely whereabouts of witnesses, evidence and suspects and so on.
I know that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members are anxious that these matters should be brought to a head, as time is ticking on and 2018 is not as far away as it seemed in 2010. We have had the Brazil world cup and are now moving on to the next round. But I urge my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to be patient. As strong as his feelings are in relation to how FIFA has conduced itself, it is right—and an important feature of our criminal justice system—that decisions on whether the SFO is to proceed, and if so how, are for the director of the SFO. As I have said, his office is following developments very closely.
In any event, quite apart from its own processes, FIFA has made a referral to the Attorney-General’s office in Switzerland, and the Swiss are therefore already seized of some aspects of the matter. The SFO continues its own review and stands ready in principle to work alongside colleagues in Switzerland and around the world on this matter.
Damian Collins
Can my hon. and learned Friend confirm that it would be possible for the SFO to make a request to the Swiss authorities to see the Garcia report, and that the decision could be made without referral to FIFA?
The Solicitor-General
As I have said, issues of mutual legal assistance are very much operational matters for the SFO, but in principle such requests can be made. However, I think that it is right for us entirely to cede responsibility for those decisions to the director and to the SFO itself. The important principle here is the independence of prosecutorial authorities, as I know my hon. Friend understands very well.
I will draw my remarks to a close by once again thanking my hon. Friend for bringing this issue, which is not just of passing concern, but of huge public concern, to the attention of the House and for talking frankly about the position of whistleblowers. I reassure him that the prosecutorial authorities in this country have well established procedures and protocols for dealing with alleged whistleblowers, from whichever source they come, and that, as I have said, the SFO would properly consider any information brought to its attention that may be material to these matters.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Planning application—Bozeat (Wellingborough)
Westminster Hall
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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
Backbench Business
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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
Palestine
(9 years, 5 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
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the e-petition relating to ending the conflict in Palestine.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this important debate, and I thank the many Members who have indicated that they wish to participate in it. It follows an important debate on 13 October in the main Chamber about the recognition of the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel. Many Members who indicated that they wished to speak in that debate simply did not have the opportunity to do so, because of the shortage of time.
Given that the British Parliament has expressed its view on the importance of moving forward at this crucial time for both Israel and Palestine, this is an opportune moment to address the ongoing forced displacement of Palestinians from East Jerusalem, which is now home to 200,000 illegal Israeli settlers; the restrictions on access to the al-Aqsa mosque; and the ongoing denial of Palestinian rights. That is the context in which the recent outbreaks of violence must be understood. Tensions are running high, and it is difficult to predict how, in the current climate, the situation in Jerusalem will unfold and what the consequences will be for Israel, Palestine and the stability of the wider region.
We cannot yet know the implications of recent events, but we know one thing: on the current trajectory, we are headed towards further violence, further oppression and further turmoil. That issue is of great concern to Members from both sides of the House who care about a just and lasting peace and about the welfare of the people of Israel and Palestine. The renewed spiral of violence is indicative of the failure of the international community to broker lasting peace in the region. There is a palpable sense of frustration from the UK public, which is reflected in the fact that more than 124,000 people signed the e-petition that brought about this debate. Many outside the House are bemused by the fact that the policies of successive Governments remain unchanged, despite their repeated failure.
Before the start of this debate, I was chatting to someone who described the definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Our position on the Israel-Palestine conflict meets that definition exactly. It is now almost 20 years since the Oslo accords and the road map to peace, and we seem to be further away from peace than ever. However, the British Government stubbornly refuse to change their foreign policy.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has brought this very important debate to the Chamber. He says that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again. Is he as dismayed as I am that the current and former Foreign Secretaries have consistently said that the building of illegal settlements in Palestine narrows the window of opportunity for a two-state solution, yet they have failed to do anything about it?
Grahame M. Morris
I respect the current Foreign Secretary and previous Foreign Secretary; I believe that they are men of good will, as is the Minister. Unfortunately, however, our rhetoric falls short of action. We need to address the situation on the ground and see how we can move things forward. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) has implied, we have witnessed an alarming expansion of illegal Israeli settlements. Estimates suggest that some 560,000 illegal settlers now control 40% of the land area of the west bank.
We need to think about a number of issues. The construction of an illegal de facto annexation barrier continues unabated. Restrictions on movement continue to be a daily source of outrage for ordinary Palestinians. The economic decline and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, which we have debated in this Chamber on previous occasions and which has been caused by a cruel and highly illegal blockade, has left 1.8 million Palestinians without adequate shelter, sufficient food or access to safe drinking water. Not only is the status quo immoral and illegal, but it lays the foundations for the next major escalation.
It is not enough to focus exclusively on negotiations while failing to hold Israel accountable for its human rights violations and its continued annexation of Palestinian land. More than half the members of Israel’s Government, whose political positions range from the right to the far right, reject the two-state solution and the international consensus out of hand. Recently, the Israeli Defence Minister, Moshe Ya’alon, said:
“I am not looking for a solution, I am looking for a way to manage the conflict and maintain relations in a way that works for our interests”.
By “our interests”, he means the interests of the Israeli side. This summer, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who had previously claimed to support a two-state solution, let his mask slip and revealed his true intentions:
“I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.”
For decades, Israel has maintained the rhetoric of peace and negotiations for an international audience, while simultaneously entrenching and deepening the occupation. Now even the rhetorical fig leaf of a negotiated solution has been stripped away, leaving Israel’s expansionist aims naked and clear for all who have eyes to see.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent role he is playing in the debate. He will be aware that one of our former distinguished colleagues, Martin Linton, has prepared an excellent briefing for the debate. Among the disturbing points that he made was the fact that there were 182 Palestinian children in Israeli prisons in September 2014, and that Israel is the only country systematically to persecute children in military courts. That, and much more about the way in which children have been treated, is wholly repugnant.
Grahame M. Morris
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, as the Minister and other Members know. Other Members have been to the occupied territories and seen how Palestinian children are treated. They are not treated as Israeli children—the children of settlers—are; Palestinian children are subjected to a different system of law, in military courts. That is one of the many issues, such as the demolition of Bedouin villages, which I have also seen, and the failure to tackle settler violence—
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman have anything to say about the 19,000 missiles purposely fired by Hamas and Islamic Jihad on Israeli towns since Israel withdrew from Gaza? Does he have anything to say about the murders and the continued terrorism from Palestinians—particularly the recent incidents in which people were murdered while they were praying in a synagogue in Jerusalem?
Grahame M. Morris
I want to place on the record the fact that I condemn all violence unreservedly, irrespective of which side it comes from. I believe that all right-thinking people from both sides of the House take the same view. My contention is that we must find a way to move the process forward, and that is why I have secured the debate. I am certainly not here to condone any acts of violence, but may I point out to the hon. Gentleman that more than 500 Palestinian children and almost 2,000 civilians were killed in the brutal and vicious assault that was the disproportionate reaction of the Israelis in Gaza? We have to bring the dreadful cycle of violence to an end.
I have tried to allude to some of the root causes of the tension and frustration, such as child prisoners, the ongoing expansion of Israeli settlements and the detention of political prisoners—including eminent, peace-loving individuals such as Marwan Barghouti. All that simply exacerbates the situation.
The thing that worries me and many people in this Chamber and across the country is that Israel is being allowed to achieve its goals through force, regardless of how illegal and counterproductive to peace its actions are. Israel is seemingly able to do that without any accountability. There is currently little economic pressure to prevent Israel from continuing to colonise and annex as much of the west bank and East Jerusalem as it wishes.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will be aware that 274 Members voted to recognise the Palestinian state. Sweden has already recognised it, and France looks as if it will do the same. Does he agree that such recognition would put pressure on the Israelis to get back to the negotiating table? Does he agree that the UK should do that?
Grahame M. Morris
I agree, and I hope the vote sends out a number of messages—and not only to our own Government and the British people, whom this House reflects. Some 40 right hon. and hon. Members from the Minister’s own party supported the motion and spoke with great passion and conviction about the need to move the process forward in a fair, just and equitable manner. The views of the British Parliament are important not only here in the UK, but internationally.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
Does today’s turnout, which is impressive for a debate of this type, emphasise how the Government have not responded positively to that resolution of the House of Commons? The Government’s response is totally unacceptable. It was an all-party resolution, and we expect a better, stronger response from the Government than we have seen so far.
Grahame M. Morris
I agree with my hon. Friend. Another purpose of this debate is to take the momentum from that previous debate and put various points to the Minister on what we can do to move things forward, level the playing field and encourage a return to negotiations. Part of that has to involve applying further pressure to the Israeli Government, perhaps through economic sanctions and by highlighting some of the iniquities of trading with illegal settlements on the west bank.
Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)
The danger of my hon. Friend’s contribution is that he is coming at the problem from only one direction. Does he not agree that the same pressure has to be applied to the Palestinians so that they come to the negotiating table? Ultimately, all their problems will be solved only if the two peoples start dancing together in a tango, rather than looking at the problems through the prism of one side.
Grahame M. Morris
The purpose of this debate is to identify some of the obstacles to moving forward to a just and equitable solution. It seems as if many of the obstacles that I and other Members have mentioned in relation to child prisoners, the demolition of Bedouin villages, settler violence and illegal settlements, are a consequence of the occupying power’s actions. We must address those obstacles and help to defuse the tensions and growing violence in the west bank—particularly in Jerusalem—before we can move forward. I hope to develop that argument.
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (Ind)
In the early part of his speech, the hon. Gentleman rightly made the point that the failure is that successive Israeli Governments have always been content to manage the problem, rather than find a solution. If we are to move forward, how do we break the mindset in Israel that simply says, “Let’s manage the problem and let the west get on with it”?
Grahame M. Morris
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, because the status quo is not acceptable to anyone other than the Israeli Government, who are able to achieve their ends, deepen their occupation and continue their annexation unhindered, largely protected by a diplomatic shield. We need to make the Israeli Government aware that that is no longer acceptable.
If the truth is stretched thin enough, people start to see through it. A consequence of the recent incursion into Gaza, where there was a dreadful loss of life and wholesale destruction of property, civilian infrastructure, hospitals, clinics and the only power station, is that people are now perhaps starting to see through the veil of propaganda that the Israelis put out about their seeking a just settlement. That certainly seems not to be the case.
Grahame M. Morris
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), and then I will make a little progress.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is making a powerful case on such an important subject, about which we all feel so passionately. Does he agree that our Government have a duty to behave responsibly on arms licences? I asked the Secretary of State for Defence about that last week and found that 68 licences were granted in the six months leading up to the summer before the crisis in Gaza. That is £7 million-worth of arms, which surely does not fit with our principle of responsible exports.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. I encourage Members, whether they have been in the House for four years or 40 years, to keep interventions short—more than 30 Members want to speak, and I will announce the time limit in a moment—and to ensure that all mobile phones are switched to silent.
Grahame M. Morris
Thank you, Mr Pritchard.
I am grateful for the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, because I was going to refer to her question. I have some suggestions for how we might move things forward. All parties in this House agree that the two-state solution is the way forward, and it has been the stated foreign policy objective of successive Governments for decades, but there has been a gap in the rhetoric of Ministers—this is not a criticism of the current incumbent, because I know he is a man of good faith who is seeking a solution.
Grahame M. Morris
It is also not a criticism of the Minister’s predecessors, whom I admire greatly. I know they made tremendous efforts, but there is now a growing gap in credibility between rhetoric and action, which is unacceptable. If we want to see an end to the horrifying cycle of violence and abuses of human rights, and if we wish to bring both parties to the negotiating table in good faith, we need to close that gap.
A new approach to diplomacy must be based on the protection of civilians, equal respect for human rights, equal respect for the security and sovereignty of both Israelis and Palestinians and actual respect—rather than just rhetoric—for international law. When the Israeli Government recently gave their final approval for the construction of 2,610 houses in one of the most sensitive neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem, the British Foreign Secretary said that he “deplored” the decision. That is a strong word, but how many times have we heard Ministers deploring the actions of the Israeli Government without backing it up?
What should we do? Members, and hopefully the Minister, may wish to consider my proposal that we put an end to trade with and investment in illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank. Those settlements are illegal and constitute a grave breach of article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention. Our Government and EU Ministers regularly decry Israel’s illegal settlement enterprise as a great barrier to peace and say, quite rightly, that the settlements threaten the viability of the two-state solution.
Grahame M. Morris
If my hon. Friend does not mind, I am just going to finish this point. I have been generous in giving way.
Although the EU and UK Ministers have criticised Israel, it is clear from the 2012 “Trading Away Peace” report that the EU imports 15 times more goods from illegal Israeli settlements than from Palestinian enterprises. We have reached a contradictory situation in which we economically sustain the very obstacles to peace—the illegal settlements—that we so often condemn as individuals in government.
Settlement products are the proceeds of crime. They are illicit goods, the product of a brutal occupation and the exploitation of the occupied and their resources. By trading with those who produce them, we financially encourage them. Those settlements are built on the foundations of immense suffering—that of the Palestinians who have seen their homes destroyed, have been expelled from their own land and are living under brutal oppression—yet we make the illegal settlement enterprise profitable for the occupying power. That seems to me a gross injustice. Personally, I do not think that we should have to boycott settlement goods; we should not be allowed to buy them in the first place. The UK Government should work at EU level to ensure that such products of suffering and exploitation are banned.
On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, there is overwhelming evidence that we should also end the arms trade with Israel, based on United Nations evidence that serious breaches of international law occurred before, during and after the most recent assault on Gaza. One need not be an expert in international law to know that shooting tank shells at children sleeping in UN shelters, launching missiles at small children playing on the beach in Gaza and bombing sick and injured patients lying in hospital beds are immoral and criminal acts. The UK should have no part in them or in supplying arms and components that allow such things to happen.
I will give way now to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), who was keen to intervene.
Ian Austin
I share my hon. Friend’s concern about the settlements. I want to see them dealt with, and I believe that they can be dealt with by a process of negotiation and compromise. Some 80% of the settlers are on 6% of the land. That can be dealt with through land swaps, which were the basis of talks as far back as Camp David and Annapolis. Other people can be moved, and some could stay and live under Palestinian sovereignty, just as there are and always will be Palestinians in Israel. The settlements beyond the major blocks account for 0.4% of the territory. The problem is not insurmountable, as my hon. Friend seems to suggest, but does he agree that Hamas’s terrorism and extremism are a much bigger barrier to the peace process than the settlements?
Grahame M. Morris
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I reiterate for myself, and on behalf of all right-thinking people, that we do not seek to condone or excuse any form of violence. I wish to condemn acts of violence wherever they come from, as I am sure do all Members.
Grahame M. Morris
I will not, if my hon. Friend does not mind, as I have been generous in giving way. A lot of Members have indicated that they want to speak, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will have his opportunity.
To respond to the specific point about trade, I point out—[Interruption.] Well, in terms of economic pressure—[Interruption.]
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. If there are to be interventions, they must be made in the normal way so that they can be recorded in Hansard and picked up by the media.
Grahame M. Morris
Thank you, Mr Pritchard. On applying pressure to move things towards a negotiated settlement, trade is rather asymmetrical and there are strong arguments to support it as a legitimate tactic for bringing about negotiations, because the obstacle seems to be that the Israelis achieve their ends through the status quo and have no interest in pursuing a peaceful solution.
There was a tremendous outpouring of emotion from the British public this summer. Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in protest, not just in London, where there were huge demonstrations with more than 100,000 people, and where 50,000 protested outside the Israeli embassy, but all across the great cities of the north, in my region, and in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as in smaller towns and villages. The protests did not come from the Palestinian diaspora; they came from people with a burning sense of injustice at the completely disproportionate actions of the Israeli Government in relation to Gaza, and people who had seen some of the horrors perpetrated against Gaza. They showed the strength of feeling among the UK population. It behoves the Government to do something about the issue.
In such circumstances, I believe that all arms export licences should be suspended. Moreover, given Israel’s record of violating international law, the arms trade with Israel should be completely banned in both directions. The UK and the European Union have some of the world’s strictest rules in place for controlling the export of arms and components. Considering that Israel already has a history of using UK-supplied arms in the occupied territories, including Gaza, in breach of those rules, there is no excuse for the rules not being enforced. The UK’s relationship with Israel may have been profitable for arms companies, but it has had a devastating impact on the people of Gaza, which at the current rate of progress will not be rebuilt for many decades.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I apologise for the fact that I will be intervening and then leaving; ironically, I am going to a sitting of the Select Committee on Justice. Is it not true that any country currently allowing the arms trade with Israel is complicit in the crimes that Israel is committing against the people of Palestine?
Grahame M. Morris
We need to search our conscience and consider how those arms and components have been put to use, and ask ourselves whether that complies with British policies and our sense of decency, if we are to be consistent in how we approach our dealings with Israel and other countries. In my view, if we fail to set clear parameters, targets and consequences, including economic sanctions, for failures to end violations and make progress on the peace process, we are perpetuating the conflict.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a good speech and being generous in giving way. Does he agree that it is crucial as part of that international pressure to get the stranglehold on Gaza lifted so that the people there can properly develop their economy and society? That in itself would contribute to a two-state solution by turning off the tap that feeds extremism.
Grahame M. Morris
Absolutely. That is an excellent point. I hope that we will play our part through diplomatic pressure, through our influence with the EU and directly with the Israeli Government to lift the blockade and siege of Gaza on humanitarian grounds. I firmly believe that Israel’s security considerations could be addressed; there are means to do so with an international monitoring force.
Britain bears a tremendous deal of historical responsibility for the conflict, going back to the Balfour declaration when Britain held the mandate for Palestine, but our efforts to resolve the conflict have been demonstrably inadequate. We are at a tipping point for the middle east, so it is critical that the UK and the wider international community are honest brokers for peace and take practical action to tackle the root causes of the conflict. Only when Israel ends its policy of occupation and colonisation of Palestinian lands will a genuine peace between Israel and Palestine be possible.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the tone that he has set in this debate. Does he agree that the UK should focus its diplomatic efforts on strengthening the authority of men and women of peace in the region, given the serious concessions into which they would have to lead their people in order to achieve a negotiated two-state solution?
Grahame M. Morris
That is part of the purpose of this debate, and of the historic vote that took place two weeks ago. We need to send out a number of messages to our Government and the Israeli Government, and a message of encouragement to the Palestinians engaging in an honest endeavour to find a peaceful solution. Yes, I agree.
I will conclude my remarks now, because I know a lot of Members are keen to participate. We have had decades of talk about peace, but to no avail. Now it is time for action, and I hope that the Minister will consider carefully the points that I and other Members put to him in this debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. We have 30 Members who wish to speak. The time limit I am setting for each speech is four minutes. Members will be aware that if they take an intervention, that adds another minute; they can take up to two interventions, giving them six minutes. Members can do what they want—as always, we have a vibrant debate in this place—but they might want to consider taking a maximum of one intervention. Let the debate flow. I call Robert Halfon.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Pritchard, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today.
Following the kidnappings and the continued missile attacks from Hamas on Israeli towns, this summer saw a terrible war unfurl between Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza. The ramifications of the conflict go way beyond issues of who is right and who is wrong. We are now at a standstill in talks between Israel and Palestine. The different parts of Palestine are ruled by entirely different entities, which, despite an agreement to band together, constantly oppose one another. When we talk about a Palestinian state, we need to decide which Palestinian state we are talking about: the one run by the Palestinian authorities in the west bank, or the one run by Hamas in Gaza. The recent terror attacks in Jerusalem point towards a general escalation of violence, which could lead to a third intifada.
Of course, our country, as promoter of human rights and democracy, has to be an active contributor to the peace process. However, the text of the petition that we are considering does not make it clear how we should achieve such an end, and that is where the main point of contention lies.
As a reminder, let me say that talks broke down in 2013 after the announcement of a deal between Fatah and Hamas to create a new provisional Government, incorporating the oppressors of the Gaza strip—Hamas—in talks with the Israeli Government, which the terrorist group refuses to recognize.
Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)
I ask this question as somebody who earlier today learned that his daughter had had a baby son in Israel this morning. Does my hon. Friend agree with me when I say that I do not want to see my grandson have to fight in conflict; that the value of life, whether it be Jewish or Palestinian, is equal; that we must strive, however difficult it might be, to find a peaceful way forward; and that the only way that can be achieved is by talking rather than fighting?
Robert Halfon
Of course, my hon. Friend is exactly right, and I wish him every congratulation on the birth of his grandson.
Would it not be the highest irony for two entities to enter into dialogue about the recognition of one entity when that entity itself refuses to acknowledge the other? As the promoters of democracy and freedom in the world, can we in good conscience endorse an organisation that holds as a principle the destruction of the Jewish state, that fires rockets at civilians from civilian areas and that glorifies the massacre of four praying men in a non-hostile area?
Our Government refuse, as they should, to recognise a Palestinian state before a final settlement has been agreed in direct peace talks addressing both Palestinian and Israeli concerns, and I firmly believe that that should be the case. Over the years, the Palestinian Authority has attempted several unilateral actions to achieve state recognition, routinely threatening to ask to join some of the biggest international organisations. Until now, these attempts have failed, because the UN, among others, has recognised the obstacle that that would create for direct peace talks and the creation of a long-term two-state solution. Attempts at unilateral action are not only a sign that the Palestinian Authority is not ready to negotiate with Israel, but an attempt to predetermine the answer to an issue that is absolutely crucial to the peace process: borders. Because it directly involves both countries, it is probably the one issue that should be settled directly between them, and to endorse unilateral Palestinian actions is to refuse the two countries the opportunity to discuss it.
It is ironic that the Palestinian Authority would go to such great lengths to avoid negotiating a deal with Israel, when the two successive negotiations that took place between the countries saw Israel agreeing at Camp David in 2000 to relinquish 97% of the disputed territories, and in 2008 to relinquish 93% of them, with land swaps as compensation for the territories that would stay under Israeli rule. In terms of compromises, a peace deal between Israel and Palestine would have to address not only Palestinian concerns but Israeli security fears: more than 19,000 rockets have been fired at Israel since 2001—an average of four per day—and dozens of terror tunnels linking Gaza to Israel have been discovered.
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that a unified and prosperous Palestine, living in harmony next to Israel, is unrealistic so long as Hamas maintains its violent, rejectionist agenda?
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. The problem is that the increasingly frequent terror attacks are constantly glorified by Hamas. The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) talked about being disproportionate, but if Israel did not have the iron dome system, thousands of Israelis would have been killed by the missiles fired by Hamas. If that had happened, would it have been seen as a proportionate response?
There is a lot of hard evidence showing that genuine humanitarian aid was misappropriated by Hamas diverting the resources from their original goal of saving the population and using them for the construction of the tunnels and the acquisition of arms. That cannot remain a peripheral concern to those who push for a peace treaty between the two countries. The problem of Israeli security is one that permeates every aspect of civilian life in Israel, so it remains necessarily omnipresent in any discussions between Israel and Palestine. That affects the problem of the reconstruction of Gaza, where the Israeli Government proved their good will by striking a deal with the Palestinian Authority in September, agreeing to a bigger influx of resources to Gaza under the supervision of UN officials. By contrast, Hamas has just glorified every single terrorist attack that hit Israel, including the death of a three-month-old baby girl—
George Galloway (Bradford West) (Respect)
There were not thousands of Israelis killed over the summer, but there were thousands of Palestinians killed over the summer, and 500 of them were small children, I dare say a little older than the grandson of the hon. Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott)—I congratulate him on his grandson’s birth—but in many cases not much older. There has been an air of unreality about this debate so far. I had thought that Parliament, in this regard, was catching up with public opinion, but the speech that we have just heard and previous interventions seem to indicate otherwise.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who is here in Westminster Hall today, is on record as saying that
“Israel lives in a tough neighbourhood”.—[Official Report, 13 October 2014; Vol. 586, c. 92.]
The problem is that Israel is living on top of somebody else’s neighbourhood, and the attempt to equate violence from the illegally occupied with violence from the illegal occupier is preposterous, and yet it has been repeated over and over again already in the short time that this debate has been going. It is a legal and moral right of an occupied people to rise up against their illegal occupier. And after all, it is not as if the occupation has just started: the west bank and Jerusalem have been illegally occupied for 47 years. How much longer do we expect the occupied people to wait for their rights?
All this poppycock about peace talks and the rest—there are no peace talks and there is no peace process. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) just said, there are not “two countries” involved in this. There is only one country, which is occupying the land of another. You would think, and perhaps it is the case, that Members in here have no idea how all this started in this very building, almost 100 years ago, when Mr Balfour, on behalf of one people, offered to a second people the land that belonged to a third people, without consulting any of the three peoples involved. We have a historic obligation greater than any other country’s to side with the victims of Mr Balfour’s act, yet there is no sign of it here.
Parliament recently took a decisive and important decision, but the Government have not caught up with it. They continue to support Israel and to license the export of arms to Israel. Israel is the criminal in this picture: in 1967, it was ordered by the United Nations to withdraw from the land it had illegally occupied, yet it continues to refuse to do so. We should not be trading with it, exporting anything to it or allowing the importation of anything from it. After all, that is what we do with other international law breaker.
I have very few seconds left—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] They don’t like it up ‘em, Mr Pritchard. Well, some of them do. In the 15 seconds I have left, I can say only this—
Grahame M. Morris
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the Balfour declaration, short though it was, insisted on protection for non-Jews, Palestinians and Christians in that territory?
George Galloway
It did so insist, but it was apparently written in invisible ink, for it has been forgotten by successive British Administrations and certainly ignored entirely by the state that came into being, decades later, as a result of the Balfour declaration.
In my remaining 45 seconds, let me say this. If hon. Members think that Gaza has been an erupting sore of enormous international strategic importance—and indeed it has been—they better start thinking about Jerusalem. The ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem, the Judaisation of Jerusalem, the driving out of Christians and Muslims from Jerusalem, the closure of the al-Aqsa mosque for the very first time since Israel illegally got its hands on it in 1967 and the fighting that has been alluded to all add up to a crisis about to erupt.
Sir Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
On the fundamental principle of whose land it is, the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) is right. What is more, the world more widely is beginning to take that view, and opinion across the world is changing fast. Those who think that Palestine belongs to Israel or that it should not be a state must realise quickly and deeply that they are on the wrong side of the argument.
Look back 30 years and think about where those of the right were in looking at the fate of Nelson Mandela. Look at world opinion now, when no decent person thinks he should have remained in prison. However, there are some even in this House who think that Palestine belongs to Israel and that greater Israel is what it should be. They need to realise that opinion is changing.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I have never heard Israel declare what its final frontiers ought to be. In every negotiation, it refuses to say what its borders ought to be.
Sir Alan Duncan
We are all prepared to ask for and await that detail.
To return to the few points I wished to make, opinion is changing, and it should change. We have had our vote, our decision and our debate—the first such debate in this House—on the recognition of Palestine. The day after that, I made what I intended to be a balanced and principled speech at the Royal United Services Institute about settlements and their illegality. I have a wodge—a folder—of hundreds of responses, the vast majority of which were supportive. Those that were not were invariably very rude—they seem to think that I am enjoying sexual relations with camels—but most of the Jewish opinion, from both Israel and the United Kingdom, was supportive. The Jewish voice in Israel and the United Kingdom, as elsewhere, is changing significantly in favour of a Palestinian state.
The litmus test of value and principle and of the rights and wrongs of this situation is whether someone thinks that settlements are illegal or not. They are. That land does not belong to Israel, and anybody who thinks it does is in the wrong. Furthermore, those who regularly and unquestioningly support the unreasonable conduct of the Israeli state are not doing Israel any favours. The sort of expatriate, extreme, let us call it right-wing, opinion that says that everything Israel does is right and justified because of violent attacks is condemning the Israelis’ children and their children’s children to a worse and less safe Israeli state. Those who really support the interests of Israel, as I do—I believe I do—should realise that it is acceptable to criticise the unacceptable conduct of the Israeli state, which I fear will condemn that country to permanent conflict.
The world has a chance to put pressure on Israel, which at this very moment is contemplating legislation that will remove the rights of Palestinians living in that country. Every single claim of moral authority and decency will be eliminated for Israel in perpetuity if that law is passed. I want to see an Israel with the true democratic values it espouses.
Ian Austin
I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern about the proposed legislation on a Jewish state, but the truth is that the Israeli Finance Minister, Yair Lapid, said his party would vote against it; Justice Minister Tzipi Livni said that under no circumstances would she or her party support it; and the Leader of Israel’s Opposition—our sister party, the Israeli Labour party—said that the proposals are irresponsible and unnecessary. Even Israel’s President opposes them. The right hon. Gentleman ought to recognise the wide diversity of opinion in Israel and even in the Israeli Cabinet. Cabinet members have threatened to collapse the coalition if those proposals are brought forward.
Sir Alan Duncan
I recognise the diversity, but that does not mean that all those diverse opinions are acceptable within democratic principles. Indeed, the President of Israel himself believes in a greater Israel stretching from the Mediterranean to the River Jordan. That, in my view, is not in the interests of Israel. I hope that the very same voices who oppose the law will now oppose settlements, demolitions, the destruction of olive groves and the disproportionate reactions. Why cannot a democracy such as Israel learn to underdo its reactions from time to time, rather than overdo them?
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern and the concern of many others that, despite what happened in the summer, the blockade of Gaza has made it incredibly challenging for people to rebuild their lives. Time and again, we see a cycle of violence devastating people’s lives. The European Union, including the UK, continues to give aid to restore people’s lives, but without a solution to the conflict, the cycle will continue and prevent humanitarian assistance.
Sir Alan Duncan
Let me make it clear that Gaza is not the Palestinian Authority, and nor is Hamas. I have known Mahmoud Abbas for more than 20 years. He essentially recognises the state of Israel. He wants peace. I have seen the maps, the proposals and the details that have consistently been rejected by the Israeli Government. If only the Israeli Government could step forward and say yes, we would have a two-state solution with two countries living side-by-side in peace. Mahmoud Abbas has even offered a demilitarised Palestine with some other kind of security guarantee, so there would never need to be a single Palestinian soldier posing a risk—
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
We debate in cosy Westminster, with tea and muffins down the stairs and the Christmas lights coming on, so let us hear from a Palestinian friend of mine, who e-mailed me a few days ago. He said:
“Clashes are daily occurrences now in Jerusalem. A week ago, things were about to calm down when a Palestinian bus driver was tortured and hanged in his bus. It instigated a lot of anger which mounted after the Israelis suggested that the man committed suicide, although Palestinian doctors who examined him produced evidence of torture on his body. As you may guess, the doctor who produced these evidence is summoned to questioning by the Shabak now.
A day after the incident, two men have committed a terrible act of killing four Jews in a synagogue near where the incident took place. Unfortunately, many Palestinians do not see a difference between civilians and militants in Jerusalem. They have started to consider even those who incite…the killings as fair targets even if they were civilians. And now on daily basis you hear about incidents of stabbings and lynchings all over the city. The Palestinians in Jerusalem are feeling hopeless, and since the torture and murder of the young boy Abu Khdeir in summer, clashes did not stop. More than 1,000 Palestinians in Jerusalem have been arrested in the past 4 months. Houses, especially in Silwan, are being captured by settler groups. Family houses of Palestinians taking part in any of the stabbing or killing incidents are being demolished, or will be demolished. Israeli officials and Israel police officials have given public orders to their men to execute any Palestinian who is involved in any incident on the spot.
This situation will only escalate. I’ve never seen that amount of fear and despair among Palestinians in Jerusalem before. Economic situation is on the low, settlement movement escalating, attacks on Al-Aqsa mosque is on the rise, and no one sees any hope. So I’m afraid that this will lead to the escalation of desperate acts. And more citizens will be seeking vengeance on their own and as they see fit.”
This is a man who is living it, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is a living hell. We rightly talk about the horror of Gaza, on which the Israelis have imposed a total blockade. After killing 2,000 people and demolishing huge amounts, they are not permitting any real rebuilding. We pay too little attention to what is going on in the west bank and East Jerusalem. It is a living hell for the people who dwell there and want to live peaceful, decent lives. We are doing nothing about it. We get clichés from the Government. We get minor condemnations, but nothing is being done. Barack Obama could have backed up John Kerry when he made a proper effort to bring peace about, but he sat in the background.
Grahame M. Morris
My right hon. Friend is, as always, making an excellent contribution, but does the lesson of history tell us anything? When George Bush senior applied economic sanctions in 1990, that led to some progress at Madrid and at Oslo.
Sir Gerald Kaufman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. You cannot appeal to the Israelis’ better nature, because they do not have one. You can, however, threaten them financially. When £10 billion of loan guarantees were withheld by George Bush senior, the Israelis scuttled off to Madrid. It is only sanctions and an arms embargo that work. The anticipation of a two-state solution, which we all support as a cliché, is bogus, because there will not be a two-state solution. The Israelis have the fourth largest military force in the world and nuclear weapons. They believe that they can get away with anything, but they had better take a look at how the Berlin wall fell. They had better take a look at how apartheid in South Africa crumbled overnight. They had better take a look at how peace was brought about in Ireland. They do not have time on their side. There are now more Palestinians than Israeli Jews—
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank you, Mr Pritchard, for your chairmanship, and I thank the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) for bringing forward the motion. He already made a significant contribution to the issue with the motion he proposed a couple of weeks ago.
An insightful article in Prospect magazine recently concluded:
“As one senior British official put it: ‘This is barely anymore about who is more right or who is more to blame. The question is where this is going for Israel, as well as the Palestinians, if the years continue to pass and there simply is no deal.’”
For more than 30 years, I have been a friend of Israel; I will not stop now. Israel needs its friends today as much as ever. I have perhaps not been a friend of Palestine in quite the same way. The last four years have enabled me to address that without, I hope, losing other friends.
I open my few remarks with a plea that it is time for us to search harder for an end to the polarisation that means we are either on one side or the other. We should widen that sense of friendship and support those seriously searching for a peaceful end to this long-running tragedy, whoever’s side they are on. We need to speak out continually for all those disadvantaged every day by the fact that there is no end to the dispute. They are on all sides—they are the victims of violence from a missile or from a bloody and wicked murder; the families who grieve; and those who despair of their children and grandchildren facing the same fate, of a conflict-riddled land, seemingly for ever.
Mr McCann
Does the right hon. Gentleman despair, as I do, that although even today we all say that we want to go in the same direction of a two-state solution, the inevitable undercurrent of different views in this place and in the middle east prevents us from getting to that destination of peace?
Alistair Burt
It is hard to get away from the history. We need to know the history, but it is a burden as well as an intelligence. If this matter is to be settled, some people have to rise above the history to get through the despair. It is an appropriate time—the events of the summer have given rise to yet another spike in extremist action on either side of the divide. Those actions threaten to make life yet worse and more ominous for all, as if it could be.
What could help the process? First, we need unequivocal condemnation of violence and murder from both sides—from the President of the Palestinian Authority and from the Prime Minister of Israel. In light of the fear that the increasing numbers of sectarian murders will add yet another element to the tragedy, which culminated, for now, in the abhorrent synagogue attack, it would be a good time for them to meet. They should physically stand together and say, “No more.”
Secondly, while there can be neither equivocation on nor justification of such murders, it would be a good time for each side to examine what can be done in their name to scale back all the elements that have contributed to a rise in tension and assisted in the failure of the Kerry talks. Those elements include the Palestinian Authority taking seriously the incitement against Israelis and stopping it; unequivocal condemnation of the reaction of Hamas and others to the synagogue and other Jerusalem killings; and no new actions on international recognition and activity, to which Israeli and US reaction would be obvious and unproductive. On the Israeli side, there needs to be a swift end to the threats on the Temple Mount and the holy mosque and a restoration of the status quo there. There needs to be an end to new settlement announcements and to the thoughts of new legislation on comparative rights for Arab and Jewish citizens in Israel, which was condemned here and by many voices in Israel.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
With his customary skill, balance and principles, my right hon. Friend is developing his speech well. Is there a place for the unilateralism we have seen displayed—not least in the vote a little while ago—which goes in contravention of the Oslo peace accords and the PA’s own declaration of principles?
Alistair Burt
There is a need for bravery at some stage and courage among the leaders to do things and face off their own people. Sooner or later they have to do that. Who knows whether unilateral action taken in concert with each other might be part of that. I do not know. Until the leaders are prepared to break the deadlock, we will get nowhere.
Alistair Burt
No, I will not, because I have had two interventions and I want to conclude. The debate is about what the UK should do, which all colleagues have addressed. The first thing is to never give up. A former Israeli Prime Minister told me a couple of weeks ago that a two-state solution is not a gift from Israel to the Palestinians; it is Israel’s security. The UK should therefore remain solidly behind efforts to restart direct talks and pull no punches with either state about the need for urgency. It should remain unequivocally for a two-state solution and be increasingly sharp with those whose actions and words tend against it. The status quo will not hold. It is not a problem to be managed; it must be concluded.
Secondly, the UK should urge Arab states, which currently need a revival of this issue as an acute item on their agenda like a hole in the head and which fear the possibility of its being used as a recruiter for jihad, to press heavily on the Palestinians. Although there has been some criticism of Israel for the failure of this year’s talks, President Abbas played his part, too. Hamas must end the war, and it must find no justification or support for its current position, but Israel should recognise the reality of the impact of this summer’s attacks on Gaza, whatever the justification, and ensure that there is no repeat.
Finally, despite provocation and despite the UK being urged to do even more, we should recognise the reality of our position. We are a supporter, including financially, of the development of a Palestinian state and friend of the security of the state of Israel. We must constantly encourage both and avoid making things worse by precipitate action or extreme statements.
However, the UK Parliament is entitled to take positions that it believes protect the two-state solution or signal its belief in doing so. I did not support the recent motion, as I still believe in and support the UK Government’s position that recognition should come at the end of negotiations, but the vote deserved to be taken seriously. Reactions in Israel were instructive, with the Government of the state of Israel mostly reflective, but with one or two Ministers lurching in the wrong direction and suggesting that vote supported terrorism. It did not. As David Aaronovitch recently said in The Jewish Chronicle, he might have voted for the motion himself, because it at least keeps the two-state solution alive—wise words.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
It is important to consider the context in which this debate is being held. This summer, Operation Protective Edge saw more than 2,000 Palestinians and more than 70 Israelis lose their lives, the continued building of illegal settlements and the expansion of illegal occupation. The ongoing siege is preventing the most basic of supplies, whether construction materials, food or medicine, from getting in or out of the Gaza strip. There are restrictions on holy sites, with all under-50s being banned from visiting the al-Aqsa mosque at times. A 14-year-old American Palestinian was killed by Israeli forces; four people were sadly killed in a synagogue attack; and just today a mosque was burnt down in the west bank. There is unacceptable violence on all sides, and it is a shame both on the international community and on this country given our historical relationship.
My proudest moment in this Parliament was when people from all parts of the political spectrum came together to vote for the recognition of Palestine. We should make it absolutely clear that the vote was to recognise the peace and justice that the Palestinian people need and did not condone the actions of Hamas or any other violent group. For anyone to suggest otherwise undermines this whole debate. It is also important that the Government take action following that vote to ensure that they recognise Palestine and press other countries across the European Union to do the same. I genuinely believe that international opinion and public opinion in this country are changing. Now more than ever, in the age of social media and 24-hour news, we can see what happens on the other side of the world and feel the pain and suffering of others. In that context, we must act.
Following up on what the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) said, the situation requires bravery and courage from political leadership here and around the world, but the big thing that is lacking is political will. There is not the political will in this country, or indeed globally, to do something about the situation. The lack of political will diminishes hope every single day for a generation of Palestinians and Israelis. Anyone who claims to be a friend of either Palestine or Israel must recognise that this is the last chance. We have heard that over and over again, but it is real this time. People are losing hope in the prospect of peace. If young people, both Israeli and Palestinian, lose all hope of peace, we cannot control the violence and destruction that will follow, which will for ever scar the international community and this generation of politicians.
Let us move forward with bravery and courage. Let us find the political will. Let us make it clear to the Israeli Government that it is no longer acceptable that they ignore the wishes of the international community and the demands of the United Nations, the UN Secretary-General and even the US Secretary of State and the US President. At some point, all of us must ensure that we are acting in the interests of international law and of peace and humanity. It is now that time. Unnecessary death and destruction are happening every day, and I do not think that anyone can stand by and watch it.
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar). Everyone who has spoken today has expressed a real concern that we must start to find a mechanism to move the situation forward. The petition simply asks us to do just that; it asks us to take some action, recognising the issues before us.
The hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway), who spoke with such eloquence about the situation in Gaza, used words that even the deafest of Israeli politicians could not fail to have heard. He spoke not only for himself and for the many of us who share his views, but for the vast majority of people who believe that it is unreasonable to continue with the current process. It is unacceptable for our Government and others across the world not to make every possible effort to put pressure on Israel to change its mind.
The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) introduced the debate, and I congratulate him on his speech. As he said early in his remarks, successive Israeli Governments have simply decided that it is better to manage the issue, but managing the issue only makes it worse for Israel in the long term. How on earth can the Israeli people ever believe that there will be a settlement giving them the peace that they crave when their Government humiliate the Palestinian people day after day? They are taking the lives of innocent children, and putting children on trial and imprisoning them for sometimes minor crimes. They do things that most of us would think not only unreasonable, but completely repugnant.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that international humanitarian law and its enforcement would be a good step forward?
Mr Hancock
If only somebody would enforce international humanitarian law! I agree entirely. The failure is that no one is prepared to take the next step. It is no good saying that there is a great resolution from the UN; I was at the UN last week and listened carefully to the words of the Secretary-General about the situation. Unfortunately, he knows that he is a political eunuch when it comes to providing anything that will really lead to Israel responding positively, creatively and helpfully.
The overwhelming majority of Palestinian people want peace. They were told that they would get justice on several occasions throughout several different presidential Administrations in the United States, but the United States, which still has the most clout, has failed to deliver the powerful pressure on Israel that would force it to look again. It is manifestly unfair for our Government to continue not to apply as much pressure as possible. If that means preventing our industry from selling weapons and other goods to Israel, so be it. As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said, the one thing that wakes up the Israeli public and Israeli politicians is when they are hit with financial implications, which is something that we must explore.
If anything is to be learned from today’s debate, let the real expression of concern in this House be included in Hansard so that others can read it. All of us have concerns about rockets being fired and about people being killed by tanks mowing them down on the streets where they live. The situation is horrific and everyone condemns it, but that is not good enough, is it? Condemning something does not change anything.
What we need is a positive, hard punch that says that Israel needs to change. If not, it will become a pariah, similar to South Africa during the days of apartheid. Only when there was concerted effort against South Africa did it know that its time had run out. The Israelis have to be careful that they do not run out of time, because sooner or later the Palestinians will say, “There is no future for us here. We have no alternative but to continue what we have been doing.” That cannot be right, and it is not the solution that we want.
What we need is pressure from all the Governments who say that they want to support a two-state solution. Some 128 of them have now signed up, but what have they done since then to say that they would recognise a two-state solution? Very little—
Mr Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing the debate.
My hon. Friend called for an end to trade and investment with the illegal settlements in the west bank. I agree, of course, and everyone else who looks at the situation would agree. Some have called for a complete ban on arms sales to Israel and others have called for a complete embargo on trade. I have no problem with those ideas. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) said, quite rightly, that the tourniquet around Gaza should be removed. I entirely agree.
We should be under no illusion, however. The Israeli Government are not in the slightest bit interested in what the British Government or the European Union say; their only interest is in not the words but the actions of the American Government, who will not allow Israel to go under.
The American Government provide more than $2.5 billion-worth of arms to Israel every year. They will never allow Israel to be wiped out. The people running Israel, such as Netanyahu, Bennett and Lieberman, are all “greater Israel” and settler people—Bennett is the leader of the settler movement and its spokesperson in Parliament—and they are out to colonise the west bank. Of course the Americans say again and again, “You’re wrong—you shouldn’t do it”, but in the Security Council they will always veto any proposals that could put Israel under threat in their eyes.
I used to believe in the two-state solution, but it is no longer viable. We have only to look at the geography on the ground: Gaza is totally populated by Palestinians; Israel is overwhelmingly Jewish; 40% of the west bank has been colonised by Israel; and there is a large Palestinian population in Jordan.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talks about the demographics of Israel and Palestine. May I please implore him not to forget the existing Christian communities there, such as the Armenian Orthodox and various other communities? The problem is not one of only two sides, but of many sides.
Mr Godsiff
I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says; of course there are many other religious groups. That is why Jerusalem is so vital: it is the main place of worship for a whole variety of religions.
Anyone looking in would say, “Well, Jerusalem ought to be like Rome.” It ought to be a holy city administered by all the religions, but the Israeli Government say that it is the capital of the state of Israel. We are dealing with people who, I regret to say, are not the same as previous leaders of Israel, most of whom were members of the Labour party and whom I had the opportunity to meet. The leaders of Israel now are not the same as Peres, Rabin or even Golda Meir. They are very different.
Mr Burrowes
The hon. Gentleman’s characterisation is completely wrong on religious freedom. I spoke to persecuted Christians in Jerusalem on a recent visit, which is recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. They said that the only safe place for them in the middle east is Israel and Jerusalem.
Mr Godsiff
I hear what my colleague says and he is perfectly entitled to his opinion, but I repeat that the Israeli Government have no interest whatever in negotiating with the Palestinians or in trying to reach a settlement. I wish I could have better hope for the future of the middle east, but I despair—day by day, more and more—of whether there will be a solution. I fear that the only resolution will be through conflict. That is not what I want, and it is not what the people of the middle east want, but that is what is going to happen. I can see no desire on the part of the Israeli Government to negotiate and I cannot see the American Government doing anything to undermine the position of Israel.
I say again, therefore, that I view the situation in the middle east with despair. I hope that I am totally wrong, and that at the end of the day there will be negotiations—including with Hamas, which has to be involved—but I simply cannot see any of that happening. We may wring our hands in this Chamber, saying that we should do this or that, but I am afraid that people in Tel Aviv are not listening.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. Unfortunately, we will now have to limit speeches to three minutes. I again encourage Members to consider the number of interventions that they take.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), a friend, on securing the debate.
At this troubled time in the region, what is needed above all is a de-escalation of tensions and the renewal of direct peace talks—the only way to achieve a lasting peace agreement. We should do all we can to make that possible, but isolating Israel through unilateral measures, threats and boycotts will certainly not contribute to reaching the peace that all of us in this place so strongly want to see.
Unilateral measures by the Palestinian Authority to seek early recognition of a Palestinian state are both premature and counter-productive. To endorse such actions is to reject the peace process entirely, and it certainly does nothing to ensure stability or to revive it. The Palestinian Authority and President Abbas have repeatedly threatened to apply to UN bodies for sanction as the state of Palestine, and PLO officials have stated their intention to resume accession to more than 500 international conventions and treaties as the Palestinian state. I can understand their keenness for such recognition, but in the absence of a willingness fully to recognise the state of Israel, those involved in the Palestinian authorities and organisations perhaps need to be a little more realistic.
Additionally, in October this year, in defiance of calls to return to direct talks, the Palestinian Authority issued a draft text of a resolution for the UN Security Council to pass; they reportedly intend to submit it formally in the near future. Worryingly, the draft resolution makes no reference to any of Israel’s legitimate security concerns and completely fails to address the recognition of two states for two peoples. Whatever side of that particular fence we sit on, surely that is a worrying standpoint for them to have. In neglecting to mention both those vital issues, the Palestinian Authority have further demonstrated attempts to bypass and undermine direct negotiations. That is more than unhelpful; it is the most obstructive and destructive course of action.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman called at the outset for a de-escalation of tensions in the region. Does he agree that the announcement of the intention for a new settlement has precisely the opposite effect and that if new settlements were to proceed, that would make the two-state solution totally unviable?
Karl MᶜCartney
There are many ways in which we can say that neither side is blameless. The right hon. Gentleman has his point of view, and I am sure I have mine.
In pushing for the premature recognition of a Palestinian state, the Palestinian Authority are refusing to face up to the difficult compromises necessary for a lasting agreement to end the conflict and are undermining the accepted framework of direct negotiations, in direct contravention of the Oslo peace accord. I am sure that the hon. Member for Easington is aware—I also presume that the Minister is—that the Palestinian Authority and President Mahmoud Abbas are still yet to respond to the United States framework document for peace, which Israel accepted, presented by Secretary of State Kerry in March this year. Israel’s historic peace treaties with Egypt in 1979 and with Jordan in 1994 were a product of direct negotiations. A final agreement with the Palestinian Authority must be agreed through the same means, for the sake of all sides—and especially for the sake of innocent families and children.
It is worth bearing in mind that the Palestinian Authority’s unilateral actions also predetermine the borders between Israel and the Palestinian state. That is simply a non-starter for Israel, as I learned when I visited Israel and Jerusalem recently with hon. Members from both sides of the House.
The Prime Minister recently stated that
“I look forward to the day when Britain will recognise the state of Palestine, but it should be part of the negotiations that bring about a two-state solution.”—[Official Report, 15 October 2014; Vol. 586, c. 295.]
That is a very sensible position. It is one that I fully endorse, and I am sure many other hon. Members do.
The sudden announcement of the Hamas-Fatah unity Government was a further set back to the peace process and played an important role in the collapse of talks with Israel. I hope the hon. Member for Easington—and the Minister, when he replies—recognises that it is unfeasible for Israel to accept a Government who contain an organisation committed to its destruction.
Robert Halfon
I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent and thoughtful speech. Is he aware that the leader of the Palestinian Authority threatened to disband the Palestinian unity Government in September—just a few months ago—because he said that Hamas was operating a shadow Government? There is clearly no unity, so it is harder to negotiate.
Karl MᶜCartney
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. I am aware of that situation, but thank him for raising the issue.
Israel has shown that it is willing to make tough decisions for the sake of peace. The concessions it has made to date should not be taken lightly. One need only recall the dramatic consequences of Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005: Hamas’s brutal takeover of the Gaza strip was a far-reaching setback to the peace process. We are still seeing the consequences, with Hamas preferring to fire thousands of rockets into Israel at the expense of developing the blueprint for a functioning Palestinian state for its own people.
Last year, Israel made the painful commitment to release 104 Palestinian prisoners, many convicted of terror offences, in a concerted effort to bring the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. Several of those individuals have since resumed planning and executing terror attacks against Israel and Israeli civilians. Let us not, therefore, isolate Israel. To do so would endanger any prospect of peace.
Above all, we must strive to create the environment needed for peace negotiations. That requires a redoubling of efforts to persuade the Palestinians to abandon their divisive policy of unilateral declarations, so that the peace process can get back on track and an acceptable, forward-looking and forward-thinking agreement can be reached, for the sake of all sides.
Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.
There are people in this Chamber who know far more than I do about the history of the part of the world we are debating, but I have read a few books and listened carefully to what everyone says, and I can guarantee one thing: the history of that conflicted part of the world does not mean that we can blame one side for all the ills that have taken place there over the years. There will be a lot of pain for both sides in moving towards a two-state solution, but almost everyone who has contributed to today’s debate recognises that that is what is required.
There are those who argue for a one-state solution. Let us be honest: there are those who argue for a greater Israel, but there are also those who argue for a greater Palestine. I have heard people who are in the Chamber today say, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” We know what that means, as well. A single state cannot bring peace, as it would ultimately undermine the national goals of one of the two competing national movements. Two states for two peoples is the only realistic hope.
The deadlock and the conditions that have existed for years are not the only obstacles to peace, but they guarantee that with each passing year the problem becomes more difficult to resolve, with more settlements, more refugees, more people drawn to terror, more victims, more resentment and more hate. Hon. Members should be assured that I condemn Israeli settlements in the west bank and the blockade of Gaza, and I believe the Israelis should end the occupation. The lurch to the right in Israeli politics makes that aim more difficult to achieve, but does not make it impossible.
I do not need to be prompted to say that, with the same vigour, passion and determination, I condemn Hamas, whose unrevoked 1988 charter rejects peace and promotes the killing of Jews. I condemn the use of Palestinians as cannon fodder every time Hamas decides to use innocent people as a means of achieving its political ends. I condemn the politicians who condemn terrorism publicly but then send letters of praise to the families of those who have died in the pursuit of terrorism, and I despair about the lack of political courage on the Palestinian side that prevents the final mile to peace being walked.
Mr McCann
Somebody said from a sedentary position, “No, it’s not,” but actually, it is. I am a member of the International Development Committee, and the Palestinian Authority Finance Minister confirmed that to us at a meeting, at which other Members were present. He wants to stop it because he cannot afford it and wants to spend the money on doing things that are constructive, rather than on paying high-scale salaries to those who have committed the most heinous of crimes and are in prison. I condemn all those actions.
My next point is the crucial one for those who would take umbrage at me for questioning the courage of the Palestinian leadership in moving forward. Arguably, the closest we have got to peace was the 2000 Camp David summit. Bill Clinton, Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak brokered a deal that covered all of the problems: security, borders, refugees, the right of return and, most crucially, Jerusalem. Once again, it was an Israeli Labour politician, Ehud Barak, who put his head above the parapet for peace. The deal was rejected—this is widely accepted—by Yasser Arafat, and that was the precursor to the second intifada. In March this year, when I was visiting the Occupied Palestinian Territories with the IDC, we met the PLO negotiation team. After talking about the desire for peace, which I accept was absolutely sincere, I said to the PLO negotiator in private, “If the Clinton deal was put back on the table with 2014 prices, would you accept it?” Answer came there none. That is a very interesting position for someone who is supposed to desire peace.
Since 1987, there have been 410 early-day motions, 157 debates and 13,348 contributions by Members.
Karl MᶜCartney
Does the hon. Gentleman have any breakdown of the statistics on whether those early-day motions were from Labour or Conservative Members?
Mr McCann
I am afraid that my fascination with statistics did not take me quite that far, but I am grateful for the injury time as it allows me to finish the point, which I hope is one that everyone can rally round. Since 1987, as I say, there have been 410 early-day motions, 157 debates, 13,348 contributions from Members, 63 business questions and 2,539 oral questions. If we all back a two-state solution, as we say we do, and are not speaking with forked tongue, why do we not all get together after this debate—whether the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign or Labour Friends of Israel—and truly pursue peace together? If we are united and can show that we can unify around that point, perhaps those in Israel and Palestine who want a two-state solution can unite around it as well.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) for securing this important debate on ending what has been a long and vicious conflict. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann); I do not say that only because I can actually pronounce the name of his constituency.
Although it is important to discuss peace talks and support for a two-state solution, I want to speak more about the effects that the hostilities are having on those living in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I start by putting on the record that I condemn Hamas and its violent actions. I believe that Israel has the right to a safe and secure environment.
[Annette Brooke in the Chair]
Last year, along with the hon. Gentleman, I was fortunate enough to be able to visit the middle east with the International Development Committee and spend some time in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. What struck me when I was out there was the comparative poverty and lack of infrastructure in the Palestinian communities, a large part of which is due to Israeli restrictions on the movement of Palestinians and their ability to trade. It is estimated that those limitations cost the Palestinian economy 85% of its GDP. Area C, which makes up the largest proportion of the west bank, is widely considered to be the wealthiest area in the region in terms of natural resources. Output from that area would be of huge benefit to the Palestinian economy and could increase its GDP by a quarter, but that is impossible due to Israeli access restrictions on the land.
Having seen the response of the Department for International Development to the recent report by the IDC on this subject, I hope that the pressure that the Government have brought to bear on the Israeli authorities will assist in alleviating the difficulties that Palestinians face daily due to the inhibitions on movement. It is not only restrictions on movement and trade that impoverish Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories; building restrictions on Palestinians in Israeli-controlled areas are crippling private sector investment. Meanwhile, Israelis continue to build their illegal settlements, gobbling up acres of valuable land.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the point she is making. I should declare an interest, having visited the Palestinian Territories with CMEC—the Conservative Middle East Council —some years ago. Does it not strike her as extraordinary that there should be such strong opposition in Israeli circles to peaceful development in the Palestinian territories and that it is in the long-term interest of peace and security for Israel to see a prosperous and secure Palestine?
Pauline Latham
Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for his valid point. If the Palestinian territories could trade freely and could become more prosperous, they would have fewer problems and there might be an opportunity for the two peoples to live side by side.
What shocked me more than anything else when I was there was going to Hebron to see where Palestinians are living. Illegal settlements are built on top of them and the Israelis are throwing their rubbish down on to the Palestinians, who are not allowed to trade properly. They have to up a barrier to ensure that rubbish does not hit them. Palestinian children going to school in Hebron have been stoned by Israelis. That does not strike me as the actions of an educated nation. I was shocked by the way the Israelis were behaving. The whole process of denying Palestinians the right to a proper life changed my mind about how I saw the Israelis.
Sir Alan Duncan
Will my hon. Friend confirm from what she saw on her visit that she was reassured by the work of the Department for International Development with the Palestinian Authority?
Pauline Latham
I certainly was, and I feel that DFID could do more work over there. It could help more with planning permissions, and ensure that there are proper planning permissions instead of the Israelis coming in and tearing down buildings because they apparently do not have the right planning permission. Ending the gratuitous demolition of Palestinian buildings would create a much safer place for everyone to live in.
Ensuring that businesses can operate in the region would secure investment. The UK Government should be encouraging investment and entrepreneurship through their aid programmes, even more than at the moment. The Government have established the Palestinian market development programme, which is expected to support 480 companies in the region and should have a positive effect on local economies and Palestinian communities, but I wish that DFID would reconsider its position on the establishment of the private sector grant facility, which will provide finance up to 15% of private sector investment in projects in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That would not only create jobs locally, but establish infrastructure, thus improving the lives of those living in the west bank. There is a lot more to do and the Government can do a lot more to help.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
I was appalled by what happened this summer, but despite all the difficulties, a two-state solution with a viable Palestinian state is the only option that reconciles the interests of Israelis and Palestinians. There is no alternative that will end the bloodshed and provide justice, dignity and self-determination for both peoples with universal human and political rights, a free press and economic opportunities for all. Despite all the difficulties, this is not the time for people who believe in peace to give up hope. Peace talks have produced results in the past and have come close to a breakthrough on several occasions, and they can do so again.
Of course, a two-state solution faces considerable challenges—the status of Jerusalem, security, refugees, and the growth of settlements—but they are not insurmountable, given a willingness on both sides to negotiate, compromise and make concessions. The failure of the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships to persuade their people to work together, to negotiate, to compromise and to eliminate the barriers to peace is a tragedy.
The biggest barrier to peace is Hamas. Its charter sets out its goals with an explicit rejection of Israel’s right to exist. It is an organisation that encouraged young people to strap bombs to their bodies and blow themselves and civilians to bits in Israel’s buses, bars and restaurants. It is an organisation that the UN says stored its rockets in schools hosting displaced people, that uses hospitals as command centres, that threatens the media, denies equal rights to its citizens, summarily executed 22 people outside mosques after Friday prayers, and that Mahmoud Abbas accuses of plotting to kill him. Whatever people think are the rights and wrongs on either side, we all have to concede that it is difficult to see how Israel can deal with that.
Jeremy Corbyn
There are two points. First, Israel fails to say what its final borders are. Secondly, Israel did deal with Hamas in the ceasefire negotiations in Egypt. There is a basis on which talks can take place. It has already happened.
Ian Austin
I want to see Hamas commit to peace, I want to see the demilitarisation of Gaza. I want to see everyone in the region committed to peace and coming together to negotiate compromise, so that we can have a two-state solution: a safe and secure Israel with a viable Palestinian state, living in peace side by side. That is the only way—whether it takes a year, 10 years or 100 years, in the end that is the only way the situation will be resolved.
There is an idea that the peace process can be advanced by boycotts, disinvestment, sanctions and other attempts to delegitimise Israel. I think that would hinder the development of dialogue on which prospects for future peace and security rely. Britain’s role is to do everything we can to bring people together, develop dialogue, promote negotiations and build trust. Boycotts would just drive people further apart. Britain’s role must be to develop closer links with Israel and the Palestinian Authority, promote economic development, trade and investment in the west bank, reconstruction and demilitarisation in Gaza.
I would like to hear from the Minister what more the UK can do to get DFID, the British Council, the Foreign Office and NGOs supporting projects such as Cherish, One Voice and the middle east education through technology project. The goal of peace depends on two sides, Israelis and Palestinians, working together with international support to develop a viable Palestinian state—the viable Palestinian state I have believed in all my life and for which I have campaigned, alongside a secure Israel with peace and justice for both peoples. Is it possible? It has to be. Is it easy? No, of course it is not. It is difficult, but it is possible. Israel and the Palestinians need brave leadership and renewed efforts to achieve it and Britain must do all it can to support that.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) and, indeed, the 124,000 petitioners on securing this debate. If they had any fears that interest was subsiding after the October vote in the House of Commons, today’s attendance here will reassure them.
The Israel-Palestine situation is obviously grim and we are right to keep on condemning each new low in the cycle of violence, whether it is the deliberate murder of civilians, even rabbis at prayer, or the disproportionate response by Governments to the murder of civilians, as we saw in the summer in Gaza, with 500 children among 1,500 Palestinian civilians killed.
There is a some sense of movement. There is certainly a sense of political movement outside Israel and that has been reflected in all our political parties, including the Liberal Democrat conference this year voting for recognition of Palestinian statehood, followed by the historic House of Commons vote. The French Assemblée Nationale will probably do exactly the same thing tomorrow. We have votes coming forward in the Australian Parliament and, at some stage, in the European Parliament.
There is a sense that people in the west have realised that we need some kind of direction to the Netanyahu Government. A corner was turned when President Obama told the Iraqi Government of Nouri al-Maliki that it was not enough to be elected: even in a tough neighbourhood and even when their country faces an existential threat, people also have to work for an inclusive, peaceful solution. I am afraid that the Netanyahu Government are not demonstrating that. We have to pursue a consistent path in the region.
I agree with the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) that we should still work towards the two-state solution. The only alternative is perpetual conflict. I disagree with the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) that the peace process is poppycock. It certainly needs kick-starting—frankly, it needs bringing back from the dead—but that does have to be done, and the pressure needs to be exerted on the more powerful party, which in this case is the Government of Israel. The Palestinian Authority may have committed diplomatic, political and negotiating mistakes, and I am sure it would be the first to admit that.
Mr McCann
On the point about Netanyahu’s Government, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is rather ironic that Bibi Netanyahu is not actually as far to the right as some of his colleagues in the Government? The problem he has to face up to, just as the Palestinians do, is that he has to have the courage of his convictions to take his country forward to a peaceful solution. He must face down those on the right of him in his Government and tell them that that is the way forward.
Martin Horwood
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I will come back to the dynamics of the coalition. Some of us in the Chamber are becoming increasingly expert as regards the dynamics of coalitions.
The contrast I was drawing was between the negotiating mistakes the Palestinians may have made over time and the Israeli Government’s unfortunate practice of physically undermining the peace process, particularly through the settlement programme, which is a much more serious step. What do we do in response? First, the Government must recognise Palestinian statehood. The House of Commons voted overwhelmingly for that. Secondly, the European Union must look at the Israel association agreement, article 1 of which commits the parties to
“the consolidation of peaceful coexistence”.
Neither the settlement programme nor the new nationality Bill in the Knesset seems to reinforce the consolidation of peaceful co-existence. Article 2 of the agreement commits Israel to “respect for human rights”, and there are also questions in that respect. A formal review of the association agreement, with all the possible economic implications for Israel, must therefore be looked at. Thirdly, arms sales: Israel is a country of concern on the Foreign Office’s human rights list, and the Liberal Democrat party’s policy is that that should earn it the presumption of denial of arms sales.
The right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) is right that we must not fall into the trap of polarisation. It is right to highlight and celebrate the opinions of Jewish and Israeli moderates who are challenging the Netanyahu Government. It is right to highlight the range of opinion in Israel itself. That now includes Ministers such as Yair Lapid and Tzipi Livni, who just this year talked about the settlement enterprise as
“a security, economic and moral burden”.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is right that there is movement in Israeli public opinion, particularly on the settler issue, but underpinning that there must be reassurance about Israel’s security and existence. That is also important, and it needs to be stressed if public opinion is to put pressure on Governments in Israel.
Martin Horwood
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I would also say that Fatah and the Palestinian Authority have accepted the Arab peace initiative—Hamas even briefly accepted it—which implies recognition of the state of Israel. There has been movement on the other side, so the pressure really is on the Netanyahu Government to demonstrate an equal degree of movement. Perhaps we will see movement if there is a general election in Israel—there is now talk of one being imminent if the rebellious statements from coalition Ministers continue.
We do need to see movement. We used to think that the worst possible option was perpetual conflict, but if we look at the middle east now, we see that that is not the case and that there are worse options even than an Iranian-backed Hamas. There are forces in the middle east even darker and more extreme backed by Sunni extremists. We really do not want the middle east to descend into the kind of conflict we have seen and for that to extend to Palestine. For that reason, we must support moderate Arab opinion in Palestine as well.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Many countries have already recognised Palestine, and their numbers are growing. Last Friday, French politicians debated a motion inviting the French Government
“to use the recognition of the state of Palestine as an instrument to gain a definitive resolution of the conflict”.
That goes to the heart of the matter. France is the latest European country expected to vote in favour of recognising Palestine, following this House’s groundbreaking, if non-binding, vote in October, official recognition by Sweden on 30 October and the symbolic vote by the Spanish Parliament on 18 November.
In response, Benjamin Netanyahu said that France’s vote would be tantamount to showing solidarity with Islamic State. He is quoted as saying:
“Do they have nothing better to do at a time of beheadings across the Middle East, including that of a French citizen?”
That was a reference to Monsieur Hervé Gourdel, a hiker from the Marseilles area who was murdered by his captors in Algeria in September—many Members will remember that tragic event. Monsieur Gourdel was deeply mourned by people in his locality, but Mr Netanyahu seems to recommend a limit to compassion—a view I do not share.
Given such comments, we see why the world needs to stand in favour of recognition—a stance that would bolster democracy in the middle east, rather than undermine it.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that Mr Netanyahu is quite wrong to say that recognising a Palestinian state would support extremism? It would do exactly the opposite: it would bolster the moderate position in the Palestinian cause and make the two-state solution and peace all the more likely.
Hywel Williams
I entirely agree. We need to promote discussion, and that is one way of taking it forward. We need to give international legitimacy to the Palestinian people and reaffirm their right to land.
The UK Government and Governments throughout Europe and the world should recognise Palestine; otherwise, there will be no end to the blockade or the conflict, last summer’s war will be reignited and the tragic process will repeat itself on both sides. That is why I voted in favour of the motion in October calling for recognition. I said that the UK had a special responsibility as the immediate former imperial power, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, as a guarantor of the Geneva convention and given our recent disastrous interventions in middle east affairs.
Hon. Members will recall that the vote in favour of the motion was 274 to 12. I was glad of the opportunity to restate Plaid Cymru’s position on the matter. I have also welcomed the decision by my local authority, Gwynedd county council, not to invest in or trade with Israel.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
I actually live in the Gwynedd county council area, and I am fascinated by the fact that a majority of Plaid Cymru members voted to boycott Israel. However, the last time I contacted the local authority, it was still using IT systems using Israeli technology.
Hywel Williams
I am glad to hear from my constituent. That was the stance taken by Gwynedd county council, and that is the stance it will implement. It is clearly right to stop trade with illegal settlements, rather than just condemning their establishment. I hope the leadership shown by Gwynedd county council will encourage other councils in Wales and across the UK to do the same. I ask the Minister to back moves to stop trade with settlements and to follow the example of the Spanish Government by stopping the arms trade with Israel.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
Unless something changes, things stay the same. In an attempt to end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, two routes have been tried—one is violence, the other is negotiations. The violent route will not work. Israel has tried that route and the route of suppression, with attempts at ethnic cleansing, for nigh on 70 years, and that has not worked. That has been matched by violence by the Palestinians on the other side, which has usually resulted in their suffering even more. That has not worked for them, but it has not broken their will. Violence will not work.
The negotiations have proved unsuccessful: why? Negotiations usually require both sides in a dispute to concede something. What more, really, could the Palestinians concede? In Gaza they have given up the air, the sea, the land and indeed the water, as they have done in many other places. There is not much more they can give. Agreement can only really be arrived at when both sides in the dispute believe that the cost of not reaching an agreement is higher than the cost of continuing the dispute.
The Israeli Government have certainly suffered from the insecurity that they have brought on their citizens through the continuing dispute, but the cost of that insecurity has been overwhelmingly outweighed by the territorial gains that they have made and continue to make daily. Why should they engage in meaningful negotiations when they gain so much from the conflict?
Mr Mike Hancock
Does the hon. Gentleman genuinely believe that they think that is a price worth paying?
Mr Ward
I believe that they do. I believe that the gains they have made as part of the grand design have proved successful for them, and they have considered the price worth paying. That could not of course have continued without the support of many countries, including our own, but most of all the United States. Our Prime Minister recently confirmed his deep commitment to Israel and said:
“When we look across the region and at the indexes of freedom, we see that Israel is one of the few countries that tick the boxes for freedom”.—[Official Report, 26 November 2014; Vol. 588, c. 915.]
However, Martin Linton has supplied the information that in the 2014 index of economic freedom, Israel is placed 44th, behind Macedonia, Latvia, Armenia and Jordan. Are those really the countries with which we should be comparing Israel, rather than France, Sweden or Italy? Is it possible to think of another democracy that flouts UN resolutions on a daily basis and remains a fully fledged member of the international community?
What can change? I was privileged to listen to Rebecca Vilkomerson two weeks ago when she spoke to a small group here in Westminster. Rebecca is the executive director of Jewish Voice for Peace, the fastest-growing Jewish organisation in the United States. It grew rapidly during the attack on Gaza. She suggested some changes as ways to bring about something different. The first was using boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel. The cost to Israel of not negotiating seriously must be greater. I have an online petition with 80,000 names on it calling for the use of BDS as a peaceful means of applying economic pressure. At the very least that should apply to settlement goods, but I argue that it should go beyond that.
Rebecca also mentioned the increasing change among the Jewish diaspora around the world. Many members of the Jewish community are growing tired of Israel and are embarrassed by it and somewhat ashamed of it. The JVP is growing rapidly and adds a powerful voice.
The final area to be mentioned is public opinion, which has been referred to before. I am accused of pandering to Muslims. That is an insult to me—but I can take that. However, it is also an insult to Muslims and to the many non-Muslims who are sick and tired of Israel’s behaviour.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
As on 13 October, there have been many powerful speeches today. I cannot hope to bring to mine some of the experience that other right hon. and hon. Members have shared with us, but I bring to it the concerns raised by hundreds of my constituents who signed the petition and contacted me because of their concern for progress towards a lasting peace. We must accept that such progress has time and again been frustrated by the Israeli Government, particularly through their continued policy on illegal settlements in the occupied territories.
After the world’s reaction to events in Gaza over the summer there was an opportunity for Israel to reflect and reach out, and to take steps to reopen the peace process. Instead, it marked the end of the conflict with the biggest ever land grab, appropriating 990 acres of Palestinian territory near Bethlehem. It was something that the Prime Minister was quick to condemn, rightly, and the world condemned it. Israel’s response was to give planning approval to 2,600 new housing units in a settlement across the green line. Words, clearly, are not enough. The international community needs to demonstrate that we are committed to moving forward.
The House’s decision on Palestinian statehood was an important step, but my constituents find it difficult to understand why there is not tougher action in some further areas. After the summer in Gaza, why is there not a comprehensive ban on arms exports to Israel? Given that something like 40% of the west bank is now under the control of illegal settlers—our Government condemn them as illegal—why do we not show our condemnation by taking measures to stop the trade on which those settlements depend, or by wider sanctions conditional on an end to illegal settlements?
I am proud that the university of Sheffield has made a practical contribution by offering a scholarship to a student from Gaza. Our first scholar, Malaka Mohammed Shwaikh, joined the university last year, and after completing her master’s degree, was elected by all the students of the university to be their education officer for this academic year. She is a deeply impressive young woman. I spoke to her earlier this afternoon and asked what concerns she would like raised. She asked for us to think about child prisoners, and drew my attention to the report that a week ago the Israeli authorities detained a 10-year-old child in the Silwan neighbourhood of Jerusalem. That is not exceptional; it is reported that since last June 600 Palestinian children have been arrested in East Jerusalem alone.
Mr Robin Walker
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case. Like him, I have been contacted by many constituents. Does he agree that one thing we must address strongly is our constituents’ concerns about human rights in the Palestinian territories?
Paul Blomfield
I do; I am grateful for the intervention and was going to make that point. Children are not only detained, they are tried in military courts. Many right hon. and hon. Members have seen that at first hand, although I have not. UNICEF makes the point that Israel is the only country in the world where children are systematically tried in military courts and subjected to
“cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.
We are all appalled by that, but Malaka asked me to convey to the House that being appalled is not enough. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann) talked about the many words spoken in the House on the issue, but Malaka wants those words to be matched with action. We want the Government to respond more positively to the House’s resolution on Palestinian statehood, and to work with partners throughout the world on taking firmer action to bring the Israelis to the negotiating table.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. First, I want to associate myself with the speech of the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann). We have three minutes for our speeches, and he said most of what I want to say, but I will highlight a few issues.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) chuntered from his place when comments were made about the Palestinian Authority paying prisoners. I thought that odd, because when he was in the Ministry I had meetings with him time and again at which it was confirmed that British taxpayers’ money was not being used for that, but also that money was being made available by the Palestinian Authority to pay prisoners who had committed atrocities. It is important that the record is clear on that issue.
There is a need for honesty with ourselves when arguing for disinvestment from Israel. The point that I made about Gwynedd council in north Wales is not a silly one. It is all very well to posture and argue in favour of voting for something to make a difference, but ultimately, unless the Gwynedd council computer systems are to be switched off, the council is not being true to the demands being made. Similarly, when people call for disinvestment from Israel and take selfies with their iPhones of themselves protesting, they are being hypocritical because their iPhones would not work without Israeli technology. When people make those demands, they should think of the national health service and the contributions made to it by development in Israel. That context is important.
In talking about the need for a response to the sickening events of the summer, it is important to highlight the fact that the Iron Dome barrages in Israel intercepted 700 missiles. I suspect that if some of them had hit Israeli cities we would not be talking about a disproportionate situation, but about massacres on both sides—completely unacceptable to all hon. Members. Are we honestly to say that the debate should proceed on the basis of condemning Israeli success in protecting its citizens or of condemning Israel for that success? That, too, needs to be put into context.
I have visited Israel and the Palestinian territories many times, and both sides need to feel that they have a partner for peace. I remember meeting Prime Minister Fayyad, when he was in position. He said that he felt very strongly that Netanyahu was willing to talk about peace, but that the people behind him were not supportive. Within four hours, we were in Jerusalem, meeting Prime Minister Netanyahu, who said, “Prime Minister Fayyad is genuine about peace but the people behind him are not.” As the British Parliament, we need to try to encourage that ability to talk to each other, and we will do that by giving the parties encouragement, not condemnation.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
My constituents have been very animated about the prospect of this debate. They know about conflict and peace processes and they know all about excusery, whataboutery and blame games when peace processes stall and initiatives fail. They even know about when institutions fall.
My constituents also know outrage when they see it—as there was this summer, with the scale of the violence visited on the people of Gaza by Operation Protective Edge. They know that violence makes no contribution to upholding anyone’s rights, and violence on the part of any armed group in the name of any Palestinian interest will not advance the cause of Palestinian rights or a Palestinian state. Indeed, much of that violence is aimed against the very process that would lead to a two-state solution. Let us remember that the people carrying out the violence—with whom, according to Netanyahu, those of us who support Palestinian statehood are aligning ourselves—are doing it to undermine the two-state solution. They are totally opposed to that concept, just as some people in Israel are.
I have said before that if we are serious about a two-state solution, we need to create more of a semblance around a two-state process. That is why moving towards recognising Palestinian statehood is so important; it is the single biggest thing that those of us outside, representing the international democratic interest, can do. Doing that is not about a little token PR win for Palestine or about one in the eye for Israel; it is about trying to create a more equal process and trying to say that international standards will and do apply—not just to Israel, but to Palestine. Any Palestinian state that is created or recognised will have to adhere to all the legal instruments to which they wish to bring Israel.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful contribution. Does he not recognise from his own experience over recent decades that the heart of any successful negotiation is recognition of the legitimacy of the partner that someone is seeking to work with and legitimacy in the eyes of the international bodies? For that reason, we were right to back the vote on Palestinian recognition in October.
Mark Durkan
Absolutely, and our process shows that is true. It shows that if people are serious about negotiating a process, they have to recognise that it is not going to be a matter of them all converting others to their views. It will be a matter of convergence, so people, based on the integrity of their own position and knowing that their own interests and identity are going to be secured in the arrangements, can move forward to respect and accommodate each other.
In any situation of historic conflict, people need to recognise that they cannot be secure against each other; they can be truly secure only with each other. They cannot prosper against each other; they can truly prosper only with each other. That is why we need a two-state solution and why that needs strong international support. The issue is not about simply leaving things to the parties themselves and saying, “It is up to them to find enough will.” We cannot leave it to the parties themselves, any more than it was just left to the parties themselves in our process. International good will and interest has to find its standard. People also have to know that, whatever the outcome, the states created will fully adhere to human rights and conform to international law. They can hold each other to that and affirm those guarantees for all their citizens, whatever identities those citizens have.
Let us be very clear: Israel cannot go on believing that it can ignore all the world all the time and still buy arms and sell all the illegal settlement goods that it wants to sell. The public have got fed up; the international public are indignant at the failure of the diplomatic musings and all the excusery and ruses used to exercise a veto at the UN. That is why we have this petition and why people want to see us move forward on the basis of the vote that has already been held.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I am sure that everyone in the Chamber today wants to see a prosperous Palestinian state alongside a safe and secure Israel. I am certainly a supporter of the two-state solution and I voted for the recognition of Palestine in the recent parliamentary debate. I hope it worries all of us greatly that the situation in the region is once again at risk of spiralling out of control. Renewed efforts must be made to coax both Israel and the Palestinians back to the negotiating table to secure the two-state solution, which I hope we all want.
We have heard much today about Israel’s actions and responsibilities. I am sure that all of us, whatever side of the argument we might be on, would agree that Israel is far from perfect. Some of its actions are undoubtedly counter-productive, especially and most visibly in its settlements policy, but in securing a final peace agreement the onus cannot simply be on Israel. Negotiations, as has been said, are a two-way process. It requires strong leadership from both sides and give and take, and the Palestinians have obligations to meet and fulfil as well. I suggest that what the Palestinians need and have never had is a Nelson Mandela-type figure who can unify the Palestinian cause behind a non-violent solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The recent violence in Jerusalem cannot be seen in a vacuum. It has been fomented, I am afraid to say, by repeated, inflammatory and false allegations from the Palestinian Authority, Fatah and Hamas, accusing Israel of planning to destroy the al-Aqsa mosque and other Muslim holy sites. There has been no word at all about the fact that Jews were completely forbidden to worship at the western wall between 1948 and 1967, and a slight restriction on access to Haram al-Sharif has been inflamed out of all proportion.
President Abbas fanned those flames when he wrote a condolence letter to the family of a Palestinian terrorist, saluting him as a martyr. Palestinian Authority television opened a recent news broadcast by saying: “Good morning to you, good morning…to your hands preparing to throw stones and ignite the gasoline in the Molotov cocktails.” No peace can hope to be achieved with inflammatory statements such as that, from what is effectively a state broadcaster.
Mr McCann
I also want to place a point about Judaism on the record. Jewish people are particularly prohibited from taking their holy books to the original site of the holy temple for the Jews, where Jesus overturned the tables and the Prophet Mohammed rose up to heaven. The state of Israel is allowing people to go into that site and praise whatever religion they follow, but it prohibits its own people from taking their holy books there.
Mr Hollobone
That is in complete contrast to the Jordanian rulers between 1948 and 1967. The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. How can it help the peace process when President Abbas says that Israeli Jews should be barred from the Temple Mount complex “using any means”? How can it help the peace process when President Abbas says that the Israeli moves on the Haram al-Sharif compound amount to a “declaration of war”, and when he calls for a “day of rage”? What is required in these circumstances is leadership and moderation.
In his fluent address opening the debate, the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) said that the purpose of the debate is to identify some of the obstacles to moving the peace process forward. I would contend that that incitement from the Palestinian Authority at the very highest level is not helping the peace process. Her Majesty’s Government need to tackle the Palestinian Authority so that these words of incitement and inflammation are stopped.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I start my contribution by thanking all the people who signed this e-petition and other petitions to ensure that the debate would take place, and all the people who have campaigned not just for months but for years for the recognition of a Palestinian state and justice for the Palestinian people. Those who have stood on wet and windy high streets on a Saturday morning collecting signatures do matter in a democracy, and this debate is, in a sense, the product of that.
In the short time available to me, I want to draw attention to a few points. First, I was asked to give a talk last week to a group of students at City and Islington college about the history of the whole conflict in the middle east. It was a fascinating discussion, which ranged from the first world war right up to the current situation. The students had an incredible sense of the historical importance of the vote that took place in Parliament recently, when we voted finally for the recognition of Palestine, but I argue very strongly that that is only one very small step that we need to take. A settlement has to involve an awful lot more than just the recognition of the state of Palestine. People should cast their minds back to Sabra and Shatila in 1982 and to the Nakba in 1948. The victims of those processes are still living in refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria; the Palestinian diaspora across the world is huge. They also have rights—they also have the right to return home and a right to recognition. That is extremely important. They should never be forgotten.
Secondly, any peace process requires Israel to say what it wishes its final borders to be. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann) made many points, as did others, about the Hamas charter and what it is supposed to say. The reality is that Hamas is involved in a unity Government, and that is what provoked Operation Protective Edge this summer.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talks about Hamas’s charter, which refuses to recognise Israel, but the charter of Likud, the ruling party in the coalition, states:
“The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”
Is that not a fetter to progress on this issue?
Jeremy Corbyn
Absolutely. The Likud charter, which is not talked about too much by those who support the Government of Israel, says that in those very specific terms, and there has to be some recognition that the Prime Minister of Israel is a member of Likud and is in power because of Likud support.
Another point—there are many—is that half a million people are now settlers all across the west bank. Travelling around the west bank is travelling through an occupied land where the best land and the best water are taken by the settlers, the red-roofed buildings are built increasingly over Palestinian land and the massive concrete wall snakes around the place. If it was unwrapped, so to speak, it would stretch all across Europe. That wall divides farmers from their land, divides people from their water, divides children from their schools and makes travelling impossible. There has to be not just an end to the settlement policy but an end to the settlements. They have to go; they have to be withdrawn if there is to be any peace settlement.
Another issue is, of course, trade. Britain is a trading partner of Israel. We sell arms to Israel; we buy arms from Israel. Although some licences have been suspended or withdrawn, the arms trade goes on. If we are making engines for drone aircraft in this country and those drones are used for surveillance over Gaza and used to bomb the people of Gaza, as they were during Operation Protective Edge, we are complicit in what goes on there. That is what provoked an awful lot of people to sign the petition and make their views heard recently.
Gaza is under siege and has been under siege for a very long time. It has been my pleasure to visit Gaza on nine separate occasions during the past 15 years or so, and there is a feeling of depression and anger there at the way in which the people of Gaza are denied the right to work, the right to travel, the right to trade and the right to develop. Now, Egypt is joining in with that by developing a cordon sanitaire along the border between Egypt and Gaza, so I hope that when the Minister replies, we will hear some fairly robust remarks about the policies being followed by Egypt at present, which are compounding the siege of Gaza already being undertaken by Israel. A powder keg is developing because of the lack of freedom to travel, the lack of supplies, the lack of water and the lack of food. The people are crying out for recognition, help and support.
Annette Brooke (in the Chair)
Order. I intend the winding-up speeches to start at 7 o’clock, or when half an hour of the debate remains if there have been Divisions in the House. Obviously, the more Members intervene, the fewer speeches we will get in. I call Richard Graham.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall today. Our debate clearly will not solve the long-standing problems and end the violence in Israel and Palestine, but it gives voice to the many feelings and frustrations of our constituents, 150,000 of whom signed the petition. In having this debate, we place uncomfortable truths on the record; we contribute to the changing winds of international feeling towards what is happening in Israel and Palestine today; we influence our own Government; and we ask awkward questions of all sides. That in itself justifies today’s debate.
Since I last joined a debate on this unhappy part of the world, on 17 July in this Chamber, much has happened, and it is worth recapping. The war that took place was the worst of the three in the past seven years, with 2,100 casualties on the Palestinian side, some 500 of whom were children. There are investigations of some 99 potential war crimes, but no report has been issued yet. Demolitions of homes in East Jerusalem have resumed and increased, and the settlements, which now encompass 341,000 illegal settlers, have substantially expanded. Some 160,000 of the Bedouins have been pressured to move from their traditional homes, and the al-Aqsa mosque was stormed at the beginning of November. Last but by no means least, and perhaps most dangerous of all, an Israeli nationality law was proposed very recently that would legally define Israel as a nation state of the Jews and strip Arab citizens of their basic rights.
Sir Gerald Kaufman
It is important to know that that Government apartheid Bill is going to the Knesset on Wednesday of this week to start its passage to becoming law.
Richard Graham
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention on the timing of the debate in Israel on the proposed nationality law. He is right. As our own Prime Minister said, if that proposed nationality law became law, that would turn Israel into an apartheid state.
Alistair Burt
I have been careful about not intervening because so many other hon. Members want to speak, but this point is very important. As has already been said on both sides of the House, the Bill is not being proposed by the Government of the state of Israel. It is clear that the proposal has split opinion both in Israel and in the Government, but it is not being proposed by the Israeli Government. I think, bearing in mind the content of my hon. Friend’s speech, he should be very clear on that.
Richard Graham
I am very happy to be clear on that. I do not think I said anything that contradicted it. I was going to quote the President of Israel, who said very clearly that other groups
“should not feel as the Jews had felt in exile”,
signalling his own strong disapproval of it. But the very fact that the nationality law has been proposed—we will see how much support it has in the Knesset—indicates a significant change in events since the July debate that is well worth highlighting.
Other winds of change are blowing outside Israel, in the response of the world to some of those events. It is worth noting that eight EU member states now recognise Palestine officially; Sweden is the most recent. There have been non-binding resolutions not only in this country but in Ireland and Spain, and tomorrow the French Parliament will vote on a non-binding motion. That indicates that world views are changing.
In previous debates, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for International Development, has talked about the UK tiring of picking up the pieces from countless incidents of violence in Israel and Palestine and has called for “meaningful political change”. Today, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the middle east whether he shares the concern of the author of the EU document circulated to all 28 countries that we are moving to a situation where a two-state solution may no longer be possible. Does he share the author’s belief that if that were the case, action on illegal settlements would be necessary? Does he share my belief that the tragedy of what is happening in Israel is that its actions—settlements, the demolition of homes, a hardening of attitudes and even the consideration of a nationality law—are seriously against its long-term interests and may do long-term damage to that nation state, which our country did so much to bring into being?
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Like many others, I have visited Gaza. When I saw the refugee camps, I witnessed the exceptional adversity, prolonged suffering, misery and anguish that are being experienced in the region. That journey opened my eyes and confirmed what I already believed. As I stand here, I know that the situation in Gaza is far worse than when I visited three years ago. Everything has been affected, from supplies of food and energy to infrastructure and schools, and of course lives have been ruined.
Alongside the suffering in Gaza, one thing that stuck out for me was a briefing from the United Nations that showed the extent of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. In my naiveté, I had never realised that the settlements were so extensive or so spread out across Palestine. Had any other country been guilty of such activity, which is illegal under international law, countries would have been queuing up to demand an end to it. Yes, the world speaks out, but sadly I see what is being said as empty words. There has been no end to the practice, but rather a considerable expansion of it. The practice must be stopped and reversed.
We all rightly condemn violence on all sides and loss of life as a tragedy. The Israelis have the right to defend their people, but they go too far with what amounts to disproportionate collective punishment against civilians in the occupied Palestinian territories. Those measures include arbitrary searches, detentions, increased checkpoint closures and tough restrictions on free movement, as well as the extensive settlement building.
Then, of course, there is the wall, which prevents people from going about their daily business, frustrates them at every turn and even separates members of the same family. Last month, we marked 25 years since the other wall—the one that split Berlin in two—started to come down, when families and two parts of a city were reunited. It is tragic that a new wall has been created, which splits the holy city of Jerusalem and deprives innocent people of so much. One day, I pray, it, too, will be shattered.
Having seen what I have seen, and having learned more as I have gone along, I still believe that a major contributory factor to peace could be the recognition of the state of Palestine through official channels. Adding the UK’s voice to the 135 states that already recognise the state of Palestine would not only validate the continued viability of the two-state solution but confirm our commitment to advancing peace in the region and send a strong message about the illegitimacy of the ongoing occupation. I am sure that the British Government have taken note of what our Parliament had to say on the question of recognition for the state of Palestine, and I hope that that historic step will be taken before too long.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) for securing the debate, and I add my thanks to all those who signed the petition to enable us to have this debate.
We are all aware of the action in Gaza during the summer months, its effects on the people of Gaza and all the buildings that were destroyed. Before I go any further, to pre-empt any interventions, I condemn the actions of Hamas. However, I also have to condemn the disproportionate action of the Israel defence forces. When we consider the number of people—young children and civilians—who were killed during that action, we must all recognise that such disproportionate action does not allow any sort of peace process to take place. There are key issues following that action, such as the implementation of and support for the UN mechanism to facilitate the importing and use of construction materials in Gaza. There are problems surrounding agreement from Israel to allow unimpeded entry into Gaza for humanitarian goods and personnel. Urgent progress must be made on providing the people of Gaza with access to electricity and water, which are still not in place following the conflict.
The vote that was taken in this place on the recognition of Palestine has been mentioned, and the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan)—I was going to call him my right hon. Friend—
Mr Mahmood
It is close enough. He talked about the issues surrounding that vote. I think that the people in Israel who are hellbent on taking such action need to recognise the strength of that vote. The old dynamics are changing significantly, because the former controls on news and media have changed significantly. People have much more control of the media and the reports that they receive, and they are much better able to decide for themselves what they believe is right and what they believe is wrong. If Israel is genuine about its position, it needs to pay heed to that. Other countries, such as France, are looking to take votes similar to the one that we have taken. It does not help anybody’s cause for the current position to continue. Unless Israel is prepared to move forward and deal with the problems, we will not get to where we want to be. As my—
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing the debate and giving voice to tens of thousands of petitioners. It has been more than 20 years since the famous handshake between Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat on the White House lawn, but the remarkable longevity of the Oslo dynamic stands as a testament not to Oslo’s utility but to its failure. The logic of Oslo and the many successive initiatives derived from it have rested on the belief that incremental progress on smaller-scale issues would build mutual trust and confidence between the parties and enable them to tackle tougher issues further down the road.
In practice, however, the opposite has been the case. A generation of Palestinians have grown up to witness a worsening situation on the ground, which stokes the fires of injustice that are escalating the conflict and endangering the entire region. The stipulation that Israel and the Palestinians would not be held accountable for violations was originally intended as a trust-building exercise for a future settlement, but it has, in subsequent decades, afforded Israel complete impunity for its actions. That has led to horrendous human rights violations and is extinguishing hope for a just political settlement.
A lot has been said about leadership today. The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin was a tragedy for both peoples, because Rabin was an Israeli leader prepared to make the tough compromises necessary to achieve a just peace. Without an Israeli Government who are prepared to compromise and negotiate in good faith, a refusal to hold Israel to account does not encourage negotiations; it leads to a culture of impunity that is seized on by those on both sides who reject any type of political settlement. Israel is the dominant party in the conflict, and it is afforded an unparalleled diplomatic shield by western nations. In the current dynamic, there is nothing to prevent Israel from doing whatever it wants and taking whatever it wants, to the detriment of both peoples.
The two-state solution receives the near-unanimous support of hon. Members—myself included—the British public, the international community and, most importantly, a large majority of both Israelis and Palestinians. A negotiated two-state solution will be achieved only if there are partners for peace on both sides. Sadly, the current Israeli leadership shows little appetite for political settlement, and the direction in which it is headed is destructive for Israel and devastating for the Palestinians.
Israel is a close ally of ours, and it has good friends here who can be instrumental in encouraging it to reach a political settlement in its own self-interest. For that to happen, our Government must apply pressure, both diplomatic and economic, to create the leverage to make possible the conditions that are necessary for a negotiated two-state solution.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I have two brief points to add to the excellent points that have already been made. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) asked a question about Israel at Prime Minister’s questions last week, and the Prime Minister held up Israel as an example of human rights and civic responsibilities in the region. I hope that he and others recognise that the enshrined racism that I saw in Palestine, which continues to be enshrined increasingly deeply in Israeli law, makes such a eulogy offensive.
From my talks with members of the French Parliament, it is clear that our vote on 13 October has been taken as an encouragement for the French Parliament to hold similar votes. That is a mark of the good work of this House, and particularly of my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), in raising the issue of the recognition of Palestine.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris). He is a skilful and persistent campaigner, as his success in securing the debate and the way he made his contribution demonstrate.
The continuing trauma, insecurity and devastation caused by the lack of a negotiated solution to the middle east crisis continues to be obvious and to provoke considerable concern in all our communities. More than 2,000 people were killed in the conflict in Gaza this summer, many of them civilians, including almost 500 children. The terrible loss of life has been followed by recent acts of terror in Jerusalem, including the horrendous attack on a synagogue during which one of our own citizens was killed. Whether one is a Palestinian living in Gaza made homeless by the recent conflict, or an Israeli citizen fearful of yet more rocket attacks, the absence of a sustained and indeed successful middle east peace process continues to benefit only those who are opposed to peace.
If we are to see an end to the bloodshed, to increase the economic and social opportunities for the people of both Palestine and Israel, and to ensure that the human and political rights of Israelis and Palestinians are respected, a two-state solution, still strongly supported by a majority of both peoples, remains the only result that can reconcile the interests of both. Many think that talks will never produce such a result, but I do not share that view. We have come close before to a comprehensive political solution, and other negotiations have produced progress. Without doubt, there are huge obstacles to navigate around and difficult issues to resolve, but we must remain determined to continue to work for a return to the negotiating table.
One thing that will be fundamental and that will seem to some a distant hope at the moment is the need to build relationships across the divide, and in so doing to build a little more of the trust—or, if not trust, the good will and tolerance—necessary to create the political space for negotiators to address the most difficult questions. In that regard, I commend the mutual support that the Israeli trade unions, Histadrut, and the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions offer each other, as well as the strong support given by British trade unions to that dialogue.
As we have seen, the political vacuum created since the breakdown of peace talks in April has been filled by escalating tension and violence, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander),the shadow Foreign Secretary, warned at the time it would. The shocking murder of three young Israelis by Hamas and an equally outrageous subsequent killing of a 16-year-old Palestinian boy in East Jerusalem in June were the triggers for the violence and appalling loss of life in Gaza this summer.
Since the end of the conflict, tensions have been slowly rising again, with the expansion of illegal settlements in East Jerusalem in particular—I will return to that question—recent attacks on Israeli citizens and concerns about access to the al-Aqsa mosque compound at Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount. In the light of the history of that site and its significance, it is important for access arrangements to be maintained as they have been since 1967. I welcome pronouncements by Israeli leaders that there is no plan to change restrictions on Jewish prayer at Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount, but it is important that the Israeli authorities ensure that such assertions are matched by the reality on the ground. Leaders need to be clear that attempts by some to create further tensions on this issue will not be successful.
We all must also be clear in our condemnation of the recent violence in Jerusalem, including the particularly shocking attack on worshippers in a synagogue two weeks ago. Claims that the attacks can be justified are simply wrong. All those concerned have a responsibility to seek to reduce the tensions in Jerusalem and the west bank, not to inflame them. This country is both a long-term ally and friend of Israel and a long-term friend and supporter of the Palestinians, so it is vital for both sides that we encourage the reopening of negotiations to end the cycle of violence.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) in particular said—my hon. Friend the Member for Easington also alluded to it—there is now an urgent need to accelerate the reconstruction effort in Gaza. With the region’s weather beginning to turn, there is considerable concern that the humanitarian plight of those in Gaza might be about to take an even worse turn. There is not enough cement or other building materials to allow the reconstruction of the estimated 100,000 homes that were destroyed in the conflict, never mind the other major pieces of infrastructure that have to be rebuilt, such as roads and sewage treatment works. Israel is concerned that without sufficient oversight of goods moving into Gaza, building materials could be used to rebuild tunnels into Israel or in other ways by Hamas.
I understand that the UN special co-ordinator for the middle east process, Robert Serry, has confirmed a further understanding of the trilateral agreement between Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the UN permitting some 25,000 owners in Gaza to access building materials for the repair or rebuilding of their homes, albeit with, for example, UN-organised spot checks to monitor how the materials are being used. The news is welcome, but in the context of more than 100,000 homes damaged or destroyed during the summer’s conflict and more than 600,000 people affected, there are a number of obvious questions about whether the reconstruction effort is likely to meet the scale of the challenge faced by ordinary people in Gaza. Many still lack access to a consistent water supply, and blackouts are common for up to 18 hours a day.
It would be helpful to hear the Minister’s response to the following questions. How confident is he that the agreement for 25,000 home owners to have access to building materials for home repairs will hold? Given the huge number of other homes that fall outside the scope of the agreement, what progress does he expect on agreement of a timetable for the many other homes that will need rebuilding or repair? Will he outline progress on removing unexploded ordnance in Gaza? How confident is he that access to basic services such as water, electricity, sewerage, schools and health care will be restored soon? Crucially, given the approach of winter, how confident is he that shelter will be made available for all those made homeless?
The UN is committed to assisting the Palestinians in their reconstruction efforts, and I welcome the UK’s contribution of £20 million, pledged at the Gaza reconstruction conference in Cairo in October, but the UN’s existing resources for the effort are woefully short, so perhaps the Minister will update the House on the level of money committed in Cairo and the extent to which the money pledged has actually arrived in the UN’s coffers. The concern clearly exists that it could take years to rebuild Gaza if the agreement on house repairs does not hold, is not accelerated, or is not delivered also for the other houses that need repair. If we are to avoid Gaza becoming what the Minister himself recently described as an “incubator for extremism”, it is in everyone’s interests, including Israel’s, to accelerate the reconstruction effort, and in so doing to create jobs, employment and, above all else, a little hope.
Returning briefly to the immediate prospects for peace talks, in the light of reports today of possible early elections in Israel, I recognise that an immediate resumption of talks is unlikely. Does either the Minister or the Foreign Secretary believe that the Kerry process made progress? What prospect does he see of further progress in the short to medium term?
If we are to move forward on this issue, the role of Arab nations, and especially Egypt, will be key. Among other questions, the recent Egypt-mediated talks were due to cover the possibility of construction of an airport in Gaza, after the closure in 2000, and the opening of a seaport.
Sir Gerald Kaufman
There was in fact an airport in Gaza—Yasser Arafat invited me to see it when it was opened—but tragically, for reasons my hon. Friend is describing so eloquently, it was never used.
Mr Thomas
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. What prospects does the Minister see for construction of an airport taking place? The Cairo conference also saw the EU agree to analyse the feasibility of a maritime link between Gaza and Europe; it would be useful to hear what progress has been made on that. Has either the Minister or the Foreign Secretary had discussions with the EU High Representative on this issue since she took office one month ago? Will he explain a little further the role he sees the EU playing in facilitating any dialogue that could lead to further peace talks?
As there is little sign of talks restarting, we need to look at other ways in which the international community can help to strengthen the moderate voices in both Israel and Palestine, alongside efforts to resume negotiations. The recent announcements of the annexation of yet more land and of further settlement building in the west bank harm the prospects for peace. We are clear that the settlements are illegal and will make it more difficult to achieve progress in negotiations.
In October, Labour supported the motion to recognise Palestinian statehood as a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution. The motion reflected our long-standing support for the principle of Palestinian statehood. As the previous Foreign Secretary said, it is a matter for any Government to recognise another state at a point of their choosing. My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary made it clear that Labour supported recognition of Palestine at the UN back in 2011.
If we are to see a two-state solution, an early return to serious and substantial negotiations is essential. We have been close to that scenario before, and we need to encourage afresh the dialogue that builds trust, creates the conditions for talks and ultimately gives leaders the political space to take the brave steps necessary for the lasting peace we all want to see. The fact that we seem a long way from that possibility at the moment does not mean that we should give up—only those committed to violence would benefit from that. There are simply too many who have died—Palestinians and Israelis—and too many who have lost loved ones to give up on the possibility of peace.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
This has been a fascinating and important debate. I am sorry that it did not take place in the main Chamber and that there has not been more time to debate the issues. I will not be able to cover all the points that have been raised.
I join the shadow spokesman in offering my condolences to the family of Rabbi Goldberg, who was sadly killed in the terrorist attack in the synagogue on 18 November.
I begin, as others have, by congratulating the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing the debate. I also congratulate the 100,000-plus of our constituents who have called for the House to debate this issue. As expected, the debate has been vibrant and intelligent—I hope that the next debate we have on this issue takes place in the main Chamber.
The weekend just gone marked 67 years since the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 181, which recommended the creation of two separate states of Israel and Palestine, with a special international regime for the city of Jerusalem. As hon. Members have mentioned, it is also 21 years since the Oslo accords. No wonder that Parliaments and citizens around the world are calling for debates, for leadership and for the implementation of the plans devised and agreed decades ago. Recognising Palestine is something that this Government—indeed all Governments—want to do. The key question, strategically rather than symbolically, is when we will be best placed to do so in order to help to secure a lasting solution.
I am going to try something I have not tried before as a Minister: I am going to answer the questions first, and if I run out of time, so be it; my speech will then have to wait, or else I will write to the hon. Member for Easington—although he would probably have said that he had heard my speech before, as it would not have differed from a previous one I have given. I will begin with the key points he mentioned. First, he talked about child detainees. Britain is very concerned about that issue. We have raised the matter with the Israelis and are asking them to continue a pilot scheme allowing individuals to be summoned rather than arrests being made at night. We are also lobbying for an end to solitary confinement. We are very much concerned about the issue.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned trading with illegal settlements. He will be aware of voluntary guidelines—it was his Government who introduced them—to enable customers to identify whether goods come from the occupied territories, so that they themselves can make a decision.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I recently met a group of Quakers from my constituency who have been working in the occupied territories. They specifically asked about the Government’s stance towards trading with illegal settlements in the occupied territories. Will the Minister give as much detail as he can as to the Government’s view on that issue?
Mr Ellwood
Given that I now have only 13 minutes left, I will write to my hon. Friend with more detail. However, I will say that the scheme I mentioned is working well and that supermarkets and others have adopted it so that customers themselves can have a better understanding of where produce comes from. I am pleased that has happened. The Government do not believe that boycotts would be helpful.
The hon. Member for Easington also mentioned export licences. He is aware that a judicial review is being undertaken on them, so I am afraid that I can say little more at this time.
My hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) spoke about the role of Hamas and its using its people as cover when firing missiles. At the peak of that firing, some 140 missiles were fired from Gaza into Israel. They were prevented from striking and causing deaths only because of the Iron Dome system, which I had the opportunity to visit when I was in the country two months ago.
The hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) stated that Gaza is occupied. It is not occupied in the sense that the west bank is. Gaza has its own pressures because of the restrictions placed on it, but we want to see the Palestinian Authority move into that space of governance, so it can push out the legitimacy and the authority that Hamas claims to have.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) spoke passionately about these issues. He gave an interesting speech at the Royal United Services Institute on this matter and has talked about being able to be a friend of Israel while also being able to be critical. He said that criticising Israel for its conduct neither questioned its right to exist nor was anti-Semitic and that, similarly, standing up for justice for Palestinians is not in any way anti-Semitic. I make it very clear that we need to be able to have frank discussions and debates with our friends without being seen to be polarised, and I am pleased to say that we have done that today.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) spoke about conditions in Gaza, as did the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas). I saw them for myself when I visited Shejaiya, where the situation is now compounded by the flooding that has taken place. I absolutely agree with the shadow Minister that more trade is required. Let us not just have the Erez crossing open; let us have Kerem Shalom and the Rafah crossings opened up. Indeed, on the maritime issue, I told Baroness Ashton and her successor, Federica Mogherini, what the EU could do—it could create a trade corridor from the maritime port to Cyprus where things could be checked to make sure they would not be used for tunnel systems and so on. That would allow trade to develop and goods to come out of Gaza, and it would allow the reconstruction requirements, which are absolutely necessary to support the 1.6 million people there, to come into the country.
Jeremy Corbyn
The Minister is being generous in giving way. Will he undertake to contact the Egyptian Government and to raise seriously the question of the Rafah crossing and the clearing of all populations along the border between Egypt and Gaza so that we can reopen that whole area?
Mr Ellwood
That is something I discussed with Foreign Minister Shukri very recently. Egypt is concerned about the black market that was used in the tunnel systems, which was why it created the buffer zone. The Rafah crossing is a pedestrian crossing and is not designed for vehicles. The key for me is to be able to get Hamas and Palestinian Authority officials to the talks that are taking place in Cairo. That is critical, and that is why the crossing needs to be open. The hon. Gentleman’s point is well made.
The shadow Minister also talked about electricity and water, which are vital. I go on record as saying that this very densely populated space will become unliveable, and when it does it will increase the problems, and extremism could start to incubate there. A simple solution, which has been done before, would be to splice into the Israeli electricity systems and waterworks to alleviate the pressures on infrastructure that we are seeing at the moment.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) spoke about managing the issue rather than solving it. I agree with that. It is not right simply to say a ceasefire is enough. We should do more. We should press for a long-term solution.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff) spoke about the domestic challenges in Israeli politics. We talk about some of the stresses and strains in the coalition Government here, but those who have visited Israel will be aware that it has a vibrant coalition, and a Government and Opposition structure.
During the Prime Minister’s visit in March, a lot was going on in Parliament, which was very noisy and rowdy. He said that he had learned the word “balagan”, which means chaos in Hebrew, because of what was happening there. That reflects the domestic dynamics that are part of the challenges facing us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) spoke of Hamas’s role and its relationship to the Palestinian Authority. We must support the Palestinian Authority in taking full responsibility for Gaza. During my visit to Gaza a couple of months ago, its first Cabinet meeting was about to take place. That needs to continue, but unfortunately there are restrictions on movements, and I urge Israel to ensure that the goodness and influence that the Palestinian Authority can have in taking over responsibility from Hamas is allowed to happen. For that, it needs to get itself physically into the Gaza space.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann) talked about previous initiatives such as the Camp David summit. Let us have some now. It is for the current generation and today’s leaders to find long-term solutions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) spoke about the importance of trade, and again I agree. The Oslo accords referred to a trade corridor between Gaza and the west bank. There is a train line there that could easily be expanded—I brought that point up with the Israelis when I was there—and indeed a road corridor. That would allow trade, which is what the people want. It would allow the economy to start to flourish and provide a vision of prosperity that people could buy into. I pose the hypothetical situation of what happens if we do not allow the economy to thrive and do not sort out the infrastructure. Hamas could easily be replaced by something worse, such as ISIL. Where would that leave the landscape in the area? Those are the challenges that we need to be aware of.
The hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) spoke about Hamas’s tactics and what happened during the conflict. It was using hospitals and UN buildings to fire from, and using its own people as cannon fodder to stand in front of fire. That is simply unacceptable. We must support the Palestinian Authority to become the legitimate authority in Gaza. The hon. Gentleman also asked some questions about Department for International Development projects. That is obviously another Department, but I will write to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) spoke about debates in other Parliaments. I understand that one is taking place in France tomorrow, and there have been debates in Australia and other places.
The world is watching. It is deeply concerned about what is happening and worried that the opportunity for peace, which has been diminishing over the years, may be missed yet again as John Kerry starts the process of getting people back to the table. We should not forget how close we came last April due to his work and that of the others involved—I made that point in our last debate. We must pick up that process as soon as possible.
President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu continue to say that they are committed to a two-state solution, but they must both show bold and decisive leadership and avoid steps that make peace more difficult. That includes in the occupied territories. I visited E1 and saw how it would divide up the north of Jerusalem and the Bethlehem conurbation. It would cause massive problems in governance once a two-state solution was agreed.
The hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) spoke about introducing sanctions. I do not believe that should be done when we are trying to get people back to the table. It would be a retrograde step bearing in mind where we are right now.
The hon. Members for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) spoke about the illegal settlements. I was saddened to go to a Bedouin camp where people have been told to move from one occupied area to another. They are goat herders, and they need space. They are being moved to a location that is clearly unacceptable for the lifestyle they lead. We ask Israel to recognise that that is unhelpful. When such decisions are made, it makes it more difficult for Israel’s friends to defend it against accusations that it is not serious about peace.
The hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan), for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) talked about the overall issue of recognising Palestine. Is it a tactical decision, a symbolic decision or a strategic decision? How does it fit into the plans that we are working on with the EU, the United States and the UN, and the resolutions that exist? We want to use recognition to assist the strategic process. As parties return to the table, now is not the right time to make that decision, because it would have consequences.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) spoke about the tensions surrounding Temple Mount and Haram al-Sharif. It is vital that the long-standing status quo is observed and that we value Jordan’s role as the custodian of those holy sites in Jerusalem.
I think I have managed to cover everyone’s points, but perhaps they will forgive me if I have not. I would be delighted to speak or write to Members afterwards if I have missed anything out.
To conclude, we certainly recognise the strong statement made by the vote in the House last month and by today’s debate. We agree that Palestinian people deserve a sovereign, independent, democratic, contiguous and viable Palestinian state living in peace and security side by side with Israel. However, I am afraid we continue to reserve the right to recognise Palestine when that is most likely to lead to a two-state solution, delivering peace for Israelis and Palestine.
Britain is committed to seeing an end to the occupation and the creation of an independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as a shared capital. However, urgent progress is needed—that has been reflected in this important debate—towards a two-state solution that delivers an end to the occupation. We will continue to engage with key partners to consider how best to support the parties in resuming serious dialogue.
I fully recognise the strength of feeling about the dispute among many people in Britain, and I am glad this debate has given me the opportunity not only to set out the Government’s position, but to listen to the concerns of constituents and hon. Members. Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Easington for raising the issue, and I thank other hon. Members for their contributions.
Grahame M. Morris
I thank you, Mrs Brooke, for chairing the debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for it. I also thank the Minister and the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), for responding to the various points that hon. Members have made. The fact that more than 40 hon. Members have made a speech or intervened indicates the strength of feeling on this issue.
Many issues have been raised, including economic sanctions, the expansion of illegal settlements, and arms embargos and restrictions. The key point was about respect for international law. We also heard about the Jewish state Bill, and Members’ concerns about a drift towards apartheid and the similarities with South Africa.
Grahame M. Morris
I am afraid I really cannot.
We also heard about the restrictions at the al-Aqsa mosque. Those are all important points, and I am grateful that the Minister has responded today or will respond in correspondence.
On the significance of the date, the Minister mentioned what happened 67 years ago. Because of that, 29 November is the UN international day of solidarity with the Palestinian people. It is quite instructive that Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General, said this year:
“On this…Day of Solidarity, I call on the parties to step back from the brink.”
He also said:
“Long-term stability depends on addressing the underlying causes of the conflict. That means lifting the closure on Gaza, ending the half century occupation of Palestinian land and addressing Israel’s legitimate security concerns.”
To conclude, I must say that Israel has obligations as the occupying power. I appeal to the British Government and the international community to provide a counsel of hope, not of despair. As the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) said, if we are to take this issue forward, we need courage and generosity of spirit, and those were typified in the debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman),by the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) and, very powerfully, by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who made an excellent contribution about the benefits of outside help in resolving conflicts.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the e-petition relating to ending the conflict in Palestine.
Written Statements
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
EU Competititveness Council
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Business and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)
My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Minister for Intellectual Property (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) has today made the following statement:
The European Competitiveness Council will take place on Thursday 4 December and Friday 5 December. Baroness Neville-Rolfe will represent the UK on day one (industry and internal market). UK representation for the second day of the Council is to be confirmed.
The internal market and industry substantive agenda items are: proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on package travel and assisted travel arrangements, proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on cableway installations and proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on personal protective equipment.
The objective of the travel package proposal is to update consumer protection legislation as it applies to holiday arrangements. This is to reflect the impact of technological developments facilitated by the internet, and the emergence of low cost airlines, since 1990.
The cableway proposal seeks to address some of the difficulties that have been experienced by some member states in implementing the existing Cableways Directive. It provides clarification on the scope of the cableway installations designed for transport and leisure purposes.
The personal protective proposal is to replace the existing Personal Protective Equipment Directive, which regulates the placing of personal protective equipment (PPE) on the EU market, by laying down the health and safety requirements to which it must conform.
There will be five non-legislative agenda items discussed at the Council: a presentation on industrial competitiveness - an agenda for jobs and growth, a policy debate on enhancing the single market in all its dimensions, draft council conclusions on smart regulation, draft council conclusions on strengthening tourism by leveraging Europe’s cultural, natural and maritime heritage and draft council conclusions on customs risk management.
There will be a number of non-legislative agenda items discussed on the second day of the council: a policy debate on science with and for society draft council conclusions on Partnership for Research and Innovation in the Mediterranean Area (PRIMA), a European Research Area (ERA) Progress Report 2014; and Research and Innovation as sources of renewed growth.
In addition, on the space element of the Council there will be an exchange of views on the competitiveness of the European space sector as a key driver for the European economy. We will take this opportunity to set out UK views and council conclusions on underpinning the European space renaissance: orientations and future challenges.
Transport Infrastructure
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
I am pleased to announce to the House the details of the first road investment strategy, an ambitious £15 billion plan to increase the capacity and condition of roads for motorists across England.
The Government are investing in over 100 new road schemes over this Parliament and next, 84 of which are brand new today.
This major reform will add over 1,300 extra lane miles on motorways and trunk roads and fix some of the most notorious and longstanding problem areas on the strategic road network. These plans are published today in the first ever road investment strategy, which has been developed to keep the population connected and the economy growing.
Copies of the road investment strategy documents have been made available in the Libraries of both Houses and can be found on the Department’s website at: www.gov.uk/dft
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, it is now 3.30 pm and, as is my wont at this time of the day, I advise the Grand Committee that, if there is a Division in the House, which I am told is unlikely, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Act 2014 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2014
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That the Grand Committee do consider the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Act 2014 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2014.
Relevant document: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)
My Lords, in moving that the draft order laid before the House on 13 October 2014 be considered, I intend to provide the Committee with a brief summary of what the order seeks to achieve. The order is made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows for necessary or expedient changes to UK legislation in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. The order is made in consequence of the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Act 2014, which for convenience I shall refer to as the 2014 Act.
The 2014 Act establishes Revenue Scotland as the tax authority with responsibility for devolved taxes and puts in place a framework that provides for a range of administrative functions that will apply to devolved taxes. That framework includes: the powers and duties of Revenue Scotland; the rights and obligations of Scottish taxpayers; how tax disputes will be handled; details of time limits, penalties and sanctions; the treatment of taxpayer information; and, provisions relating to tax avoidance. The 2014 Act also makes provision for Revenue Scotland to delegate some or all of its powers to Registers of Scotland in relation to land and buildings transaction tax, and to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency in relation to the Scottish landfill tax.
The order will give the 2014 Act full effect. It will establish Revenue Scotland as a part of the Scottish Administration in order that it will be accountable to the Scottish Parliament but independent of the Scottish Government. In order to tackle tax avoidance successfully, the order will make provision in relation to information sharing between Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and Revenue Scotland. Of course, any information that Revenue Scotland receives from HMRC will be treated as confidential protected taxpayer information, as provided for by Section 15 of the 2014 Act.
The order will also add Revenue Scotland and Registers of Scotland as prescribed persons to the schedule to the Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) Order 2014 whilst adding “Scottish landfill tax” to the specified matters in respect of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to ensure the same protection for whistleblowers who assist those bodies, under the Employment Rights Act 1996, as that afforded to whistleblowers who contact HMRC.
Additionally, this order will insert a reference to Revenue Scotland into the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 to disqualify members of Revenue Scotland from being Members of the House of Commons.
Yet again a Section 104 order demonstrates this Government’s continued commitment to working with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work. I commend the order to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his explanation and I thank his staff for making sure that I was briefed. I was indeed fully briefed, given the number of items that came my way, but they were all welcome—that is part of transparency.
I have nothing really to add to the clear explanation that the Minister has given other than to comment that this order demonstrates yet again how the 1998 devolution Act is working at a steady pace and with a common-sense approach, with things being devolved or retained as it makes sense to do so. The order also indicates a level of co-operation from the Scottish Parliament that its Members would perhaps do well to publicise more—there is not the friction or arguments every day of the week as might be suggested by some of the SNP people there. There is sensible co-operation, as the Minister has outlined, and this order has our full support.
Scotland Act 1998 (Functions Exercisable in or as Regards Scotland) Order 2015
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That the Grand Committee do consider the Scotland Act 1998 (Functions Exercisable in or as Regards Scotland) Order 2015.
Relevant document: 10th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)
My Lords, I will set out the situation in relation to the common agricultural policy— for convenience, I shall refer to it as “the CAP”—which this order seeks to address. Under the European legislation that governs the CAP, a “farmer” is defined by reference to a “holding” across the United Kingdom. However, farming businesses often do not fall neatly within Administration boundaries and, therefore, there are a number of businesses with land in more than one Administration within the United Kingdom. This means that the European regulatory reference to a “farmer” is not sufficient to identify those Scottish farmers over whom the Scottish Ministers should have administrative competence. This order will define a “Scottish farmer” as having land wholly or partly in Scotland. Collectively, those businesses with land in more than one Administration are known as “cross-border farmers”.
The system of agricultural support under the CAP was last reformed in 2003-04 to provide income support for farmers. Those arrangements were set out in Council Regulations (EC) 637/2008 and 73/2009. As part of those arrangements, the administrative responsibility for cross-border farmers needed to be resolved. Accordingly, two Scotland Act orders, the Scotland Act 1998 (Functions Exercisable in or as Regards Scotland) Order 2004, a Section 30 order, and the Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Functions) Order 2004, a Section 106 order—I shall refer to them as the 2004 orders—facilitated the transfer of powers to Scottish Ministers so that they could administer subsidy claims for Scottish farmers. These orders also tied in with the UK statutory instrument, the Common Agricultural Policy Single Payment and Support Schemes (Integrated Administration and Control System) Regulations 2009—I shall refer to them as the IACS regulations—since the EU rules require claims for subsidy to be administered by a single competent authority.
However, the current CAP arrangements come to an end on 31 December this year. The latest reforms for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the CAP are set out in Council Regulation (EC) 1307/2013, which includes repealing Council Regulations (EC) 637/2008 and 73/2009 with effect from 1 January 2015. Therefore, two new orders, in similar terms to the current 2004 orders, are required so that the Scottish Ministers can continue to administer claims as the competent authority under the IACS regulations in respect of cross-border farmers.
This order, to be made under Section 30(3) of the Scotland Act 1998, was laid before the House on the same day as its companion instrument, the Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Functions) Order 2014, to be made under Section 106 of the Scotland Act 1998. The Section 106 order is subject to annulment and so is not being considered with this Section 30(3) order. However, to fully understand what Section 30(3) achieves, it is important that Parliament is aware of the Section 106 order and how the orders work together.
This Section 30(3) order will ensure that certain functions should be treated as functions that are exercisable in or as regards Scotland, making it clear that the Scottish Parliament has competence to deal with cross-border farmers. Then the Section 106 order will provide that those functions relating to cross-border farmers may be exercised separately by Scottish Ministers. Ultimately, the two orders will combine, in a similar way to the 2004 orders, to allow the CAP scheme management arrangements to continue when the new arrangements take effect from 1 January 2015. Thus, the Scottish Ministers will be able to continue to administer claims as the competent authority under the IACS regulations in respect of cross-border farmers.
As the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, pointed out when he responded to the previous order, this demonstrates the Government’s continued commitment to working with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work and is a necessary solution to ensure that the Scottish Parliament has the competence to deal with cross-border farmers. It is interesting that the previous order was under Section 104 of the Scotland Act and the one that we are dealing with now is under Section 30(3) and Section 106 of the Scotland Act. The next order relates to Section 111 of the Scotland Act. There is a whole series of instruments that are designed to ensure that the devolution settlement works properly. It is a tribute to officials not only in my department and the Scotland Office but probably in this case in Defra and the Scottish Administration, because I am aware of the close co-operation that there has been to bring these orders forward. The Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee considered this order on 26 November and the other place will consider it on 17 December. I commend the order to the Committee and beg to move.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for a clear exposition of how this order will impact on the existing powers of the Scottish Parliament and use the good mechanisms of our constitutional arrangements to further strengthen the powers of the Scottish Parliament. Noble Lords will appreciate that, when I was a Member of that Parliament for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, I represented a number of cross-border farmers as a Borders MSP. There were always ongoing issues with regards to cross-border status.
My query is specific to the context of the radical proposal for land reform that has been outlined in general terms by the Scottish Government, but not in specifics yet. Is the order limited specifically to CAP processing or will it in any circumstances relate to the law of succession of title of cross-border properties? Is this all now within the scope of Scottish Ministers? One has not been able to read in any great detail about the land reform proposals with regard to laws of succession on title for farming properties and land. I wonder whether this will now be wholly for the Scottish Parliament to legislate on, or will that continue to be an area where there are legal aspects for those farming families or the land, both north and south of the border, that remain within the competences of the two Parliaments?
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, once again, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his clear exposition of what is in front of us. If farmers were facing confusion, doubt or difficulties in any transactions, it is only right that that should be addressed. There are some questions as to why this took so long if those questions had always been raised; nevertheless, this is a good move because it is only right that any extra anxiety, worries or time-consuming matters are removed from farmers and small businesses. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, made an interesting point. I thought that he would keep his fire for the third item of business. I thought of raising the matter myself, but it goes beyond the scope of this order. Seeing that someone has raised that issue, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give an answer.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed for the point that he raises, but he will note that the order indicates that the specified functions under EU law relate to European Union implementation of the common agricultural policy. Therefore, the purpose of this order is to allow payments under the common agricultural policy and the IACS system to be made by one Administration within the United Kingdom rather than having a plethora of different applications. The order bears no relevance to issues related to succession and land on either side of the border—or for that matter in such situations in Wales or Northern Ireland. When it comes to matters of succession, the law would apply in the particular jurisdiction in which the land lies. I am not saying that there would not be a lot of political issues around that, but the purpose of this order relates to the making of IACS payments. I commend the order to the Committee.
Scotland Act 1998 (River Tweed) Amendment Order 2015
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That the Grand Committee do consider the Scotland Act 1998 (River Tweed) Amendment Order 2015.
Relevant document: 10th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)
My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 20 October 2014 now be considered. I hope that it will be useful to the Committee if I provide some background information on the fisheries management arrangements that prevail in respect of the River Tweed, as well as a brief summary of what this order primarily seeks to achieve.
Freshwater fisheries management and conservation in Scotland is largely regulated by the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2003, which I shall refer to as the 2003 Act. In September last year, an amendment to the 2003 Act came into force providing a new enabling power that allows the Scottish Ministers to create a regime for the tagging of salmon caught in Scotland. The new Section 21A of the 2003 Act provides the power to require salmon that are caught, and retained, to be tagged. The purpose behind the regime is to enhance existing conservation measures for wild salmon and to ensure that fish that are caught in Scotland and find their way to market are traceable.
Although fisheries management is generally devolved to the Scottish Parliament, separate arrangements prevail in respect of the Borders rivers, as these flow through both Scotland and England. Section 111 of the Scotland Act 1998 provides:
“Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for or in connection with the conservation, management and exploitation of salmon, trout, eels, lampreys, smelt, shad and freshwater fish in the Border rivers”.
For the purposes of Section 111, the Borders rivers mean the Rivers Tweed and Esk.
An order made under Section 111 in respect of the Tweed—the Scotland Act 1998 (River Tweed) Order 2006, which I shall refer to as the 2006 order—is currently in force and broadly replicates much of the 2003 Act. However, existing provisions in the 2006 order do not provide the necessary powers to create a tagging regime. Accordingly, this order amends the 2006 order to introduce a new enabling power to allow provision to be made for the tagging of salmon, which replicates the regulation-making power in Section 21A of the 2003 Act for Scotland.
As a regime for tagging salmon already exists in the Lower Esk in Scotland, by virtue of by-laws made by the Environment Agency, introducing a parallel regime for the River Tweed ensures that similar regulations are in place for all of Scotland’s rivers and will ensure that, when a salmon-tagging scheme is introduced in Scotland as a whole, that scheme can be replicated for the Tweed. The tagging regime that exists in the Lower Esk also exists in England. Therefore, the introduction of a parallel regime for the River Tweed ensures no gap in regulations. Again, this is a practical demonstration of the devolution settlement working and I again place on record thanks to officials in the respective Administrations for their co-operation in bringing this order forward. The Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee considered this order on 19 November and the House of Commons will consider it on 10 December. I commend the order to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am sure that it is not a duty, if one has the title of “Tweed”, to speak in everything related to Tweed. Indeed, I am not entirely sure whether I should declare an interest, given the title that I have adopted. I shall not delay the Committee much further. In these matters, one tends to defer to the wise men and women of the River Tweed Commission. After communications with the commission and acknowledgement that this is an enabling power for Scottish Ministers to bring forward details of how it will operate, as part of the ability to promote and recognise the produce from the finest river in the United Kingdom, I see no reason why the Committee should object to this—although other noble Lords with greater affinities for lesser rivers may perhaps have an issue.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
The local Liberals in the west of Scotland will be interested in the denigration of the great River Clyde, which provides employment for tens of thousands of people. I would not be so vindictive as to publicise it—or not much. Again, this is a common-sense measure. There is broad agreement on it and I do not think that anyone disputes that. I am sorry to have to say again—the Minister has already said it and I have said it—that it demonstrates that devolution works with common sense and that action can be taken quietly without any razzmatazz or publicity. The people of Scotland are well served by the 1998 Act and all its ramifications, which allow for measures such as this to take place in a businesslike manner. The order has our full support.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, for expressing that support. I just say to my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed, who would probably have participated when the 2006 order was going through the Scottish Parliament, that perhaps he should be thankful that our noble friend Lord Stephen, of Lower Deeside, is not here, as he may have had something to say about the quality of salmon in our Scottish rivers. I commend the order to the Committee.
Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014 and Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2014
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That the Grand Committee do consider the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014 and Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2014.
Relevant document: 10th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)
My Lords, in moving that the draft order laid before the House on 27 October 2014 now be considered, if it pleases your Lordships I will briefly put this Section 104 order in context before setting out what it does. The order is made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998—indeed, in that respect it is similar to the first order that we debated in Committee this afternoon—which allows for necessary or expedient changes to legislation in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. The order is made in consequence of the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014, which I shall refer to as the 2014 Act.
The order is additionally made under Section 259(1) of the Civil Partnership Act 2004. Section 259 of that Act provides for subordinate legislation to be made in the United Kingdom Parliament containing provisions in connection with civil partnerships. The order cites this power because it adds some consequential references in legislation to civil partnerships that were missed when the Civil Partnership Act was being implemented. Picking up those missed consequential references is clearly not done as a consequence of the introduction of the 2014 Act in Scotland. That is why the separate provision—namely, Section 259(1) of the Civil Partnership Act 2004—is cited.
The 2014 Act introduces same-sex marriage and religious and belief registration of civil partnerships in Scotland. It also allows transgender people who married in Scotland to stay married and obtain a full gender recognition certificate, and it makes other changes to marriage and civil partnership law in Scotland. The order updates existing United Kingdom legislation to give the 2014 Act full effect and ensures similar treatment for Scottish same-sex couples and transgender people across Great Britain. Finally, it also allows for same-sex marriages solemnised in Scotland to be recognised as civil partnerships in Northern Ireland.
The 2014 Act is broadly equivalent to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, which introduced marriage of same-sex couples in England and Wales. That Act, which I shall refer to as the 2013 Act, is being implemented in phases. The first phase consisted of a number of instruments which came into force on 13 March 2014. The final phase of implementation consists of further affirmative and negative instruments primarily concerned with conversion of civil partnerships into marriage and enabling transgender people to remain married if they and their spouse wish. These will come into force on 10 December.
This Section 104 order makes very similar consequential provision for Scotland in relation to reserved matters, such as pensions, similar to that contained in both the first and second phases of implementation of the England and Wales legislation. This is because the 2013 and 2014 Acts enact similar propositions and give rise to similar consequential provision. The order makes consequential provision for same-sex marriages generally in relation to transgender people and provides for the changing of civil partnerships into marriages overseas.
The United Kingdom and Scottish Governments have worked very closely together on the implementation of the 2013 and 2014 Acts and the various subordinate legislation so that they work together as a package. For example, the orders which will implement the second phase of the 2013 Act also make certain consequential provisions for Scotland, including amendments to certain Armed Forces pension schemes, as well as the Royal Mail pension scheme and schemes relating to particular bodies carrying out functions in the area of transport.
Having set out the context and interaction with the implementation of the 2013 Act, I turn to the order itself and will say a bit more about its content. The order amends the Equality Act 2010 as it applies in Scotland to give protection to celebrants and others who do not wish to take part in same-sex marriage ceremonies and the registration of civil partnerships in a way that is appropriate for Scotland.
The order creates a statutory gloss which provides that references to “marriage” and related expressions in the reserved law of Scotland mean both opposite-sex and same-sex marriage, unless contrary provision is made. The order also disapplies that statutory gloss in certain circumstances and makes contrary provision to it.
The order makes provision for civil partnerships registered in Scotland to be changed into marriages overseas, either through UK diplomatic posts or through the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces. The order also makes provision so that same-sex marriages registered in Scotland are recognised as civil partnerships in Northern Ireland.
Moreover, with respect to provision relating to transgender people, the order establishes the alternative grounds for applications to the gender recognition panel by long-term transitioned people in a protected Scottish marriage or protected Scottish civil partnership who are resident in England or Wales. It makes provision so that the spouse or civil partner of a transgender person who is resident in England and Wales but who has obtained a gender recognition certificate under the 2014 Act can apply to the High Court in England and Wales or the High Court Northern Ireland to quash the decision to grant the application on the grounds that its grant was secured by fraud. It also ensures full recognition in England and Wales and Northern Ireland of transgender people who married or entered their civil partnership in Scotland and obtain a full gender recognition certificate under the 2014 Act.
The Scottish Government intend that their first conversions of civil partnerships into marriage will take place on 16 December; it is also intended that the first same-sex marriage ceremonies in Scotland will be able to take place on 31 December 2014. The order is part of the wider legislative programme to provide for the introduction of same-sex marriage in Scotland within this calendar year. In addition to the legislation taken forward in this Parliament, 11 instruments have been laid to date in the Scottish Parliament, and I understand that a possible 10 more are planned. As part of that programme, the order makes the changes to reserved law and the cross-border provision I described.
Yet again, and particularly in this case, the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments—Ministers and officials—have worked closely together to ensure that this complex programme of work has met its challenging timetable. The order demonstrates that the UK Government’s continued commitment to working with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work is bearing fruit. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the practical result of this continued collaboration is to be welcomed. The other place considered the order on 25 November. I commend the order to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his explanation. It is a very welcome measure, if I may say so, and I entirely endorse the point that the noble and learned Lord made about the degree of co-operation between those responsible for legislation north of the border and those responsible for legislation in the wider context of the United Kingdom. It struck me that the drafting, particularly of schedule 1, is of considerable interest—I think that part 1 has been very carefully crafted to make it clear that it deals with reserved matters only, in appropriate language, and does not encroach on matters that are the province of the Scottish Parliament. No doubt that is an example of the degree of co-operation between the two Administrations.
I also found it helpful to see the provisions in paragraph 3 of part 2 of schedule 1, which contains a set of definitions, particularly of the expressions “husband”, “wife”, “widower” and “widow” in the context of the measure. I think that the words as defined are now in quite common use, but it is helpful to see them set out in statutory form. I would be interested to know whether that has been done equally north of the border, but to see it in this measure, at least, is encouraging to those who wondered exactly how these expressions might properly be used.
For the main part, this is an excellent example of co-operation. I was going to ask whether the Scottish Government had been kept fully informed, but I take it from what the noble and learned Lord said that there is simply no question about it: they are well aware of this measure, and if further steps need to be taken by the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Government to match what has been done here, they will certainly be taken.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, I again express my gratitude to the Minister for his exposition and I do not think that the issue needs any further comments. As a firm supporter of civil partnerships at the time and now, I think that what is taking place is common sense. It is also worth mentioning that many fears and doubts were expressed at the time about religious freedom, but thanks to that common-sense co-operation this order will also protect those of a religious background who do not wish to take part in same-sex marriage and the registration of civil partnerships. I was in favour of that protection then and I am in favour of it now. The order should alleviate fears held among religious communities that there is a slippery road to enforcement, as this makes it clear that there is not. That is to the benefit of everyone who has an opinion on this, no matter whether it is for or against same-sex marriages. This order gives assurance of security and protection, and I welcome that. Again, this is sensible, and co-operation such as this gives devolution a good name. We support the measure.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I am very grateful for the support for this order expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy. As has been said, it is a product of a considerable amount of work.
On definitions, I can assure the noble and learned Lord that I am advised that Section 4 of the 2014 Act has a similar table of definitions.
I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, that, as I said in my opening remarks, one of the functions of this order is to amend the Equality Act 2010, as it applies to Scotland, to give protection to celebrants and others who do not wish to take part in same-sex marriage ceremonies. I recall that I had some responsibility for this area of the 2013 legislation when it went through your Lordships’ House, and the Scottish Parliament has been equally concerned to ensure that proper protection is given.
Again, to reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, I am sure that the Scottish Government still has to make some implementation orders, but equally the United Kingdom Government stand ready for any further measures. One would hope that the work has been done and that a pretty comprehensive approach has been taken, but obviously if, at some later date, things emerged that were not covered—indeed, part of this order deals with things that were not covered in the implementation of the civil partnership legislation—we would stand ready to undertake the necessary legislation to address that. On that basis, I commend the order to the Committee.
Compensation (Claims Management Services) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulks
That the Grand Committee do consider the Compensation (Claims Management Services) (Amendment) Regulations 2015.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, the Legal Ombudsman provides a route of redress for consumers where they have complaints about the service they receive from regulated legal service providers. There is no charge to consumers for bringing complaints with costs being met by the regulated businesses that fall within its jurisdiction.
Section 161 of the Legal Services Act 2007, once commenced, will extend the remit of the Legal Ombudsman to enable it also to deal with complaints about claims management companies regulated under the Compensation Act 2006. I know that noble Lords will welcome the Legal Ombudsman being able to deal with these complaints. The claims management sector has acquired a reputation for being somewhat unscrupulous as a result of a number of companies engaging in poor business practices. The Legal Ombudsman will provide a new avenue of redress for consumers of regulated claims management companies and will assist the Claims Management Regulator in driving out poor standards and practices in the market. The Legal Ombudsman has a greater range of redress powers, including the potential for awards of compensation which are not currently available.
The fees order enables the Lord Chancellor to impose fees on regulated claims management companies to recoup the costs of complaints handling by the Legal Ombudsman. It sets out the fees payable by regulated claims management companies for this purpose. These fees will be charged on a sliding scale based on the relevant turnover of the regulated claims management company. This will enable the Government to achieve full cost recovery without putting a disproportionate burden on small and medium-sized businesses. The Government will keep the fee structure under review and will consider making changes when more information is available on complaints volumes and the types of complaints that are being considered by the Legal Ombudsman. If this order is approved, we will commence Section 161. It is intended that the ombudsman will commence this new work on 28 January next year, subject to parliamentary agreement.
The amendments to the Compensation (Claims Management Services) Regulations 2006 make the current regulations compatible with the requirements of the Legal Services Act 2007. In order to enable the handling of complaints about claims management companies by the Legal Ombudsman certain changes must be made to the powers of the Claims Management Regulator. These include the removal of the regulator’s power to award redress, the removal of the power to review how a claims management company has dealt with a consumer’s complaint and amendment of the power to issue directions to a claims management company. The amendment regulations also allow for information sharing between the regulator and the Legal Ombudsman in specified circumstances, something that is particularly important in ensuring a robust regulatory regime.
In conclusion, it is right that the Legal Ombudsman’s costs relating to regulated claims management complaints are met by the claims sector in the same way as the costs relating to legal complaints are met by that sector. This fees order will achieve this. The amendment regulations make the relevant claims management regulations compatible with the Legal Services Act and in so doing allow for claims management complaints handling by the Legal Ombudsman. I commend the order.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these two orders, which, not surprisingly, we warmly welcome. They will allow complaints against CMOs to be taken to the Legal Ombudsman and will enable LeO to raise the necessary money to fund that. My only complaint, for which I gather I cannot get redress, is that it has taken rather a long time. It was actually August 2012 when this rather excellent policy decision was taken, and it was announced by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the MoJ, Jonathan Djanogly. However, as the Minister said, it will not actually come into effect until 2015.
However, the Minister might not know that I have long form on this one. The initial delay after the policy was stated was, of course, not his department’s fault, but the fault of the Treasury, which raised umpteen issues about raising a levy to enable the cost to be met for the work that LeO did. It was therefore in my name that we tabled an amendment to the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill in order to implement that. It was an effective intervention by his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, together with the noble Lord, Lord Newby that managed to finally unbundle all of this. That enabled the Government to produce the correct amendment, which appeared in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, and myself. That is why I am so happy that this is finally here today. It is a shame that it has taken so long: even that amendment was in December last year, so it has taken another 12 months for it come here. Given the role of the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Newby, in this, perhaps we should call it the McNally/Newby amendment. It will be important for complaints about those companies, so we wish it well and wish LeO all haste and good work in taking on these complaints.
Lord Faulks
I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s comments. As she says, she clearly has form in this area and has made a contribution to the development of the approach to this issue. In fact, the existing arrangements allow for certain remedies that could refund fees and order that the work be redone if feasible and direct that an apology be made. However, this gives a much greater power to the consumer and it seems to us—and I pay tribute, as she does, to the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Newby, in assisting in this—that it should be financed by those claims management companies and that the complaints are now properly directed to the Legal Ombudsman, who should be able to deal with them in the most effective way possible. I suggest that, while this new route is obviously a little bit late, it is nevertheless the right answer.
Legal Services Act 2007 (Claims Management Complaints) (Fees) Regulations 2014
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulks
That the Grand Committee do consider the Legal Services Act 2007 (Claims Management Complaints) (Fees) Regulations 2014.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1) (Advocacy Exceptions) Order 2014
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulks
That the Grand Committee do consider the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1) (Advocacy Exceptions) Order 2014.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, the order before the Committee today amends Schedule 1 to the LASPO Act 2012 to maintain the status quo regarding the provision of legal aid for proceedings involving gang injunctions in respect of under-18s and to reflect the expansion of advocacy in special educational needs matters. It also ensures that advocacy is available for new proceedings created by the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act which are in the scope of the civil legal aid scheme generally by virtue of consequential amendments made by that Act to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. This order does not alter means or merits and does not bring any new matters within the scope of legal aid.
Before setting out further details about this order and why the Government are taking this action, I will briefly explain some background. Anti-social behaviour orders on application and anti-social behaviour injunctions will be replaced with “Injunctions” under Part 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Legal aid for advocacy in respect of applications for anti-social behaviour orders under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is provided under the criminal legal aid scheme currently, but the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 brings all Part 1 injunctions within scope of the civil legal aid scheme. For under-18s, Part 1 injunctions, along with parenting orders made in respect of a youth subject to such an injunction, will be heard in a youth court and the route of appeal from the youth court is to the Crown Court.
Schedule 1 to LASPO sets out the matters on which civil legal aid is available. This is subject to the exclusions at Parts 2 and 3 of the schedule which detail the availability of advocacy. Because of the general exclusion of advocacy except for specified proceedings, it is necessary to add the relevant proceedings to the exceptions in Part 3 of Schedule 1, which will expand the scope of civil legal aid to include advocacy in these proceedings.
Section 18 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 will amend Part 4 of the Police and Crime Act in relation to gang-related injunctions which concern persons under the age of 18 being heard in the youth court and not in the county court, which is where they are heard currently. As I previously mentioned, the appeal route from the youth court will be to the Crown Court. In order to enable civil legal aid for advocacy in such proceedings to remain available, it is necessary to add them to the list of exceptions for advocacy in the magistrates’ and Crown Courts in Part 3 of Schedule 1 to LASPO to reflect the change in venue for these proceedings.
Part 1 injunctions under the Anti-social Behaviour, crime and Policing Act are intended to address the same kinds of behaviour which are currently dealt with by anti- social behaviour orders and anti-social behaviour injunctions for which legal aid, including advocacy, is currently available. It is therefore reasonable that legal aid for the new injunctions, including related parenting orders, should be made available. That intention is achieved in part by the consequential amendment made to Schedule 1 to LASPO by the Anti-social Behaviour, crime and Policing Act.
However, the amendment made by that Act was partially defective as it failed to take account of an amendment to paragraph 7 of Part 3 of Schedule 1 to LASPO, which had already been made by the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Family Court: Consequential Provision) Order 2014. It also did not include provision for advocacy in the Crown Court, which is necessary with regard to appeals. The order therefore provides for advocacy in both the magistrates’ court and the Crown Court in relation to injunctions under Part 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and related parenting orders.
The order also seeks to maintain the availability of civil legal aid for under-18s in respect of advocacy related to injunctions to prevent gang-related violence. This is necessary in order to reflect the change of venue for such injunctions made by the Crime and Courts Act from the county court to the youth court, which is, as the Committee will know, a specialist type of magistrates’ court.
I now turn to advocacy in special educational needs matters. Part 3 of the Children and Families Act 2014 came into force on 1 September. Paragraph 96 of Schedule 3 to that Act makes amendments to paragraph 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to LASPO in order to allow for the funding of civil legal aid services in special educational needs matters. However, as I have previously mentioned, Parts 2 and 3 of Schedule 1 allow for advocacy only in certain circumstances and the amendments made by the Children and Families Act do not allow for the availability of legal aid for advocacy in special educational needs proceedings in the Upper Tribunal.
The Government consider it appropriate that legal aid should be available for advocacy in the new special educational needs matters under the Children and Families Act before the Upper Tribunal. Advocacy is already available for similar proceedings arising under Part 4 of the Education Act 1996 and the Government therefore consider that it should be available for these proceedings. It follows that in order for advocacy for such matters to be in scope, an order under Section 9 of LASPO is required to amend Part 3 of Schedule 1.
With that background, I turn to the reason for the order before us today. The injunction under Part 1 will replace anti-social behaviour injunctions and anti-social behaviour orders. The new injunctions under Part 1 will combine the provisions of both previous orders. The order must be made to ensure that legal aid for advocacy is available for injunctions under Part 1 and related parenting orders.
Proceedings relating to gang injunctions have been moved from the County Court to the youth court due, as I said, to the consequential amendment made by Section 18 of the 2013 Act. Although it is yet to be commenced, in the interests of providing for advocacy in the youth court for such proceedings and in the Crown Court for related appeals, we must make appropriate provision in the order. In special educational needs matters, the Government consider it appropriate that legal aid should be available for advocacy in those proceedings.
In summary, in order to achieve the policy intention that I described, it is necessary to make an order specifying that advocacy for such proceedings is in scope of the civil legal aid scheme set out in LASPO. That is achieved by the order before the Committee today. I hope that noble Lords will welcome the order. It makes relatively minor but none the less important changes to the civil legal aid scheme which complement the wider changes made by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and the Children and Families Act 2014. I therefore commend this draft order to the Committee and I beg to move.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for moving and explaining the order. It is always rather worrying when one reads in a background note that, as became apparent in the words the Minister used today, an order that had gone through Parliament was defective. It is hard to know whether that was because the original LASPO Act was so badly thought out that it trickled down to the implementing measures, or because the Ministry of Justice had cut its staff to the bone and was asking too much or simply because it was careless. However, whatever the reason, with regard to this part of the order, will the Minister tell the Committee how many cases have had to be delayed as a result of the defective order or, more worryingly, how many have gone ahead without legal aid being available? Perhaps the legal aid should be used to draft rather better SIs in future.
I hope that the order will be passed today and go through the House and be implemented fairly rapidly because, as the Minister anticipated, we welcome its content. It will ensure that certain young people, particularly those with special educational needs or disability, and people involved in parenting orders will be able to be properly represented at magistrates’ and county courts and in the Upper Tribunal, thanks to civil legal aid being available.
I am sure that the Minister will know that we remain deeply concerned about the types of cases and the number of people affected by having to represent themselves in hearings because of the absence of legal aid. Apart from that policy decision by the Government, it is regrettable that under the Government’s LASPO Act nothing qualifies for legal aid unless it is made an exception. It is a very negative way of describing something. As the evidence today shows, it is rather short-sighted because it means that even quite administrative, de minimis or, in the words of the Minister, minor changes to legal aid, such as these, require affirmative statutory instruments. That does not seem the best way of ensuring that human rights are safeguarded in all our courts. The content today is to be welcomed, but some of the procedures and effects are areas for concern.
Lord Faulks
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments on this. Clearly, I do not accept all that she says about the LASPO Act, which, in the Government’s view, was a necessary correction to reflect the amount of money that was being spent on legal aid. Some difficult choices had to be made, and of course the noble Baroness will remember that on page 5 of the Labour Party manifesto there was an undertaking to make savings in legal aid.
As the noble Baroness quite rightly said, there was an error in the drafting. These things happen. I do not know precisely who is to blame, but I assure her and the Committee that policy and legal teams within the Ministry of Justice are working together closely to put in place clear procedures to monitor all planned changes to legal aid in primary and secondary legislation to prevent any future possibility of conflicting amendments.
As to the noble Baroness’s question regarding how many cases have been affected by this, I am told that the answer is none. New cases in the youth court are possible only after Section 18 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 is commenced. Current cases are in the county court, and legal aid is directly provided for such proceedings. I understand why the noble Baroness asks that question, but I am able to reassure her on that.
Following from that comes the question of why not very many gang injunctions have been issued as yet. It is a matter for local partners to consider the best way to prevent gang violence and support young people. These gang injunctions are relatively new. We know that local partners regard them as a useful tool, and there is more information and communication to ensure that they are appropriately and properly used. They have become an important, although not oppressive, part of the equipment to deal with the scourge of anti-social behaviour.
Therefore, I hope that I can assure the noble Baroness that this is a necessary change. It will regularise the position and ensure that legal aid is maintained as appropriate. There was an unfortunate slip. Fortunately, however, it has not resulted in any injustice. In those circumstances, I ask that the matter should proceed. I suggest that this is an appropriate amendment and that the special educational needs matters are uncontroversial.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, the Minister, for quite explicable reasons, is not yet here for the Question for Short Debate. With apologies to those who are to take part in the debate, I suggest that the Grand Committee stands adjourned until—your guess is as good as mine.
The Minister appeareth—no sooner said than done.
Hospitals: Voluntary Sector and Emergency Readmissions
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the role of the voluntary sector in reducing emergency re-admissions to hospital.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, it is about a year since I first tabled this Question for Short Debate. I was inspired to do so by reports from the Royal Voluntary Service which described the impact of its Home from Hospital schemes. I regret that, having waited all this time, the Motion was in the end tabled at very short notice, which prevented many Members who would have liked to participate doing so. Given that it appeared on the Order Paper only on Wednesday and that the speakers list was closed on Friday, that comes as no surprise. I am particularly grateful to both Front Benchers and my noble friend Lady Thomas, who will speak in the gap. For the record, I give an assurance that the modest speakers list does not reflect the level of interest in this matter.
I am not one of the usual contributors to debate on health matters, so I thought long and hard before venturing into this area, but I do know about the voluntary sector, and here I declare an interest as chair of the National Volunteering Forum, and it occurred to me that I should table the Motion precisely because I do not come at this from a health expert’s perspective. We have all agreed that the time for silos is over.
It seems a long time ago now, but in 2010, the Secretary of State for Health took measures to manage emergency readmissions, which had risen, in part at least, because hospitals were reducing the length of stay. Despite this, about 19% of emergency readmissions—about 190,000—occurred in 2012-13. The evidence shows that people from lower socio-economic and vulnerable persons groups are at a higher risk of avoidable emergency readmission.
The Government and the NHS have made a good start on getting to grips with this problem by creating individualised discharge plans and ensuring that hospital-led discharge teams provide continuity of care. Of course, the better the integration of primary, secondary and social care, the better the contribution by prevention, early diagnosis and self-treatment. However, as Simon Stevens noted in the NHS Five Year Forward View,
“voluntary organisations often have an impact well beyond what statutory services alone can achieve”.
Last week’s report on patient-centred care from the Royal College of General Practitioners makes specific reference to the role played by community groups and the voluntary sector in achieving self-management of health conditions. Also last week, the NHS published Stephen Bubbs’s report into the commissioning framework for people with learning disabilities and autism, in which he, too, notes the role played by the voluntary sector in the sort of community-based support which reduces both initial admissions and readmissions. It is an area that I am beginning to know well as a fairly new patron of ACE Anglia, which provides just that kind of advocacy and support to people with learning disabilities and autism living in my area. Of course, they are all right. Voluntary organisations can help with early intervention by spotting problems early on and by helping to join up fragmented services. They often bring specialised and local knowledge and, precisely because they are not from the statutory sector, they tend to be trusted.
Provision of hospital-to-home services in a range of contexts can often give patients the time and space they need to make a recovery and avoid readmission to hospital, with all the trauma that that entails. The British Red Cross gave an example of Mrs Jones, a widow in her mid-80s suffering from dementia. Discharged from hospital but needing treatment for a urinary tract infection, staff referred her to the BRC, which arranged for a volunteer to meet her in hospital and then visit her at home to make sure that she completed her course of medication. It ensured that the social services team was aware of her needs, and that she felt supported. She not only recovered well at home but, because of the ongoing support and encouragement she received, her quality of life actually improved on a long-term basis.
AGE UK Cornwall carried out a pilot scheme where volunteers worked closely with patients to identify their needs and offer support. It acted as a key link with the NHS and social services. Under that scheme, emergency readmissions were reduced by 25%. The Midhurst Macmillan Service is a specialist palliative care service covering a 400 square mile area of rural England across three counties. By offering a host of roles from shopping and gardening to emotional support for the patient and their family and liaison with the NHS, the scheme is aimed at reducing the number of hospital admissions. Although they are not strictly emergency readmissions, nevertheless, its work is very successful: 73% of its patients died at home or in a hospice rather than having to be admitted to hospital.
In its recent report, Going Home Alone, the Royal Voluntary Service highlighted its own scheme in Leicestershire which showed that a package of support reduced emergency readmissions by half, from 15% being readmitted in 60 days to 7.5%. It was not rocket science. Contact was made with patients before they left hospital, and someone went home with them and made sure that the house was warm and lit, and that some food was available. They offered support to collect prescriptions, make follow-on medical appointments and liaise with the statutory services. Many of these actions are so simple, but make so much difference. However, like many simple things, they are not always easy.
Like most other services, voluntary organisations have had to deal with funding cuts. In many cases, when they wish to bid to provide services, they are disadvantaged against the private sector because they want to provide decent terms and conditions for their staff and are not going to go down the zero-hours contract route. In some cases, these organisations simply lack the capacity to engage in complex and expensive tendering processes.
The reorganisation of health and social care at a local level has meant that new relationships between the sector and the commissioners have had to be developed. Some health and social care providers are simply not aware of the range and extent of the work of the voluntary sector in their area and so patients miss out on the support they can offer. Then there is the vexed question of substitution. Volunteers do not want simply to replace public services which have been cut, but want to add value.
What we are now calling austerity looks likely to be the new norm. It is hard to take that on board, but we should be planning for it. Government spending should be much less reactive and give some priority to preventive spending, which involves a genuine forward look at the likely impacts of spending decisions made now on outcomes in a decade hence. Policy and funding changes which push costs off into the future are no different from borrowing, and the sooner we understand that, the better.
I am looking forward to hearing from other Members about how we can better harness the collective strengths of the statutory services and the voluntary sector. The old dividing lines have become blurred and the picture has become more complex as a result, but the need has never been greater.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for raising this important question. I am just very sad that we do not have a great raft of speakers because this is such an important subject, particularly the matter of the ageing society. That is going to happen more and more. Partners will be left on their own, and they do not always plan for it; they get to old age and find that they need a major operation and there is no one left in their families to care for them afterwards. If they are not given the right care after a stay in hospital, the next thing that happens is that they will be readmitted. I was struck very much by the case of my brother-in-law, who is 88 and on his own. He needed a major operation and had to have a stoma. This is quite a complicated thing for somebody of that age to cope with. Luckily, when he came out of hospital, he could board in a care home for a week and then he went to his daughter, who was nearby. So he has had very good care and very good neighbours. I am thinking of someone who is not in that position.
My noble friend and I were both at the event recently held by the RVS in the River Room here, at which it launched its report to which my noble friend referred, Going Home Alone. It was an absolutely brilliant campaign. For anyone who wonders what the RVS is, it is the WRVS without the W, because men are now admitted. It is worth saying that because I have tested it on people and they do not know what the RVS stands for.
It is worth reiterating what the RVS says are the six essentials, because, if it aims to reduce readmissions by half, it is worth the Government and local authorities taking them on board, along with others in the care business. The RVS says that, first, the older person must be told the plan for their return home from hospital. They must be accompanied before 10 pm to a “warm, well-lit house”, and they must be able to collect their prescriptions and get their follow-up appointments. After all, that is going to be one of the most important things. They may have forgotten what they were told in hospital, with all the trauma. Then someone must be there to help them shop so that they will not be hungry. They will be used to people doing things for them. They will be used to having meals provided and if meals are not provided someone will have to help them get ready meals. Finally, the RVS says that they need a friendly face to turn to for help. That is very important. Obviously, where there are family members and good neighbours, that is fine, but an awful lot of people in our towns and cities do not have such people. I suggested to the RVS that it might want to try a pilot in some areas where they are short of volunteers by putting a leaflet through everyone’s house. I have found that many people, particularly in my road in London, are only too happy to help if they know that help is needed. This could help in many areas where there is a great deal of untapped potential.
The Government should not leave it all to the voluntary sector; the voluntary sector should look to the Government for help, too. This could be a good partnership. I am pleased that it was raised by the RVS and that it has been raised today by my noble friend Lady Scott.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on initiating this debate. Although she said that it was put down some time ago, it could not be more timely with the discussions around the health service being so relevant at the present time, and particularly today. So, although there are few us here, as she pointed out, it is a part of a wider debate and conversation about the development of services within the National Health Service.
I have fond memories of the WRVS as a former MP. We were regularly asked to do, and willingly undertook, voluntary work with it in our local hospitals. Often it was one of the most pleasurable days of the year, going round the wards with tea trolleys and seeing day after day the commitment to and enthusiasm for supporting the professionals within that setting and ensuring a high-quality service to patients within those hospitals.
To add briefly to the context of today’s debate, I looked at the King’s Fund report of 2013, Volunteering in Health and Care. Securing a Sustainable Future, which states:
“The health and social care system is under extreme pressure to improve the quality and efficiency of services. To meet the challenges ahead, service providers will need to think differently about how they work and who they work with … One important group in these debates is the millions of people who volunteer in health and social care, in both the voluntary sector and within public services—an estimated 3 million people across England. These people”—
as the noble Baroness said—
“add significant value to the work of paid professionals, and are a critical but often under-appreciated part of the health and social care workforce”.
The King’s Fund research indicates that,
“volunteers play an important role in improving people’s experience of care, building stronger relationships between services and communities, supporting integrated care, improving public health and reducing health inequalities. The support that volunteers provide can be of particular value to those who rely most heavily on services, such as people with multiple long-term conditions or mental health problems”.
It suggests that, to achieve the best scenario, the critical role of volunteers in building a sustainable approach to health and social care must be acknowledged, and the research recognises five key areas, which I hope we can debate at a future time.
I just want to add topically that, as the noble Baroness pointed out, today the Government are responding to NHS England’s five-year forward plan. In the paragraph on encouraging community volunteering, they acknowledge the importance of volunteers, as I have just described, and they put forward examples of how those volunteers might be utilised most effectively. I hope that the Minister will comment on that. I do not want to stray into the response or the Statement that is to follow but I hope that there will be some recognition of the vital role of volunteers in this country.
As the noble Baroness pointed out, an excellent report on the Hospital 2 Home scheme was produced by the RVS a short while ago. It gave some interesting statistics about the scale of the issue, particularly regarding the over-75s. It is estimated that there are now 5.1 million over-75s in this country, up from 4.4 million in 2010, with there being an estimated 7 million by 2035. Forty-six per cent of those over-75s live alone, and 38% of 75 year-olds now return home from hospital—up from 10% in 2004. The RVS’s report was very timely in showing that a much greater number of over-75s go home from hospital and that they need support to ensure that they are not readmitted, as this debate is about. Before they are discharged, they often feel anxious and not ready to go home. That is often because they know that they are going home alone and that they will not get the support that they require to give them confidence, or may not get the immediate services that are required to ensure that they return home in a satisfactory way and are not looking for early readmission. Early readmission can be a consequence of that anxiety. I am not suggesting that no people in this age group will have to return to hospital, but let us see whether there is a mechanism to ensure that the services that are required to wrap around them at the point of discharge are most satisfactory.
From my experience of working in the voluntary sector with people with mental health problems—particularly those who come into contact with the criminal justice system—I have found that there is very poor evaluation of the cost benefits of the work of the voluntary sector. In the RVS report, it is estimated that savings on readmission are around £40 million a year but there is no solid evidence to support that figure. It is a very good estimation of what those savings can be but the Government should look rigorously at better models for considering outcomes and for assessing the real value to society of volunteers. As I said, from my work with the mental health and criminal justice system, I know that there is a paucity of information about the support that mentoring can give, for example, to people with mental health problems who may come back into the community from the criminal justice system. That value of that to society is completely underestimated. I am not comparing it directly with readmission to hospital but there is a great value to society to be had when we are talking about readmission to the criminal justice system as a result of not having that support. I urge the Government to look very carefully at how we can assess more effectively the savings that can be made through effective mentoring and the use of volunteers.
However, we should never presume that volunteers are in some way a cheap option within the development of public services. They have to be valued as part of the team, and we have to ensure that, when services are commissioned using the voluntary sector, the sector has sufficient support and infrastructure to ensure that it can be an effective part of service delivery. I am always concerned that, as we move into the new contracting arrangements within the commissioning of services, the value of volunteers or the voluntary sector is not adequately taken into account as those contracts are developed to ensure that the high quality and local nature of those services are properly recognised and become integrated into the way in which the 3 million volunteers so willingly give their time and expertise.
I again congratulate the noble Baroness on this debate, and the debate will go forward very effectively now because, as we struggle to ensure that we support people whatever their illnesses or age group, the voluntary sector will become an even more important part of our civic life.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lady Scott for tabling this important topic for debate and for introducing it so ably. The Government appreciate, as all speakers have acknowledged, that voluntary and community sector organisations make a substantial contribution to the delivery of high-quality local health and social care services. They have a strong track record of designing, providing and supporting services, based on their insight into people’s needs, and they are often well placed to respond in a flexible way to those needs. Their unique understanding of local communities also means that they are ideally placed to reach those vulnerable and sometimes hard-to-reach groups that statutory organisations might struggle to reach.
Moreover, social action and volunteering contribute to every sphere of health and social care and are fundamental to building strong and resilient communities. For example, the Royal Voluntary Service—mentioned by my noble friend Lady Thomas and the noble Lord, Lord Bradley—is a charity that supports older people to live well at home, in the community and in hospitals. With a network of more than 40,000 volunteers nationally, the Royal Voluntary Service uses its strong community links as a platform to deliver a range of services that improve the hospital experience for older people and their relatives, reduce hospital readmissions by linking hospital and home-based services, contribute financially to patient and community services, and provide people with practical and accessible information about local services. These types of schemes can help to avoid unnecessary emergency readmissions.
The report mentioned by a number of noble Lords makes very interesting reading. The conclusion of the report is that, in the RVS’s estimation, this support could save tens of millions of pounds in public money. That needs testing, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, indicated, as there are a number of important assumptions underlying the figure that it quotes. Nevertheless, it points the way to the usefulness and value of the voluntary sector in all the areas that I have mentioned. There are many other voluntary sector organisations that do similar work—for example, Age UK.
I shall now set out the range of actions that the Government are taking to improve integration of care to ensure that people can receive the care that they need and avoid emergency admissions and readmissions, including through use of the voluntary sector. The better care fund is a £3.8 billion pooled budget between health and social care, with areas choosing to pool £1.5 billion extra to bring the fund to £5.3 billion. The vast majority of this is being spent on social care and out-of-hospital community health services, which aim to keep people out of hospital and support them to leave safely as soon as they are well enough to do so.
Underlying the new approach are improvements in seven-day working across health and social care to help quicker, more appropriate discharge from hospital. One of the metrics for the fund is the number of people supported to remain at home at least three months after discharge from hospital. Plans project that, over two years, 11,860 older people will be supported to remain at home at least three months after discharge from hospital. This equates to a 33.7% increase over two years. Schemes in plans typically focus on things such as increasing capacity in reablement or intermediate care services, or multidisciplinary emergency response teams, which focus on avoiding unnecessary admissions to hospital.
We know that the voluntary sector can also play an important role in providing advocacy to people who need it. One of the drivers for the better care fund is to stop people having to undergo multiple assessments and telling their story repeatedly. Having someone to represent them and to help them navigate their way through often confusing health and care services can be invaluable. For example, in Greenwich the hospital ward support scheme trains volunteers to engage with people in hospital to support them to do practical things such as maintaining hygiene or engaging in conversation. The scheme prepares people for discharge, with volunteers on hand to support those identified as socially isolated who will be leaving hospital. Doncaster’s better care fund plan sets out a comprehensive falls prevention programme, through which Age UK Doncaster is being commissioned to help increase physical activity levels in older adults to increase strength, stamina and flexibility. That reduces the risk of falls and fractures, which are a major reason for hospital admissions and readmissions.
As well as providing services directly, we know that the third sector is represented at the strategic decision-making level in better care fund planning, with Nottingham and Southwark being just two examples of the many areas with voluntary sector representatives as members of their integrated care programme boards, as well as the health and well-being board itself.
The £2 million social action fund has delivered improved engagement with the independent, voluntary and community sectors. Eight schemes are being funded, aimed at supporting frail and elderly people. The aim is to scale up and robustly test interventions that use social action to reduce demand on hospital services, with funded projects making their impact over the course of winter 2014-15. We hope to be able to mainstream the most successful interventions down the line, and all evaluations and learning will be shared widely with the sector. The projects will help develop the potential of services that use social action to help older people stay well, manage their conditions or recover from illness or injury, thereby reducing growing pressure on hospitals. Currently, such services are small in scale and piecemeal, and often are not robustly evaluated. By March 2015, the aim for each project will be to contribute to a significant impact in the local area over the winter of 2014-15, develop a robust evidence base on its effectiveness through evaluation by the Nuffield Trust, and lay the foundations for the service to continue and grow on a long-term basis.
I am conscious that I have mentioned only a very few of the many voluntary sector organisations that are relevant to this issue, focusing primarily on the generic services provided. There is also a wide range of different, more condition-specific services provided by the voluntary sector—for example, some of the support provided by charity helplines that enable people to manage their conditions at home. There are also the very important services provided by voluntary sector hospices that support people at the end of their life within their homes, thereby avoiding unnecessary hospital admissions.
I shall highlight one particular example of where I have observed fantastic contributions made by the voluntary sector. Last month, I visited a medical practice in Hertfordshire to see how the role of developing well-being services within local NHS communities works. The Wellbeing Service was developed in order to support patients’ physical, psychological and social needs through improved health and well-being. The practice has engaged with a number of voluntary organisations to help prevent readmissions. I was particularly struck by the help that the volunteers give patients in navigating their health journeys, and I commend their tremendous work on this.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradley, asked whether there would be any spend on the voluntary sector from the additional £700 million of winter funding. Planned spend by system resilience groups identified for voluntary sector organisations is approximately £3.9 million. Approximately 110 independent and voluntary sector schemes are planned across the country, covering the expansion of capacity to provide care at home, hospital-to-home aftercare, out-of-hours cover and beds in care homes, the community and hospices. These plans include voluntary sector providers referenced in plans, such as Age UK, the British Red Cross and various hospices and smaller providers. Many schemes are focused around helping with improved hospital discharges, support for patients on return to their homes, community care provisions, and longer-term work to reduce readmissions and prevent admissions in the first place. I think we can be encouraged by that picture.
I conclude by saying that I recognise that the voluntary and community sectors make a substantial contribution to the health and care system. This has been an excellent short debate. Like my noble friend, I regret that there have not been more speakers, but the issues raised by those who have spoken have brought to light what value is available from the voluntary sector in a range of fields in health and social care. I thank my noble friend for having given us this opportunity to look at those areas. I encourage commissioners to engage with voluntary sector organisations to understand the kind of support that they can deliver to prevent emergency admissions, looking at some of the excellent examples that we have heard about this afternoon.
House of Lords
Death of a Member: Baroness James of Holland Park
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Baroness, Lady James of Holland Park, on 27 November. On behalf of the House I extend our sincere condolences to the noble Baroness’s family and friends.
HIV: Stigma
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gould of Potternewton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to develop a campaign to address HIV stigma along the lines of the “Time to Change” campaign on mental health stigma.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, the Department of Health funds the Terrence Higgins Trust for the HIV Prevention England programme, which helps to tackle stigma by social marketing programmes and by working closely with HIV voluntary organisations. Implementation of the department’s framework for sexual health improvement, 2013, will help reduce the stigma associated with HIV and sexual health issues. Public Health England is supporting the development of the “People Living with HIV Stigma Index” in the UK.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton (Lab)
My Lords, maybe I shall not start by asking the question that might be asked, which is: what is the Minister’s secret? I could ask that in the name of Prince Harry, who wants to know what everybody’s secret is, in order to try to encourage people to be able to say, “Yes, I am HIV positive”. But that is not the question I am going ask the Minister.
I thank the noble Earl for his reply, and yes, there are some activities going on—activities which, I have to admit, are not extremely well funded. It seems to me that the success of the Time to Change campaign, which I am delighted by, shows that anti-stigma campaigns can be, and are, very successful. Does the Minister agree that HIV is the other health condition consistently faced with stigma and discrimination? Why has there not been proper resourcing and funding so that we can have a similar anti-stigma campaign, to ensure that there is prevention and a reduction in the number of people who have HIV?
Earl Howe
My Lords, there is certainly still too much stigma, although I believe opinion has moved in the right direction generally. The campaigns in the 1980s played a key part in providing information to the general public about AIDS and later HIV, but for some years it has, I think, been widely accepted that campaigns targeting groups at increased risk of HIV are more effective. That is why, for many years, my department has funded the Terrence Higgins Trust for targeted HIV prevention. HIV Prevention England, the unit set up by the Terrence Higgins Trust, is leading that, and is delivering innovative social marketing campaigns, including some mainstream advertising, on things like condom use and testing. There is also a DH-funded national programme, which has been successfully piloted with Public Health England.
Lord Fowler (Con)
My Lords, do we not need to fight stigma and discrimination overseas as well as at home? Around the world, some 18 million people have HIV and are untested, many because of their fear of discrimination. Given that many of them are in Commonwealth countries, should we not use all our influence to persuade such countries to follow policies of equal and fair treatment for all minorities?
Earl Howe
My noble friend, with his immense knowledge of this subject, is of course absolutely right. The 2011 UN Political Declaration on HIV and AIDS specifically includes a goal to eliminate by 2015 stigma and discrimination against people living with and affected by HIV through the promotion of laws and policies which ensure that human rights and fundamental freedoms are protected. Progress towards universal access cannot be made unless stigma and discrimination are tackled. They are a particular barrier with regard to the criminalisation of gay men and women, transgender people and sex workers. DfID is a constant champion of these groups internationally.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, Prince Harry’s brave statement today to declare his secret reminds me of mine. A dear friend died of AIDS three decades ago. I cannot speak his name because to this day his family do not know that he had it. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, is important, but we have children and young people in this country who are suffering from HIV and AIDS. What education is planned specifically for young people who are at risk, along with their school friends?
Earl Howe
My Lords, sex and relationship education plays an important part in exposing young people to the whole subject. Guidelines are available that schools must follow. They include sections on HIV and sexually transmitted diseases generally. As I say, secondary schools must follow those guidelines.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, building on the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, does the noble Earl agree that stigma starts very young? It builds on attitudes that are adopted by young people. The importance of PHSE programmes in schools is therefore very great. In what ways are his department and the Department for Education working together to ensure that these programmes are delivered—not just that they are recommended, but that they are delivered? Does he further agree that it would be a good thing if they were a regular and statutory part of the curriculum?
Earl Howe
I shall expand on my previous answer. Sex and relationship education is compulsory in maintained secondary schools, although not in academies. All maintained schools and academies have a statutory requirement to have due regard to the Secretary of State’s sex and relationship education guidance, which dates from 2000, when teaching sex and relationship education. The guidance makes it clear that all such education should be age-appropriate and makes the following points about HIV and sexually transmitted infections:
“information and knowledge about HIV/AIDS is vital; young people need to understand what is risky behaviour and what is not; young people need factual information about safer sex and skills to enable them to negotiate safer sex … Young people need to be aware of the risks of contracting a STI and how to prevent it”.
They also need to know about the diagnosis and treatment of HIV and STIs.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, is this not the direction in which we need the devolved health commitment in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to go? What co-operation is there between them and the English set-up through television programmes, advertising and in other ways? Is this not one of the areas where it is essential to have effective co-operation?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Earl made it clear in answer to my noble friend that academies are not subject to the core nature of the curriculum as regards sex and relationship education. As he will know, there have recently been a number of inspections by Ofsted that have shown up defects in the approach of schools to sex and relationship education. Surely that gives rise to concern that the issue of stigma is simply not being addressed properly in some schools. Is his department willing to take this up with Ofsted?
HIV: Late Diagnosis
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Prosser
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they will take in 2015 to support a reduction in late HIV diagnoses in England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, late diagnosis of HIV in the UK is declining, but 42% of people were diagnosed late in 2013. This is still too high and that is why we continue to include it in the public health outcomes framework.
Implementation of the sexual health improvement framework in England will help to reduce late diagnosis. The Department of Health funds HIV Prevention England, which continues to promote HIV testing, including leading on National HIV Testing Week and piloting the use of self-sampling tests.
Baroness Prosser (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Even in areas of high prevalence of infection, research has found that only 30% of patients are being tested for HIV in line with national testing guidelines—for example, when registering with a GP or being admitted via a hospital’s general medical admissions. Will the Minister have discussions with the Local Government Association—the body, as he no doubt knows, which is now responsible for public health—and agree a strategy to increase routine HIV testing in those high-prevalence areas, in line with those guidelines?
Earl Howe
My Lords, local authorities have an important part to play in the battle against HIV and AIDS. They are mandated to commission open access sexual health services, and that means that people can self-refer to the service of their choice, regardless of its location. However, as the noble Baroness will know, this is an issue that goes beyond local authorities. The key message from National HIV Testing Week, which was last week, was that we should all take responsibility for reducing HIV transmission, and that those who feel they may be at risk should take an HIV test.
The testing taking place in sexual health clinics in 2013 was up on the year before. We are seeing very good work with, for example, African faith leaders, and we have also piloted national HIV self-sampling services, which undoubtedly have a great utility for those who are too embarrassed to go to a clinic.
Baroness Manzoor (LD)
My Lords, geographically the highest rates of late diagnosis of HIV were in the Midlands and the east of England with 52%, followed by the north of England with 42%, the south of England with 41% and London with 35%. In light of the announcement that was expected later in the week but which was made at the weekend by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that there will be an additional £2 billion for the NHS—can my noble friend say whether community testing for HIV will be part of the money being spent?
Earl Howe
It is far too early for me to say how the new money will be spent. In any case, that has to be a decision for commissioners weighing up the healthcare priorities that face them. But the new money is excellent news for the NHS, and there will be a Statement later today about that.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, how many undiagnosed people with HIV does the Minister think there are? Would it not be beneficial to have testing of HIV, TB and hep C all together to save money and to pick up more infections?
Earl Howe
I shall have to take advice on the second question posed by the noble Baroness, which I do not know the answer to. But in answer to her first question, an estimated 107,800 people were living with HIV in the UK in 2013, of whom 24% were unaware of their infection, remain at risk of infecting others and are unable to benefit from effective treatment. That is why it is so very important that we target the at-risk communities to urge them to get tested, either in a clinic or through self-testing kits, which are now legal.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder if the noble Earl can help me as to what work is being done in relation to women who are suffering from partner violence. Your Lordships will know that 12% of those involved in intimate romantic relationships have HIV through partner violence. Will the noble Earl say what the Government intend to do about that?
Earl Howe
The noble and learned Baroness is absolutely right. Those who are at risk of partner violence are of course at greater risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease. We know this to be true particularly in countries overseas. The work to combat domestic violence, which the noble and learned Baroness is very familiar with, continues. It is vital, not just in this area of work but more generally in the field of mental health, to ensure that women at risk of violence—particularly women—have a place of refuge and a source of advice.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that the new money would be even more welcome if it had not consisted of quite a lot of old money rebadged. The noble Earl referred to the three-year HIV prevention campaign, which promoted testing and condom use. Perhaps I might ask him about how the campaign will go forward. Are the Government going to fund such a campaign and for how long, and can he say what proportion is going to be spent in the future compared with the past?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the Terrence Higgins Trust is the vehicle through which we conduct campaigns. Terrence Higgins has a three-year contract, which ends in March next year. We have yet to finalise all our spending commitments from April 2015. We expect that the funding for Terrence Higgins will have to be pared back by some measure because of the current funding constraints, but we are in discussion with Terrence Higgins about that.
HIV and AIDS: Vaccine
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the progress in developing a vaccine in order effectively to address global HIV/AIDS.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for International Development (Baroness Northover) (LD)
My Lords, today is, of course, World AIDS Day, and we have committed nearly £1 billion to tackling HIV through our programmes. There has been some progress on HIV vaccine research recently but no major breakthrough, although there are a number of promising research avenues. Expert opinion varies and it is not possible to say when a viable vaccine will be developed.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that response. UNAIDS highlighted that only 24% of children living with HIV currently have access to HIV treatment. Given the clear need for more investment, will the Minister support the recommendation in the report launched today by the all-party group, Access Denied, to carry out an inquiry into alternative models of research and development investment, which separate the costs of R&D from the demands of profitability?
Baroness Northover
I will be speaking at the launch of that report later this afternoon, and no doubt we will have further discussions about it. One of the striking things about this is that in terms of research and development funding for new product development in 2012—the most recent figures available—33.6% went to HIV/AIDS, 17.1% towards malaria and 15% towards TB, so it is not a neglected area. But research into the vaccine is proving exceptionally difficult and the trials have proved disappointing. It is therefore necessary to move back to basic research and drive it forward that way. Meanwhile, a lot of effort is going into research and development on treatments. As the noble Lord will know, over the past decade there have been great advances in treatment. One of the key things, as my noble friend Lord Howe just indicated, is making sure that people know their status and are treated.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as co-chair of the All-Party Group for Child Health and Vaccine Preventable Diseases. We understand that an effective vaccine against HIV/AIDS is still a long way off, but could my noble friend give us a progress report on two relevant product development partnerships that are funded by DfID? They are the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, and the TB Alliance’s development of new drugs for TB patients who are also infected by HIV.
Baroness Northover
My noble friend rightly highlights the link between HIV and TB. The IAVI has developed new approaches to HIV vaccine research by focusing on the needs of developing countries and early-stage research. The TB Alliance has four combinations of drugs in late-stage development, and will soon launch a trial of a combination of drugs that are suitable for those who are co-infected with both diseases.
Lord Walton of Detchant (CB)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that the major problem in identifying and preparing a vaccine against HIV is that the very term “HIV” stands for “human immunodeficiency virus”, and the consequence is that the virus itself disables the immune system to a very considerable degree? Since the discovery of a vaccine depends on stimulating the immune system to produce a vaccine, this is an exceptionally difficult and challenging scientific problem.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, but perhaps all noble Lords would be brief so that we can hear as many questions as possible. We will hear from the noble Baroness and then from the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. We should have time for both.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead
My Lords, scientific innovation and generous funding have, as we know, eradicated smallpox and are now close to eradicating polio. We live in a time when a person who tests positive for HIV is no longer facing a death sentence, so we have clearly seen real progress. Yet 35 million people still live with AIDS, and without a vaccine I do not think that we will ever see the end of this epidemic. The interesting point is that donor Governments gave less financial support in 2013 than they had previously. Will the Minister join me in condemning these cuts in R&D, which is of course fundamental and essential? Will the Minister take action against EU member states and, indeed, the US Government, which reduced their funding in 2013?
Baroness Northover
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, indicated the real challenges here. This needs basic research, and the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust are best able to assess what may have better prospects. They have stepped up their contributions.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, I declare an interest as I was the Civil Science Minister at the time when HIV came in. The late Lord Joseph and I had been advised by both the advisory board for the Research Councils and the MRC that there was no way in which research science could keep absolutely on the frontiers of all the subjects which were available to it. When HIV came in, they had to tell us that, unfortunately, research in virology had fallen back. Could my noble friend give us some indication of how far that setback has been repaired in the past 30 years, particularly given the salience of this issue in west Africa at present?
Baroness Northover
I just mentioned the level of research and development money going into product development for HIV. I expect the noble Lord will know that Imperial College is leading in this area. I visited the human immunology laboratory at Imperial, which is taking forward vaccine research in a number of different areas. The noble Lord will also know that the number of years it has taken to develop viable vaccines in various areas—10 years for measles, 16 years for hepatitis, 25 years for cervical cancer and 47 years for polio—bears out the particular challenge referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Walton.
Humanist Marriage
Lord Harrison
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they intend to publish their response to their consultation on humanist marriage.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, the Government have consulted on whether the law should be changed to allow legally valid humanist and, potentially, other non-religious belief marriages. We are considering the responses we received and the implications for marriage law and practice if a change were to be made. We plan to publish the Government’s response to the review before 1 January 2015.
Lord Harrison (Lab)
My Lords, given what now appears to be the insincere government pledge to see this legislation through before the next general election, will the Minister nevertheless acknowledge that what is being asked for in terms of solemnising humanist marriage is no more and no less than what is properly accorded to our Jewish and Quaker colleagues and to other belief groups? Does the proposal for humanist marriage not also conform to the families test of ensuring that all legislation and policy developed by the Government strengthens and develops strong and stable families?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I do not accept that we have not done everything that we said we would do. During the passage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill in 2013, it was agreed that there would be a consultation. That has taken place. It lasted for 12 weeks and the replies have come in. We agreed that we would provide an answer by 1 January 2015.
Lord Garel-Jones (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is now overwhelming evidence that humanist marriages fulfil the Government’s new families test and that they support strong and stable marriages? For example, legalisation of humanist marriages in Scotland has led to a net increase in the number of marriages, and a quarter of belief-based marriages in Scotland are now conducted by the Humanist Society.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, the Government take the issue very seriously, which is why they had a consultation that lasted for 12 weeks, from June to September this year. There were 1,901 responses. When the decision has been made, which will be by the end of this year—by 1 January 2015—we will see how seriously the Government have taken it.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the responses to the consultation indicated overwhelming support for humanist marriages?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
No, I cannot confirm that. We are evaluating the responses and an official answer will be given by the end of the year.
Baroness Barker (LD)
Have the Government analysed the rate of humanist marriage in Scotland and in European countries? Have they formed an estimate of how many people in England would be likely to wish to avail themselves of the facility of humanist marriage?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I can tell my noble friend that in Scotland there were 3,052 humanist marriages in 2012. There are estimated to be 600 to 800 humanist marriages which are not legally valid at the moment, although 80% have civil marriages as well.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, when all that the proposal seeks to do is extend the current practice for Jewish and Quaker marriages to humanists, does the Minister accept that this is not a major change in the law? In view of the overwhelming support in the consultation for this change, would the Minister agree that there is no reason not to go ahead before the election?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I do not know that there was overwhelming support. The responses are being evaluated at the moment, and there will be an announcement by the end of the year.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I am not sure whether the Minister was in the House at the time but there was overwhelming support in both Houses of Parliament for the amendments. In July 2013, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, who was then the responsible Minister, gave an assurance to the House that the orders enabling humanist marriages to take place would be laid well ahead of the general election. I would like the Minister to guarantee that that timetable could be met. Will the Government also recognise, as they did with the orders enacting same-sex marriage, that giving a timetable to those who are making arrangements to get married is rather important? Will the date when a humanist wedding is possible be in May, June or July, or at some other point next year?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I cannot give that undertaking because the decision will be made by the end of the year and we will then have to see what is decided. At the moment, I cannot tell what that decision will be.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, it seems to me that the Government have been rather slow with this. There was considerable discussion on the same-sex marriage Bill, when I spoke in favour of the humanists having marriage. We have so changed the concept of marriage that I cannot for one moment understand why we are not just getting on with it. I very much hope that the Government will pick this up and get to the right result, which is to give humanists a marriage before the next election.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I do not accept, I am afraid, that we have been slow. We are doing what we said we would in the Act. We said that we would give an answer by 1 January 2015; that was in the legislation. We said that we would consult; we did, and that is what we are going to do.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, is it not the case that thousands of people now opt for humanist funerals? Is this not simply about extending that freedom of choice for people to have a humanist marriage, should they wish?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I think that there is a difference, both in law and fact, between a funeral and a marriage.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
There is probably a joke there somewhere. We did what we said we would do in the Act. We have consulted this year and agreed that we would come up with an answer by 1 January 2015. That was in the Act and that is what we are going to do.
Child Poverty Act 2010 (Persistent Poverty Target) Regulations 2014
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16 October be approved.
Relevant documents: 10th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and 11th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 25 November.
Modern Slavery Bill
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser
“Victims of modern slavery: general duty
(1) In interpreting the provisions of this Act, courts must have regard to the best interests of a victim of slavery, trafficking and exploitation.
(2) In exercising their powers and duties under the provisions of this Act, public authorities and the Secretary of State must have regard to the best interests of a victim of slavery, trafficking, or exploitation.
(3) In performing the duties under subsections (1) and (2), courts, public authorities and the Secretary of State must have particular regard to the personal circumstances of the victim including but not limited to—
(a) the victim’s age,(b) the victim’s gender,(c) the victim’s ethnicity and background,(d) whether the victim has a physical or mental disability; and(e) other relevant characteristics relating to the victim’s vulnerability.”
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, the amendment that I am moving proposes a new clause, right at the beginning of the Bill, which would place a duty on the courts in interpreting the provisions of the Bill to,
“have regard to the best interests of a victim of slavery, trafficking and exploitation”.
The new clause also requires public authorities and the Secretary of State, in exercising their powers and duties under the Bill, to have regard to the best interests, likewise, of a victim of slavery, trafficking and exploitation. The amendment then goes on to state:
“In performing the duties under subsections (1) and (2), courts, public authorities and the Secretary of State must have particular regard to the personal circumstances of the victim including but not limited to … the victim’s age … the victim’s gender … the victim’s ethnicity and background … whether the victim has a physical or mental disability … and other relevant characteristics relating to the victim’s vulnerability”.
Some references to examples of a victim’s personal circumstances and relevant characteristics are already found in Clauses 1 and 45.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Bill, whatever the intentions, does not appear primarily geared to increasing prosecutions, important though that is, but that it also places the victim and the best interests of the victim at the heart of the Bill. At Second Reading, the Minister described the Bill’s purpose as being to consign the crime of modern slavery to history. He said:
“It will ensure that we can effectively prosecute perpetrators, properly punish offenders and help prevent more crimes from taking place. It will enhance protection and support for the victims of these dreadful crimes”.—[Official Report, 17/11/14; col. 238.]
However, this aspect of support and protection for victims is not addressed in the Bill, which instead contains a clause—but not until Clause 48—requiring the Government, through the Secretary of State, to,
“issue guidance to such public authorities and other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”
about the support that should be available to victims of slavery or human trafficking. Guidance is not the same as a commitment in the Bill to provide a laid-down, minimum level of support, for which some have called, and neither is it the same as placing a statutory duty on the courts, public authorities and the Secretary of State to have regard to the best interests and personal circumstances of a victim of slavery, trafficking or exploitation in interpreting and exercising their powers and duties under the Bill, as provided for in the new clause set out in this amendment.
The new clause, coming at the beginning of the Bill, makes it clear that it is the victims of these awful crimes, and their best interests and personal circumstances, which are at the heart of the Bill, and not just the process, important though it is, of pursuing cases to greater effect and with greater success through the criminal justice system. The impact of these crimes on the victims can extend way beyond the conclusion of any criminal prosecution. Unless we ensure that victims are at the heart of the Bill and that having regard to their best interests and personal circumstances will be a key issue for as long as necessary, with the impacts of these crimes, both physically and emotionally, being addressed, we will not get victims to come forward and provide the evidence to pursue successfully the prosecutions that will be necessary and needed if we are to make a significant and lasting impact on the incidence of modern slavery crimes.
As my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws reminded us at Second Reading, prosecutions are difficult to bring because,
“victims are in abject terror … Their fear is not just for their own lives but those of their children … of their parents, and of other people they love”.
My noble friend went on to say of victims:
“They know the consequences of involving the authorities. They are often also fearful of authority”.—[Official Report, 17/11/14; col. 291.]
Before a case comes to trial, many witnesses are found by their traffickers or family members are prevailed on to induce them to retract their evidence. There is a need to place victims and their best interests and personal circumstances at the heart of the Bill if we are to get successful prosecutions and get at the traffickers rather more successfully than we do now. Having regard to the best interests of victims and their personal circumstances is not simply something that we ought to do, powerful though that reason is, it is crucial to the delivery of the objective of the Bill, which, in his speech at Second Reading, the Minister said was to eliminate the crimes that constitute modern slavery.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, a focus on the victims is absolutely right. At this stage, though, I want to make a point that was made by others at Second Reading: we must be careful to avoid detracting from the concept of survival. I am trying to keep in mind in the Bill the imperative of badging trafficked and enslaved persons as survivors, if this is at all possible, rather than as victims, which has a rather more negative connotation.
This Bill has raised quite extraordinary passions. I am finding it one of the most difficult that I have ever dealt with in my time as a Member of your Lordships’ House, in part because of the technicalities that we are having to look at, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if, in my comments on this amendment, I focus on the technicalities.
I am not really clear what this amendment would actually achieve—and that leaves me rather concerned. How are best interests to be assessed; what standard does one apply? We are all accustomed to the principle of best interests in relation to children because that is linked with the listed rights of the child in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; but maybe when he responds the noble Lord can explain what is engaged by the principle in the case of an adult trafficked or enslaved or exploited? For instance, would it mean an automatic referral to the national referral mechanism even if the adult does not want that? That would obviously go against the trafficked person’s right to decide for herself matters relating to her, assuming there is no lack of capacity. I am sure that it is not intended to be paternalistic, but the intention seems to be to make decisions for or on behalf of the victim in the name of best interests when she herself may disagree with what is in her best interests.
Without losing focus on the victim—or as I say, survivor—if there is a concern that particular parts of the Bill lack a victim focus, which I have to say I think is the case, that is where we should focus our changes rather than on an umbrella clause. Maybe by the end of this debate I will be clearer as to what it means, but at the moment I think that it is unclear and therefore possibly a problem.
Lord Quirk (CB)
My Lords, I would like to just draw attention to a very small point in this amendment, which on the whole I fully support. The amendment before us today is an amendment of an amendment in which proposed new subsection (1) ends, “slavery or trafficking”. In the amended amendment that we have in front of us this afternoon, proposed new subsection (2) ends with, “slavery, trafficking, or exploitation”. That is unchanged from the previous one. However, proposed new subsection (1) says, “slavery, trafficking and exploitation”. Surely that is not meant and this proposed new subsection (1) should end with the same wording as subsection (2)?
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, this is an amendment which I have only just seen since I was out of the country until the early hours of this morning. I think that it is very interesting. This is an iconic Bill which has generated the most enormous amount of interest right across the country and internationally. Everybody, including myself, is being asked to speak on this Bill and it has got to be one of which the Government can be proud. I think that the Government should be proud of having the Bill as it is, but it could be better.
The criticism from NGOs, which may or may not be justified, is that this is a Bill for prosecution and conviction and not one for the welfare of those who are the victims of trafficking and slavery. If the Government accepted this amendment, they would have in the front of the Bill a clause that would put to rest what the NGOs are complaining about.
What worries me about the Bill is the prospect of the press supporting the NGOs when this Bill becomes law and saying that this is not the iconic Bill it is intended to be but is in fact rather a small Bill that deals with rather limited issues. The fact that that is not true does not stop that perception—and, as we all know, we live in a world of perception rather than reality.
This is a very clever amendment, if I may respectfully say so to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the Government should look at it with enormous care and consider having it, or something like it, at the beginning of the Bill, while taking into account all the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made about it. I think that she is being somewhat overworried. Speaking as a former judge, nobody in the Family Division, the county court which tries the family cases, or the magistrates in the family proceedings court have the slightest difficulty in understanding what is meant by “best interests”. I would be astonished if those judges referred to in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause would have any difficulty in understanding that. Inevitably these would be seen as vulnerable adults, and “best interests” applies as much to vulnerable adults as it does to children.
The only point I will make, to take up what the noble Lord just said about the contrasts between subsections (1) of Amendment 1A and Amendment 1, where you have “and” in one and “or” in another, is that that is untidy. However, I am also concerned, as I said at Second Reading, about the word “exploitation”. If we are to have that word, it needs to be adjusted to a reference to whichever of the subsequent clauses deals with the definition of exploitation.
On the subject of those rather technical matters, this is a very interesting idea, and I urge the Government to look at it with great care. If they put something like this in, it would lay to rest the criticisms that the NGOs and then the press will make, which will have a devastating effect on what is a very good Bill. It would be very clever to put it in.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I echo what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, and I welcome and endorse the Minister’s commitment to making this a victim-centred Bill. The key thing for me in this proposed amendment is the phrase “personal circumstances”. One of the facts that have come home to me very clearly in my work with victims and those who work with them is that this is not just about the terrible circumstances that somebody finds themselves in because they have been trafficked or enslaved. A very high proportion of those people start off, before they are ever enslaved, as vulnerable people—they have mental health problems, or are homeless, or have low self-esteem—who very easily get drawn into being dominated, trafficked and exploited. What is challenging, and what we should take seriously in the proposed new clause, is for the Bill to draw attention to the personal circumstances of each victim or survivor. In almost any case these people will be vulnerable and will need to be treated as we treat others, with our development of a safeguarding framework and proper procedures to care for those who need safeguarding.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)
My Lords, I add my voice in support of Amendment 1A, which proposes a new Clause 1. All of us in your Lordships’ House and in the other place speak with one voice when we say that the intent of the Bill is good. We are as one in our agreement that the overarching ideal is to eradicate the festering sore of modern slavery from our society.
The reason we are gathered together on this is the outrage that burns within each of us that children can be spirited across borders against their will; that girls, boys, women and men are forced into sexual servitude; that some in our country have to work back-breaking hours for little or no pay, with the promise of only a beating if they try to escape; and that in this day and age, when so much progress has been secured, so many still live lives under the violent control of others, exploited for their labour and robbed of any free will or hope. However, it is not for our outrage that the Bill should exist. The current Bill suggests that our primary objective is to punish the perpetrators. While I understand that our first outraged impulse may be to punish the perpetrators in anger for their inhumanity, we must remember that we are acting for the humanity of the victims—for the thousands in this country and millions around the world who are locked away, isolated and invisible.
At Second Reading, I explained my view that all the people we represent in this country—whether they are born here or not—are our children. This perspective should set our standard for how victims should be treated: with compassion for their suffering and the will to give them a chance of a better future. It means, first, ensuring that victims are recognised and treated by public organisations, including the police, as victims, not criminals. This should be done not only out of compassion but from necessity, because without victims’ co-operation we will never secure the convictions we need to end modern slavery. It means putting their interests first in the process of tackling the perpetrators. As I mentioned earlier, Anthony Steen, the Government’s former special envoy on human trafficking, has made it clear that only a Bill with victims’ interests at its heart will be effective in enforcement. It means the Government considering the potential impact of their broader legislation, rather than instigating measures such as the 2012 visa changes for overseas domestic workers, which dramatically increased the risk of domestic slavery. It means the Government doing more, through the proposed anti-slavery commissioner and in partnership with other organisations, to help victims recover and build new lives of dignity and opportunity.
Saying this is not to suggest that we should not punish perpetrators: of course we must. It is to say that the overriding purpose of the Bill is to free those of our children who are enslaved and to work to ensure that there will be no more. The Bill is about them. That is why I support this amendment to create a new Clause 1. To repeat my words of two weeks ago, we must send a clear message to the boys, girls, men and women who are currently enslaved, living lives where hope becomes more distant and the future more bleak. We will not let you live lives without dignity, without rights, without a future worth living. You are our children, too. This amendment is one part of that message and it should have the support of this House.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I underscore what the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, has just said about the reason for the Bill. However, one has to remember that the idea of introducing laws to enable prosecutions to take place is not primarily for the purpose of having prosecutions: it is for the purpose of preventing conduct that is subject to prosecution. In so far as it is successful, it will do that. The number of prosecutions that happen under an Act is not necessarily the best test of whether the Act has been successful. If the conduct which is penalised under the Act stops, that is the best kind of success you can have, and with no prosecutions at all you are even better off.
I entirely accept the view that the Bill should clearly be dealing with the complete amelioration of the tragic circumstances of those who are subject to slavery, trafficking or exploitation. However, I wonder a little about the way in which the proposed new clause is constructed. First, I entirely agree with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that judges of a Family Division know exactly what is meant by the “best interests” of the child in relation to disputes between parents about the child’s future. However, this is a more difficult issue. I shall make another point about that in a minute. To what extent does the court have power to determine the future circumstances of a victim of slavery, for example? That is a very important aspect of securing the best interests of the victim. I think we all would like to see the best interests of the victim secured but how you go about that, and which powers the court needs to secure that, is something we need to hear a little more about.
Secondly, I find it hard to distinguish between the circumstances in proposed new subsection (1) and those in proposed new subsection (2). I think that the court is a public authority. However, the power is based on interpretation by the court. The court has to interpret the provisions in such a way as to secure the best interests of the victim, whereas in proposed new subsection (2), it is a question of the public authorities and the Secretary of State, in exercising the powers given by the Bill and, ultimately, the Act, having the power to secure the best interests of the victim. I find it hard to know why that should be different and why proposed new subsections (1) and (2) should not have exactly the same framework. I do not object at all to the court being specially mentioned as one of the public authorities, but the powers conferred by proposed new subsection (2) would be better from the point of view of achieving the result in question.
There seems to be a somewhat unnecessary elaboration in proposed new subsection (3). It starts saying what the personal circumstances are but then gives up and refers to anything else that is relevant. Starting to make a definition that you cannot effectively complete strikes me as possibly unnecessary. If a new clause of this kind were to be incorporated, possibly with some elaboration, it may be wise to leave it at the personal circumstances of the victim.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, whatever the technicalities involved in placing a clause at the beginning of a Bill, I urge the Government to consider putting victims very much at the heart of this legislation. Unlike the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, I was not in the House when the Children Act 1989 went through Parliament. However, I implemented the provisions of that legislation. Children were very much at the heart of that legislation and, because of that, work focused on children moved forward substantially. A similar situation has occurred with care issues. However, we know that despite that we have still not fully implemented the children’s legislation and much care legislation still waits to be addressed—never mind acted on—on the ground. Given the pressure on resources and the problems of implementation, which are myriad, I fear that unless victims are mentioned at the beginning of the Bill there will be no forward movement on this issue. The Minister may say that the Government have a plan to do that and many other things. However, placing victims firmly at the forefront of the legislation ensures that people’s minds are concentrated on them, particularly in local authorities, the police and other services. For that reason, I encourage the Minister to consider the amendment or, if not this one, something like it.
May I make one more point in response to something that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said? It is complicated with adults, many of whom, particularly those in the 19 to 20 age range who were taken into prostitution as young girls and some of whom have been seen as runaways for years—we are only just recognising what the runaway issue is—may say that they definitely do not want any intervention. But is it in their best interests? We all know that they will have been indoctrinated, groomed and terrified and we often have much more work to do to intervene with them. So it is not easy, but we need them right at the centre of this legislation.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, for the reasons that have already been stated, and another one, I think that the amendment would set the right tone at the beginning of the legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, thought that it might be more important to look in more detail at specific clauses to make sure that the victim—or the survivor, as she helpfully puts it—is to the fore, but I do not think that these two approaches are mutually exclusive. If we put this at the front, it will get the tone right.
The noble Baroness quite rightly posed the question of what difference this would make. It seems to me that it might make a difference in the way the police go about prosecuting. I take it for granted that they would already be sensitive to the victim and take into account their protection, safety, physical well-being and mental state. However, one can imagine a situation where people get so focused on prosecuting that all that gets slightly pushed to one side. Having something like this setting the right tone at the beginning and running through the Bill would ensure that that is counteracted.
I hesitate to trespass on or even say anything in relation to the ground covered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, but would not the courts have to make decisions about which witnesses are called and how they are called? Is it not important, as they do that, that they should always bear in mind what is going to be in the best interests of the victim and not just focus on simply achieving a prosecution? For those reasons, and the other ones stated, I support this amendment.
Lord Tebbit (Con)
My Lords, not being a lawyer, I sometimes become confused by lawyers’ talk, although mercifully I am often saved from that by the words of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay. That is why I sit here and listen. What worries me about this legislation in general, and what worries me even more about this amendment today, is that I have concerns about seeking to put into the same Act of Parliament the provisions to prosecute those who commit an act and the provisions to assist those who may be victims of such an act. I worry about the possible confusion here between the individual or individuals who are named in a particular prosecution against a particular individual or individuals and the interests of persons who are not among that group. Does the court have to take into account not just what has happened to persons A, B and C who are listed in the action against those who are being prosecuted but the possible effects on other individuals who are not so listed? They may conflict. There is not much provision here, it seems to me, for the court to resolve those conflicts.
Let me put it this way. It might be that in prosecuting one group of persons who have taken actions that are harmful to a particular group, another group may not merely be left out but could even be adversely affected. How does the court take that into account? What are we saying about these things? In most legislation it seems pretty clear, but it is only speaking about the acts of those who are arraigned before the court and their effect on the victims who are named. Is that the case with this legislation? It seems to be a bit fudgy, and this amendment would make it even fudgier.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for proposing the amendment and to all other noble Lords who have contributed to an interesting opening debate in this first day in Committee. I guess that we will return to many of these themes as we move through this, but this is also an opportunity to put our views on record. Those views are set out in the Modern Slavery Strategy that was published by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on Saturday, in which she made it clear, in her opening remarks on page 5, that victims would be at the heart of all we do.
In many ways the debate highlights two different views. One says that we help the victims directly by looking after their welfare. We agree with that. The other view was set out eloquently by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay when he said that you also aid the welfare of the victims by ensuring that there are fewer perpetrators. That point was also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence. We accept that, and all the way through this we will return, probably amendment by amendment, to this careful balance that exists between these two approaches.
Before turning to the specifics, I would make one point to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who probably did not mean it that firmly when he said that we were making up policy on the hoof. Sometimes when the Government listen and respond they are accused of making up legislation on the hoof, but when they do not listen they are accused of being intransigent and not responding. I am proud to be associated with this legislation because not only is it ground-breaking and leading the world in this type of legislation but it is being put through in an appropriate way after consultation with Members. It went through pre-legislative scrutiny, and I pay tribute to the work of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friend Lord McColl in making refinements. It is worth putting on the record what has actually changed for victims as a result of that process.
The Bill itself changed quite dramatically before it was published. When it went through the House of Commons, we added specific changes on children and an enabling power for the Secretary of State to set up child trafficking advocates. There is a change in the slavery offence so that the court may have regard to the alleged victim’s personal circumstances, including age. A number of provisions in this amendment relate to Clause 1(4), which says that,
“regard may be had to any of the person’s personal circumstances”.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, who has immense experience and awareness in this area, talked about personal circumstances. Clause 1(4) mentions,
“age, family relationships, and any mental or physical illness”.
However, it is not limited to those, as it also refers to those,
“which may make the person more vulnerable than other persons”.
In other words, there is a catch-all element to Clause 1(4), in that regard may be had to a much wider group of circumstances. That is one change that was brought forward.
This has all been as a result of the parliamentary process. We have also introduced a statutory defence for victims who have been forced into criminality. Reparation orders have been introduced, to ensure that victims are properly compensated, and the Secretary of State is required to issue guidance to front-line professionals on identifying and supporting victims. Changes have been made to broaden the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner’s remit specifically to include the identification of victims. Changes have been made all the way through, and there will be more changes. I shall not anticipate the details before your Lordships’ House reaches that point, but we have tabled government amendments, which will be debated in the next group, that seek to strengthen that element further.
In addition the strategy, as part of our response for victims, focuses on four elements: pursue, prevent, protect and prepare. The protect element is very important and has victims very much at its heart. We are also currently considering the review of the national referral mechanism for victims of human trafficking, which was published a few weeks ago. We are working our way through it, but one of the things that the review is considering is where victims’ interests lie and how we can strengthen their position.
I am struck by a few statistics that lie at the heart of this matter. The Modern Slavery Strategy sets out that in 2013 there were 226 convictions. However, the scale of the problem is much greater than that. Professor Bernard Silverman, the chief scientific adviser at the Home Office, estimates that the number of victims is more like 10,000 to 13,000. The scale is very wide, yet the number of prosecutions is very low in comparison. Through the anti-slavery commissioner, and all that we do, we are focusing on the victims, including by ensuring that the evil perpetrators of this crime are brought to justice and that the sentences available to the courts are increased from 14 years to life imprisonment. That is all directed towards that end.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will respond to the precise technical questions about his amendment that have been so ably asked by my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, and others. Although we remain open, as we always have been, to ways in which we can strengthen protection for victims, I would not want to let this moment pass without pointing out that it would be wrong to think that without this amendment there would not be, running right through the core of the legislation, a belief that victims deserve the absolute protection of the Government.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for his response. Having heard what he said, I am not quite sure what the difference between us is. The thrust of his answer appeared to be that the Government believe that giving support and protection to victims, and taking account of their best interests and their personal circumstances, are already covered in the Bill, in different clauses. Clearly, that view was not shared in the debate at Second Reading, because a number of noble Lords expressed their concern that the Bill appears to be geared too much towards the important issue, which no one denies, of trying to bring more of the perpetrators to justice and does not reflect the issue of providing support and protection for victims.
I repeat the point I made in moving the amendment: if we do not take steps to provide some support and protection for victims and recognise that we have to take account of their best interests and personal circumstances, we will find that they will not come forward to give the evidence that is needed in order to secure successful prosecutions. Once again, a number of noble Lords made that point at Second Reading. I do not see these as two separate issues: one of prosecuting the perpetrators and the other of giving support to victims to make sure that they feel able, willing and encouraged to give the evidence necessary to bring the perpetrators to justice. We have all spoken about the lack of prosecutions and some of the reasons why that has happened.
The purpose of the amendment is an attempt to address some of the concerns that were expressed at Second Reading, and I take very much on board what the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, said about it setting the tone. I think that this amendment does seek to set the tone that if we are to have a successful Modern Slavery Bill which delivers on the objective of bringing perpetrators to justice, to which the Minister referred, we need to take a long, hard look at what we are doing for victims to encourage them to come forward and give evidence.
A number of comments have been made about the wording of the amendment. I do not wish to maintain that it is perfect; I am not a lawyer, and I am sure that it could be improved. But what I am not clear about is whether, from the Government’s point of view, the issue is that they do not like the wording of the amendment or that they do not like its basic objective, which is to raise the profile in the Bill of the importance of the approach to the victim. Once again, that is a point which was made by a number of speakers at Second Reading.
Frankly, in that sense I am disappointed with the Minister’s reply. If we could reach agreement that a clause along the lines set out in the amendment is needed and desirable, I for one would certainly not argue that it should be worded exactly as I have it here. I recognise from the comments which have been made that the proposed new clause could be improved or changed. If there was some general accord that we want an amendment along the lines of the objective of raising the profile of the victim for the reasons I have mentioned, then for me the wording is certainly not an important issue.
I accept, for example, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk. It is a valid one, not least because I cannot explain why the word “and” is used in one case and “or” in another. As I say, I am not concerned about defending to the death the actual wording of the proposed new clause. What I would like to see is some understanding that, with the assistance of the Government and of many noble Lords who have spoken, a clause could be produced that would receive wide support for both its wording and its objectives.
I am going to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but perhaps I may say in conclusion that I think the Minister rather misunderstood what I was saying when I referred to things being made up on the hoof. I was referring to the comments made by the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales during the course of her contribution. She said that it was almost as though the physical, emotional and practical impact on those affected by the terrible crime of modern slavery has been forgotten in the drive to bring the perpetrators to justice.
The Minister’s response was quite rightly to compliment the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, on the work she does as Victims’ Commissioner, but he then said that the newly appointed commissioner should address it and make recommendations. I may be wrong, but I did not get the impression that the Victims’ Commissioner was aware that she was going to be involved in addressing that and making recommendations. She made no reference to it in her contribution.
It was the part about the Victims’ Commissioner making recommendations which I felt was being made up on the hoof. It was not an adverse comment about the content of the Bill; I know that it certainly was not made up on the hoof. An awful lot of thought and care has been given to it, but there are areas—and I do not think I am the only one of this view—where it could be improved, one of which is the subject of this amendment. I am disappointed that the Minister has not felt able to make any move, not even to hold further discussions to see if a wording could be found that the Government would feel able to accept—but I note his reply and can only beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I would very much like to see a good clause that envisaged the sort of considerations that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has mentioned. However, there are quite fundamental difficulties, notably what the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, said about the best interests of the victim, for example, on the question of which witnesses are brought or, indeed, on whether a prosecution is brought at all. I am not sure how far these two should be interrelated. This is a difficult issue and merits a good deal of consideration on how it is done. If the victim has a family in some country where the traffickers have power, it might be in the best interests of the victim for there to be no prosecution at all, for reasons of possible ramifications for the family. On the other hand, we do not want a position whereby it is possible, in some way, for people to prevent a prosecution by threatening the families of victims. That is the kind of difficult issue to be faced in relation to a clause of this sort.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
Following on from what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said, might it be sensible to look at a further amendment on Report that does not involve the various issues pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and the noble Lord, Lord Quirk? Could there be a short general clause about the purpose of the Bill being to look after the best interests of victims? The Minister has said that the best interests of the victims come into each of the clauses, but a very short clause of two sentences might perhaps set out the primary purpose of the Bill. Indeed, the Home Secretary has mentioned the victim focus in her introduction. I wonder whether that might be a way out of all the points we have been making.
Lord Rosser
I am more than happy to consider that. I think I have made clear that I am not going to any barricades over the wording of the amendment. It is more about trying to achieve an objective that, in my view and that of many others, improves the Bill for victims. I take on board the point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. Would the Minister be prepared to have discussions which include all those who have spoken in this debate—if they wish to take part—on getting some wording into the Bill that might satisfy the Government as well as the other parties? I realise that the Government have their interests and reasons for taking the stance that they have, but the objective of us all is to improve a Bill which we all support and which we are not voting against.
Lord Bates
All the way through this, we have tried to listen very carefully to suggestions as to how the Bill can be refined in the way that we all want to go. Our starting point was very much one that we all recognised—that implicit in every strand, clause and subsection of the Bill is the victim’s interest—and that is repeated in the strategy. Whether there is a form of words that could be inserted which would answer the questions that are being asked here—simply to have a very clear statement—is something that we could look at. I am very happy to have a meeting between now and Report with the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and other interested Peers to examine that.
Lord Rosser
I am very grateful to the Minister for what he said, which is most helpful. I really appreciate that and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I also have Amendments 3, 5, 6 and 100 in this group, all of which are directed to the best interests of the victim or survivor. I say to the noble and learned Baroness that I regard it as my job—and all our jobs—to worry. I accept that sometimes I worry a little too much but I doubt I will change that now.
As we have just been discussing, Clause 1 refers to a person’s “personal circumstances”. My amendment seeks to add “or characteristics”. The terms in parenthesis in Clause 1(4) are, in one case, a circumstance—“family relationships”—but others, such as illness, are more of a characteristic. Maybe they are circumstances as well, but I regard circumstances as being more external and characteristics as more about the person himself. I do not suppose that there is a neat or clear dividing line but I am concerned that “circumstances” may not be as broad as I would like it to be. If the Minister agrees, perhaps one can look at Clause 1(3) as well.
The list in parenthesis in Clause 1(4) is obviously not intended to be exhaustive—it starts “such as”—but it refers to “mental and physical illness” without mentioning disability. I am suggesting adding “or disability” because elsewhere in the Bill there is reference to both disability and illness. Obviously, they are not the same and inclusion here would avoid any doubt about that.
Perhaps this tips over into characteristics as well but in my view circumstances certainly include experiences, particularly a position into which a victim has been forced and has been found. Experiences go to make up the person, and if we are embarking on the sort of description that is included here, that is a term that also might be considered. To be appropriately broad, I am suggesting changing “such as” to “including”.
Perhaps I could take this opportunity to ask my noble friend whether in Clause 1(3), where it says:
“In determining whether a person is being held in slavery … regard may be had to all the circumstances”,
“may” means “shall”. What is the extent of the court’s discretion here? In particular, after having regard to all the circumstances, could the court determine that, despite other evidence, a case is not so extreme that it could be described as slavery? In adding these provisions to what is in the current legislation in Section 71 of the 2009 Act, I am not really clear what we are gaining. I suppose that, once the question about “may” or “shall” in Clause 1(3) has been answered, the same issue or something similar arises in Clause 1(4). Perhaps another way of putting this is to ask whether there have been difficulties in prosecuting under Section 71 that would have been addressed by having these two provisions, although my noble friend may not know the answer to this given the small number of prosecutions, to which he has referred.
This group also includes Amendment 100, which was tabled in my name. This amendment is rather different. It looks at a new offence of exploitation, and really does no more than just consider it. This amendment was also tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey. I will not have been the only one who, in seeking to get to grips with these issues, has become interested in the ill treatment of labour in a much wider sense than we are dealing with in the Bill. There is a spectrum—or, as it has been termed, a continuum—from direct, decent work to slavery. This is very much a probing amendment. It would obviously not be appropriate to jump straight into a new offence without careful consideration and, indeed, without wide consultation.
The concept of a continuum is not mine. I was interested to read a report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation by Klara Skrivankova, which talks about a continuum reflecting the real life experiences of workers whose employment relationships are not static. It discusses the variability in their working conditions resulting from the circumstances, their personal vulnerabilities and external pressures. The model of the continuum also considers the spectrum of substandard working conditions that might not constitute forced labour but are identified as underlying causes, and perhaps are on the way to forced labour. Putting it another way, such an offence would apply the convention according to modern standards.
This was particularly put into my head in conversations with Focus On Labour Exploitation—or FLEX—which is a small charity with a very big agenda. I discussed this very recently with a counsel who has undertaken many prosecutions in this area. Indeed, I recognise one of the case studies referred to in the strategy that was recently published. The first thing the counsel said was that to have such as offence, which was not as severe as forced labour, would make things easier for the Crown. There would be more guilty pleas. He immediately followed that by saying that it would take the heat off the victim. The jury would naturally think that a victim must be vulnerable, and the jury would not succumb to the tendency, which he has observed, to assume that forced labour requires violence.
The counsel also said that the maximum sentence of life imprisonment—although I am not arguing with that being provided for here—can be something of a deterrent to a jury, in his view. He compared this with rape. That carries high maximum penalties, but he believes that a jury has been unwilling to convict because it is worried about the penalty that might be imposed, which it thinks would be inappropriate.
In the same conversation, a psychologist said that there being a maximum sentence of life can be an enormous burden on a victim, who, in the very complex relationships that are created in such situations, may feel quite a responsibility to the slave master. The counsel with whom I discussed this even said that he thought that there would be no need to define exploitation because the best assessors of whether somebody had been exploited would be a jury. He compared it with affray, where a jury does not have a difficulty in assessing whether a reasonable person would fear for their safety on the streets.
I am suggesting in this amendment the instigation of a review, including of the legislation establishing the public authorities that I have listed—they are regulators but not only regulators, and are in a position to get a very good handle on what may be going on; for instance, on a construction site—and very wide consultation working towards a report. This may not be the way to word the amendment—I am sure that it is not—but, crucially, the Minister could tell us, even if not today, that the Government will consider this and take it on, and that it does not actually need to be in legislation. I beg to move.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to our Amendment 8 as well as to Amendment 100 and government Amendments 4, 7 and 101. As we consider the offences under Part 1, I thank all the organisations which have provided us with invaluable briefings and information, both written and oral, on what is perhaps the most important part of this Bill.
As discussed in relation to the previous group of amendments, it is imperative that victims are at the heart of the Bill. It is by giving them support and the knowledge that they can trust the people from whom they seek help that more of these inhumane crimes will be reported—I know that the Minister agrees with that. However, as we heard at Second Reading, far too few of the perpetrators are brought to justice—indeed, the Minister acknowledged the lamentable figures in his helpful letter of 25 November, for which I thank him.
As the newly published Modern Slavery Strategy makes clear, there are many more victims than were envisaged. This makes it even more essential that we get the offences right in order to get more successful prosecutions and ensure that there are no gaps or loopholes. While the Modern Slavery Strategy is of course very welcome and was eagerly awaited, I wonder whether it would have been sensible for the Government to delay its publication slightly until the legislative process had been concluded; for example, it rightly speaks of the work of the new anti-slavery commissioner, but his remit may well be amended during consideration of the Bill by this House. Will the strategy be amended if necessary to take account of any change in the Bill when enacted?
Amendment 8 would make it clear that the consent of a victim is irrelevant when it comes to an offence of slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour. I am grateful to the Minister for listening to concerns expressed at Second Reading, in the House of Commons and in the pre-legislative Joint Committee, and for bringing forward his amendment to this clause. When giving evidence to the draft Bill committee, Nick Hunt, director of strategy and policy at the Crown Prosecution Service, recognised that such a change was needed to put Clause 1 on a level footing with Clause 2, which our amendment seeks to do by using the same wording as in Clause 2.
Both our amendment and that of the Government will ensure that individuals who hold people in servitude, slavery or forced labour can be convicted, and that the emphasis and the spotlight in the consideration of the offence should be put on them and not on the victims. In his letter, the Minister states that the amendment,
“will clarify that a lack of consent is not required for the offence to be committed and that the court can consider the particular vulnerabilities of a child”.
This is true, but we believe that it does not obviate the need for a specific child-related offence. Indeed, Amendment 101 is also welcome in that it specifies that people under the age of 18 are children. However, the mere addition of the word “child” through Amendment 4 does not mean that these offences are now adaptable to suit the needs of child victims and to enable prosecutions of those who commit the offences of trafficking and exploitation against children. That is why we believe that there should be separate offences relating to children.
In relation to Amendment 100, which was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and is also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, I agree that there should be a review of various aspects of the Bill—or Act—in due course. I think that one year is much too tight and I would say that “in due course” should be specified. Regarding what the noble Baroness says about the offence of exploitation, as will be clear from the next groupings, we believe that it is imperative that an offence of exploitation is put into the Bill now. If there were to be a review in a year’s time and the review concludes that there should be an offence of exploitation, it may then take a while for it to be introduced through legislation and, throughout all that time, there will be victims of exploitation and the perpetrators of the dreadful deeds need to be brought to justice. Therefore, we strongly urge the Government to ensure that the offence of exploitation is brought forward now. While I understand why the noble Baronesses have put forward Amendment 100, we do not agree with it. We think that it would delay a necessary step, which should be taken right now.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, I welcome government Amendment 7, which provides clarity about the role of consent in the understanding of whether a person has been trafficked or not. I had the privilege to sit on the Joint Committee for the pre-legislative scrutiny process. During our hearings we received a good deal of evidence that the issue of consent in relation to the offences of slavery, forced labour and servitude in Clause 1 is rather problematic. The barrister Riel Karmy-Jones, who has extensive experience of prosecuting such cases for the CPS, told our committee:
“I think consent is an issue for clause 1 as well, because you do have people occasionally who are brought up in a position of servitude and know nothing else, and so effectively could be seen to be consenting to their condition”.
Another barrister, Peter Carter QC, who acted as special adviser to our committee, also raised concerns that consent was what he termed a “live issue” in Clause 1 by virtue of subsections (2) and (3), and especially in relation to children.
The reason that the issue of consent is problematic is because where a victim of slavery, forced labour or servitude appears to consent to their situation, perhaps by not running away, or where they are not physically restrained, police officers may incorrectly presume that such cases are not truly cases of forced labour, slavery or servitude. Some charities that work with victims have told me that misunderstandings and presumptions about what constitutes forced labour can mean that cases do not receive the serious treatment that they should. The charity Hope for Justice has told me that it commonly comes across a misunderstanding among police officers that,
“victims have to be locked up in order to be considered as being in forced labour”.
The issue of consent is not only a problem in relation to police investigations but can be used also by defence counsel to raise doubts in the minds of juries. Amendment 7 will make it clear for police officers, courts, lawyers and jurors that slavery, servitude and forced labour are complex situations, and that numerous factors can lead a person to consent to exploitation without necessarily meaning that the exploitation is not taking place. Those psychological barriers can be much stronger than any physical restraints, such as a locked door.
Threats to the individual victim or a family member can deter people from trying to escape, even if they have the opportunity. Fear of the authorities, of prison or of deportation—encouraged by those who exploit them—can prevent a victim seeking help. Debt bondage can cause a person to continue in a situation of forced labour or servitude without any restrictions on their freedom. Even where that debt is created by deception or fraud, a victim can be so desperate to pay back the money that they have been told they owe that they will consent to servitude or slavery. For other victims, their dependency on their exploiters, perhaps for shelter or food, however inadequate those might be, leaves them at risk and certainly in fear of facing greater destitution if they try to escape.
I welcome this amendment from the Minister, which will make it clear in the Bill that such consent need not necessarily preclude a finding on the basis of other evidence that a person has been held in slavery or servitude or required to perform forced labour. Doing so will make understanding the offence simpler for police officers and jurors and, as a result, aid successful prosecutions, which we all hope the Bill will help to promote.
I note, however, that Amendment 7 refers to the person’s consent to,
“any of the acts alleged to constitute holding the person in slavery or servitude, or requiring the person to perform forced or compulsory labour”.
Might the Minister consider a similar amendment to the Clause 2 offence, which presently addresses consent only in relation to a person’s travel and not the exploitation that they are put through?
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I support Amendments 4, 7 and 101, which are government amendments. I am very happy to see Amendment 7 at the bottom of Clause 1, as it seems to make entirely clear the situation of consent in relation to children as well as to adults. I am also very pleased that under Amendments 4 and 101 it is made clear what a child is; that is, someone under the age of 18. That is a very useful bit of interpretation, so I strongly support the amendments. I think that I prefer Amendment 7 to Amendment 8, because Amendment 7 sets it out in rather more detail and therefore is preferable.
Baroness Young of Hornsey (CB)
I shall speak to Amendment 100, which is also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. As both she and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, were speaking, it struck me that this is something to do with the inadequacy of language, which may be stopping us getting across what we mean in that amendment. When we refer to exploitation it is about this idea of the continuum so, for me, the key phrase is in subsection (1)(c) of its proposed new clause. It says,
“and in particular whether there should be an offence of exploitation which does not amount to slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour within section 1”.
Although I hesitate to use such a term, we have really been talking about slightly lower level criminal offences. Organisations such as FLEX, which the noble Baroness mentioned, say that those offences tend to slip through the gaps a bit because they are seen as being not quite serious enough to go the whole way with the kind of sentences that are being proposed, and so on. That is really where the amendment sits.
I take the point about the one year. That is fair enough, were we to institute the proposed new clause, although it is obviously a probing amendment. There is a specific set of problems around the continuum of the seriousness of offences. I am not aware whether evidence exists about the extent to which persistent perpetrators of the offences we are talking about then escalate their criminality into much more serious offences; it would be useful to know whether it does. If so, it would be worth concentrating some effort on trying to root out these slightly lower level crimes. I support the amendment mainly to get some response from the Government, so as to get a sense of where they think some of these other types of offences might sit in relation to the Bill as a whole.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, I support the three government amendments and I shall also speak to Amendment 100. This is when, as the Minister said, we start to put victims at the centre of this legislation. The issue of consent is certainly a complex and crucial one, but we have managed to tackle the general concept in this legislation. It takes me back to wanting a general concept at the beginning of the Bill that sets the tone of the Bill. I thank the Government for using the age limit of 18. It would have been easy to take a different age limit, but we have established that 18 is the age at which children stop being children. We know that many of them are still extraordinarily vulnerable, but this legislation does say something about that.
I want to comment on the one-year period in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I think that one year is quite a short time and that a review is essential. I hope that, because the Bill has been taken through its stages so well—unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to speak at Second Reading, for a number of reasons—it would benefit from post-legislative scrutiny at a proper time, 18 months to two years on. We should set that into the legislation somehow, so that we are absolutely sure that we can look at this in detail. I think that a year is very short for something as complex as this and that a review is necessary.
Lord Bates
I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling amendments relating to the offence of slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour in the Bill, and raising the issue of whether a wider offence is needed. I reflected, ahead of Committee, on the definition of this offence and I will move government Amendments 4, 7 and 101 to clarify the offence and ensure it can clearly be used in cases where the victim is a child or vulnerable.
This offence will replace the existing offence of slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour set out in Section 71 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. This is an important offence which captures grave and often degrading behaviour. Under the Bill, the maximum penalty will be increased to life imprisonment. A person commits this offence if they hold another person in slavery or servitude or require another person to perform forced or compulsory labour. These terms are defined with reference to Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Through its decisions, the European Court of Human Rights has provided clear guidance on the meaning of these terms.
I am particularly concerned that our offences should be effective in the case of child victims, who are often very vulnerable. That is why, following the pre-legislative scrutiny report, we clarified the Clause 1 offence to make it clear that, when deciding whether an offence has been committed, the court can consider someone’s personal circumstances, including their age. Following Second Reading, I have considered the issue of child victims and very vulnerable adults further and I have tabled amendments that do more to ensure that the offences clearly cover their specific circumstances.
Government Amendment 4, for which I am grateful for your Lordships’ wide support, makes it absolutely clear that, when assessing whether an offence of slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour has taken place, the police, prosecutors and the courts can look at the particular vulnerabilities of children. I have also reflected on concerns that the Bill is not yet sufficiently clear on the meaning of “child”. For the avoidance of doubt, I have tabled government Amendment 101 to make clear that “child” refers to a person under 18, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, and very much part of the recommendations made by my noble friend Lord McColl and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
I also understand the concerns expressed at Second Reading in another place, and during the pre-legislative scrutiny committee’s inquiry, that there may be a perception that to achieve a successful prosecution will require evidence that a person has not consented to being held in slavery or servitude or required to perform forced or compulsory labour. That is a point that my noble friend Lady Hamwee made. In cases of children, there may not be clear evidence of lack of consent because adults often control children in subtle ways, and children may not even realise that they are victims. My noble friend referred to that often very complex relationship between the perpetrators and their victims. I want to ensure that law enforcement, prosecutors and the courts are clear that, in accordance with existing case law, the lack of consent is not an element of the offences in Clause 1 that has to be proved to secure a conviction, and therefore a person’s consent does not prevent a finding that the offence of slavery or servitude or forced or compulsory labour has been committed.
Government Amendment 7 makes sure that, even where a victim consented to the situation they were placed in, the court can find that the situation amounted to slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour. This applies explicitly to both children and adults. We want to protect children and very vulnerable adults from modern slavery. This is a point that my noble friend Lord McColl referred to in highlighting some of the circumstances, particularly debt bondage, that people are in.
I understand and share the sentiments behind the alternative Amendment 8, which was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and would make consent simply irrelevant when determining whether a Clause 1 offence had been committed. However, we have not chosen to take that approach, for two reasons. First, in our view it would be inconsistent with the European Court of Human Rights case law, which is clear that consent can be considered when assessing overall whether forced or compulsory labour has taken place. Secondly, this approach could inadvertently actually make it harder to secure convictions, which none of us wants. In some cases the victim will clearly have refused to consent to their treatment in some way. In those cases their lack of consent will be relevant evidence for the court to consider, and may well help to demonstrate that the offence has been committed. This amendment would prevent a court from considering this evidence—something that none of us wishes.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee asked a very pertinent question, which sent a flood of notes back and forth to and from the Bill team, on whether the strategy document, on which the ink is yet to dry, is open to amendment. You could see officials wincing at the prospect, but this is something that needs to be kept under review. I refer my noble friend to Clause 42, which refers to the role of the anti-slavery commissioner and his requirement to produce strategic plans and annual reports; those reports will come before Parliament and we will have an opportunity to discuss them. I hope that in some way that goes to answering her question. I am grateful to her and my noble friend Lord Dholakia for tabling amendments that have allowed me to test out whether the wording in the offence around considering a victim’s circumstances and vulnerabilities works in the way that the Government have always intended.
I turn to a specific question asked by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. In Clause 1(4) we use the term “may”, and she asked whether it should be “may” or “shall”. “May” was carefully chosen in this context to give the courts the flexibility to exercise their judgment appropriately. There will be many circumstances in any case and some will not be relevant as to whether a Clause 1 offence was committed. The term “may”—rather than, for example, “shall”—was used to avoid a court having to consider every single circumstance in every single case, whether or not they are relevant. That was the purpose behind that.
Amendments 2, 3, 5 and 6 all relate to Clause 1(4), which specifies that, when determining whether a person has been held in slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour, regard may be had to any of the person’s personal circumstances which may make them vulnerable. I can reassure noble Lords that the subsection gives a non-exhaustive list of the kinds of personal circumstances that may be considered to make someone more vulnerable than other persons. This list is just to offer examples. The clause specifically states that,
“regard may be had to any of the person’s personal circumstances”—
some being mentioned in parenthesis—whether they are on that list of examples or not.
With this in mind, we do not think that we need to add further examples to that list which could risk creating the impression that it is supposed to be comprehensive. We are also confident that the phrase “such as” is sufficient to make it clear that this is a non-exhaustive list of examples, and have made this point clear in the Explanatory Notes.
The proposed new clause in Amendment 100 suggests that we place in statute a requirement for a review of a number of Acts of Parliament to look specifically at whether existing offences adequately protect victims of exploitation. We will turn to the detail of the Bill’s definition of exploitation in a later group. I welcome the sentiment behind this amendment. I have been looking carefully at the detail of the offences, as has the Minister for Modern Slavery and Organised Crime. We have been asking if there are examples of potential gaps in the law where conduct that amounts to modern slavery might not be appropriately criminalised. I must say that we have not yet identified substantial gaps, but I want to get this Bill right and remain very keen to hear about any problems which have been highlighted. The examples given by my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord McColl are very helpful in this regard and we will reflect on them.
I am also committed to keeping the effectiveness of this Bill—including the offences—under review after it becomes an Act. This will happen both through the work of the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner and through post-legislative scrutiny. For this reason I do not believe that a review of the Acts listed in the amendment is necessary at this stage. However, I place on record in this House the Government’s commitment to providing post-legislative scrutiny on the Bill in the usual way within three to five years of Royal Assent, an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, at Second Reading. The Government will consult the Home Affairs Select Committee on the timing of publication of the memorandum. In light of this assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment and that noble Lords will support the amendments in my name. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton (CB)
The noble Lord has helpfully mentioned the issue of vulnerability. In relation to Clause 1(4), does being tied to one single employer not necessarily involve vulnerability?
Lord Bates
We will come back to this excellent question from the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I will get some more guidance but I know we will be coming back to discuss this very issue on a later grouping—in fact, on some of the amendments which he has tabled. I will make sure we have a response to that by then.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I thought that I would have to find about seven minutes’ worth of response so that we did not get on to the next group of amendments before 4.45 pm. However, I will take possibly more than one minute to respond. I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments.
As regards the 12 months, I had it in mind that a review should have taken place within 12 months, not that one should postpone it, but that is in a sense a detail as against the principle of whether there should be an offence that is less than slavery. The Minister said that the Government have been looking to see whether anything has slipped through the gaps, and he talked about—as I understood it; obviously I will read what he said—not criminalising lesser actions. My point is that we should look to see what lesser actions should be criminalised, and seek to consider a new offence.
On the Minister’s answer on “may” or “shall”—some noble Lords will go to their graves with “may”, “shall” and “must” written on their hearts, will they not?—am I therefore to understand that the court must consider the person before considering whether an offence has been committed? His answer seemed to indicate that, although again, one must read it properly. However, if that is so, and if the resilience of some people is such that the behaviour meted out to them could be considered not to be slavery, forced labour or servitude, is that consistent with the convention? I said that the Bill raises a lot of technical issues, and that is one of them.
On my smaller, and certainly shorter, amendments to Clause 1, and in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, my term “experiences” aimed to cover exactly the sort of experience he mentioned. However, of all those amendments, I would be concerned not to lose the one on “characteristics”, and if I had to pick one to come back to in order to pursue it further between now and Report, and possibly on Report, it would be that one. We will of course look at the question of an offence of exploitation later in our debate today as well. Whatever we end up with, I would certainly not wish to lose sight of that one. However, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 2.
Lord Bates
Lord Bates
“(5) The consent of a person (whether an adult or a child) to any of the acts alleged to constitute holding the person in slavery or servitude, or requiring the person to perform forced or compulsory labour, does not preclude a determination that the person is being held in slavery or servitude, or required to perform forced or compulsory labour.”
Baroness Doocey
“Offence of child exploitation
(1) A person who exploits a child commits an offence.
(2) Where the exact age of the child cannot be determined, it shall nonetheless be an offence under subsection (1) to exploit a person if the accused believed, or had reasonable grounds for believing, that the person exploited was under 18.
(3) It shall be an offence even if there was no threat or use of violence, or other form of coercion, deception or any abuse of a position of vulnerability.
(4) Exploitation means the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, including begging, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, or the exploitation of criminal activities, or the removal of organs.
(5) A child may be in a situation of exploitation whether or not—
(a) escape from the situation is practically possible for the child; or(b) the child has attempted to escape from the situation.(6) Where the person exploited is a child, the consent or apparent consent to the exploitation of the child, or of any person having lawful authority over the child, is irrelevant.”
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, the amendment introduces a new, separate child exploitation clause aimed at filling the gaps which, despite the Government’s amendments, still exist in the Bill. Clause 1 requires evidence of slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour. However, force or compulsion should not be required in the case of children because a child can be controlled far more easily than an adult, and in many cases without direct force or compulsion. That is one of the reasons why we need a separate child exploitation clause. Clause 2 does not require just evidence of trafficking; it also requires proof that the trafficking took place with a view to exploitation. Proving that somebody was trafficked is difficult enough, but proving that they were trafficked with a view to exploitation is almost impossible, and proving both in the case of children, who are moved at the behest of adults, sets the bar far too high for the CPS to be able to prosecute.
There are a number of circumstances in which children are being exploited that would not be deemed offences under the Bill: children who had not been trafficked but had been sent out to the streets by family members to beg or to steal; children used to make multiple claims for benefit; children brought in from baby farms overseas to be illegally adopted. I shall give two examples of what is actually happening. When I was serving on the Metropolitan Police Authority, the police went into a house and found a young girl of about 12 years of age who was looking after three children under six. She was working from dawn to dusk: cleaning, cooking, washing, ironing, looking after the children. The bed was a mat by the fire. She had never been to school. The police removed her from the house and took her to social services. However, social services brought her back to the same house the next day, saying that compared to some of the children that they had pulled out of crack joints, she was living in the lap of luxury. The only thing the police could prosecute for was the fact that she had not been to school and they could not home-school her. Once the aunt and uncle—so-called—had promised to send her to school, they basically got off scot free, because there was no way the police could prove that she had been trafficked with a view to being exploited.
In another case, a girl of 12 was sold by her mother in west Africa to a woman who brought her to London to exploit her in domestic servitude. After about a year the woman’s next door neighbour started to ask questions about the girl: where she had come from, what she was doing. The woman immediately sold her on to another man, who also exploited her in domestic servitude. When the police were finally contacted, they said that they could not prosecute this man because he had not trafficked the girl into the country.
If either of these cases of exploitation happens after the Bill becomes law the authorities would still be unable to prosecute, because they would be unable to prove the trafficking element required under Clause 2. I am not alone in believing that a separate child exploitation clause is essential. The Joint Committee on which I sat, which scrutinised the Bill, recommended such a clause. The 41 NGOs which form the Refugee Council’s consortium, including ECPAT, the NSPCC, UNICEF and the Children’s Society, believe that such a clause is necessary. Leading barristers whose daily work is to prosecute these cases, several of whom gave evidence to the Joint Committee, also believe that the clause is necessary. The amendment that I propose makes it an offence to exploit a child, but it also defines that exploitation using the exact words of article 2 of the EU directive on human trafficking, by which our courts are already bound.
This amendment makes explicit the fact that a child cannot consent to their own exploitation and it removes the need to prove any threat, coercion or deception. The Government have tabled an amendment that says that consent is irrelevant for the offences in Clause 1. That is very welcome because it brings Clause 1 into line with the trafficking offence in Clause 2. However, it does not change the fact that we still need a separate exploitation clause, because in many cases exploiting a child will simply not meet the threshold required for slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour.
I cannot say with any certainty how many children are being trafficked and/or exploited in the United Kingdom today—no one can, because our system of justice has failed properly to recognise that such offences exist, let alone to investigate how often they occur. That is a sadly familiar tale, as we have seen recently in the evidence from the Jay report into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham. We must take the opportunity afforded by this Bill to provide a legal framework which offers the very highest standards of protection to children, recognising, as we do in so much other legislation, that children need a higher standard of protection than adults and, sadly, sometimes a higher standard of protection from adults. We need a specific offence of child exploitation to tackle the deficiencies in the Bill. If we do not get it, we will fail the many hundreds, if not thousands, of children who are exploited in our country every day. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, we have Amendments 24 and 26 in this group, which have a very similar theme to that of the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey.
The recent report on child sexual exploitation in Rotherham shocked a great many people, not least due to the extent of the abuse that had taken place. Approximately 1,400 children were sexually exploited over the full inquiry period from 1997 through to 2013. Victims were raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten and intimidated. This was against a background in May this year of the case load of the specialist child sexual exploitation team being 51.
Many victims were unable to recognise that they had been groomed and exploited, and some blamed themselves for not just their own abuse but for what happened to other victims. Although there have been a small number of prosecutions for offences against individual children, many children refused to give evidence or withdrew statements as a direct result of threats, intimidation and assaults against them or their families. We have had similar cases in Oxford and Rochdale that the authorities concerned did not appear to pick up, perhaps because of a lack of awareness of the offence of child exploitation. That is a reason for wanting to see the specific offence of child exploitation as well as the offence of child trafficking included in the Bill.
Around a third of all known victims of modern slavery in the United Kingdom are children and the number is growing, not least because they are being specifically targeted due to their age and vulnerability. Yet according to Crown Prosecution Service data, there have been no cases where the victim was a child at the time of the prosecution since the introduction of Section 71 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 on slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour. The significance of this point is that the Section 71 offence appears to have been transposed into Clause 1 of the Modern Slavery Bill.
The Joint Committee on the Modern Slavery Bill recommended that an offence of child exploitation should be included in the Bill to make clear that child exploitation is even more serious than that of an adult and that consent elements can never be an issue for children. The Sexual Offences Act, for example, already accepts the principle of separate and more serious offences against those under 18. This Bill as it stands does not contain any explicit criminal offence of child exploitation. Our amendments make clear that children do not have the legal capacity to consent to any form of exploitation as recognised in international law and would increase the likelihood that many more of those who traffic, exploit and abuse children would be brought before the courts.
As has been said, children are also at a disadvantage when it comes to providing evidence since they do not usually understand that they have been trafficked or even understand what it means, let alone be aware of what kind of evidence is needed to pursue a prosecution in relation to being trafficked to a location or situation of exploitation. That will be particularly likely if parents or others close to the children concerned have been involved in the trafficking, with the result that while a child may be able to say what happened when they were exploited—through, for example, domestic servitude or prostitution—they are much less likely to be able to help in terms of the perpetrators of a trafficking offence.
It has already been said that since movement or travel is a key component of exploitation, the reality that children are often unable to explain who brought them to a particular house or location where they have been exploited—our amendments include examples of the many different forms of child exploitation—means that no prosecution happens.
Creating separate offences of child exploitation and child trafficking will help to overcome the significant and crucial problem in respect of children and help to achieve the objectives of the Bill, which are to reduce the incidence of modern slavery in its different forms and bring more perpetrators to justice. The separate offence of child trafficking will ensure that those involved in this equally awful activity can be brought to justice for this offence as well as for exploitation.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. After sitting next to her for months in the work of the joint scrutiny committee, I feel that I can now describe her as my noble friend. Today I speak not only for myself but on behalf of my noble friend Lord Warner, who is unable to be in his place. I also support Amendments 24 and 26 in the name of my noble friend Lord Rosser.
Children who are victims of exploitation and trafficking need to be uppermost in our minds as we discuss the detail of the Bill. There is nothing more heartbreaking than seeing children—babies even—being abused for profit and personal gain: denied a childhood, denied an education and stripped of their life chances. Where better to start putting children at the heart of the Bill than Part 1, where we set out what we as a society find unacceptable?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said, we should take the opportunity afforded to us by the Bill to give children the greatest protection we can and amend Part 1 to create a specific offence of child exploitation and a specific offence of child trafficking. This would make it explicit that this country will not tolerate such child abuse: that we have a national agenda to drive child exploitation off our streets and child trafficking out of our communities and country.
The amendments make clear and unequivocal our intent to prosecute those who traffic and exploit children. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said, when he gave evidence to the joint scrutiny committee:
“I think domestic legislation should say, ‘We mean this. It is defined as that’”.
I took this to mean that if we want our criminal justice system to drive up prosecution rates and convictions for child exploitation and trafficking, we need clarity of language. I believe that the amendments seek to give us that clarity. They are simple and direct and say exactly what we want to happen. If you exploit or traffic a child, you will be prosecuted.
The open-ended nature of Amendments 9 and 26 is also important. The evil ingenuity of the criminals who exploit children is truly shocking. As well as the prolific sexual exploitation we hear of, we have more babies being bought and sold; more children used to smuggle, produce and distribute drugs; and more child benefit fraud and street begging—to the extent where one child can make a gang around £100,000 a year.
The nature and types of exploitation that children are subjected to are continually evolving. We have recently seen increases in children being trafficked for the forced extraction of their blood and hair for rituals taking place here in the UK. Any definition of offences that we agree has to be as future-proof as possible so that, no matter how evil the mind of the criminal, the legislation will apply and protect.
Amendment 9 also makes it clear that, even if the exploiter has a lawful authority over the child, it is irrelevant. This is particularly important as children are sometimes exploited by their family members, and by members of their own community. The child may not even realise that they are being exploited. Some children may feel that their begging, for example, is contributing to the family finances and therefore are happy to do it and see it as part of their normal daily life. Making it clear that exploitation of a child is unacceptable, no matter who is asking them to do something, is absolutely essential.
Setting out a specific offence of child exploitation and child trafficking also makes it clear that an exploitative situation involving a child is distinct from one involving an adult, because a child can never consent to their own exploitation. Therefore, the evidential threshold for charging a person with child exploitation is lower, and proof should be easier as consent and compulsion need not be proved. Amendments that lead to a greater understanding of this lower evidential threshold among everyone involved in our criminal justice system, from judge to jury, will lead to more successful prosecutions.
Some have said that separate offences may complicate or confuse, but I have confidence that the professionals working in our criminal justice system will be able to cope with particular offences against children as well as the general offences. I think that separate offences would lead to less confusion, not more, and should not be either specific or general; they can and should be both. A specific child exploitation offence would also increase the focus on the non-sexual forms of child exploitation and help ensure that all forms of child exploitation are prosecuted. It will also raise awareness of non-sexual forms of child exploitation across the criminal justice system.
Child trafficking is on the rise and child exploitation is on the rise. The nature of both is constantly evolving. Specific offences in these areas are necessary. They will drive up prosecutions and help the system always see children as victims whom we need to protect. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bates, will reflect on the debate and the serious points made here today. If he is unable to agree anything regarding the amendments today, I hope that he will facilitate more discussion between now and Report for us to further discuss the points raised in the amendments.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, to which I have put my name. The reason why I strongly support it has been given by some of the noble Lords who have already spoken. We have evidence that the current levels of prosecution for trafficking children are woefully low. In fact, they are negligible. The Minister might correct me by giving me the exact number of prosecutions.
We also know that children face many different kinds of abuse and exploitation at the hands of traffickers, and that they represent a quarter of all known victims of modern slavery. The government amendment to Clause 2 is limited to consent to travel, which is not part of the international definition of trafficking. It is the exploitation itself to which the child cannot consent, not the level of travel. I am concerned that this will serve only to create further confusion over what ought to be a simple definition of child trafficking.
The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, referred to the evidence in the Rotherham cases, among others, and demonstrated practitioners’ continued confusion over the consent of child victims of exploitation and society’s failure to prosecute those who abuse children. A child exploitation offence would contain a simple definition of child exploitation that includes the range of exploitation that children face. Some of it has already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. A separate offence of child exploitation would help to bring abuses to prosecution and conviction. Therefore, I support the amendment. However, I intend to listen to the other arguments, particularly those of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who is about to speak, who may have a different opinion.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I would like to inject a cautionary note to this debate. Like everyone else in this House, I clearly support the concept that children should not be held in slavery, forced into labour or any other of the ways in which they may be either trafficked, using the English definition of trafficking and not, as has just been said, the European definition of trafficking, which does not require movement.
However, I am not satisfied that any of these amendments is necessary. The two illustrations given by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, were, of course, under the old law. In my view, government Amendments 4 and 7, already approved by this Committee, and government Amendment 13, which I would be astonished if the Committee did not approve, already carry Clauses 1 and 2 along the road to including children with adults—none of whom require consent. The idea that the standard for children should be different from that for adults is, if I may respectfully say so, wrong. Neither children nor adults who are enslaved or held in compulsory labour or servitude are required to consent. The government amendment to that effect has already been passed. Children and adults are in the same position.
We should also bear in mind the fact that the sentence for traffickers and those who enslave is already up to life, so there will not necessarily be a longer sentence because children are involved. The judge will have the opportunity to say, “This is a sentence for life”. He or she can say, because an adult is involved and the circumstances are not so serious, “I will give 14 years”, or, because a child is involved, “I will give life”. So there is no need for a different provision for children.
There are dangers with the word “exploitation”, which—despite the admirable subsection (4) of the proposed new clause—is capable of being taken too broadly. What the cases we have heard about, both at Second Reading and today, show is an appalling lack of good practice—and what we need to do is improve the practice of dealing with children. That requires training but it does not require extra legislation. To add that to what is already in Clauses 1 and 2 would be repetitive. I believe that the Government have gone far enough, with the amendments that they have tabled, to cover all sorts of slavery and exploitation that happens to children as well as adults.
Lord James of Blackheath (Con)
I shall speak to Amendment 29. First, I should declare my interests. I am the son of a couple who met as children in an orphanage, and my father was put to work as an unpaid kitchen boy for 11 years at Quaglino’s nightclub in London, in return for the orphanage being paid £1 a month for his services. That seems to me to fulfil a pretty good definition of slavery. But if he was standing here instead of me, he would say, “No, it was the best thing that ever happened to me—because I got fed better there, in the restaurant, than I did in the orphanage”. But it was slavery, and that sort of thing does not get a reference anywhere, because we are talking so much about sexual and perversion issues, not about that simple level of labour. But it was so, and it was wrong. I am assuming that we are safe in thinking nothing like that could happen today, so we do not need to cover it—but I do not think that it should pass without at least a thought and recognition, in memory of my father.
Secondly, I want to explain why Amendment 29 is here at all. It is outrageous that any Government should introduce a Bill that criminalises a whole sector of wrongdoers, while not accepting that the same strictures should apply to themselves and their own performance and behaviour. People would respond to that idea by saying, “But the Government don’t traffick children”. In fact, we have been serial offenders for the past 233 years. The first instance occurred in 1678 when, at the request of the Quaker colony in Maryland, we sent 82 children taken directly off the streets of Shoreditch as a gift to the colony, which had lost all its children in a raid by the Native American Indians. This consignment was put together by the mayor and aldermen of London, and shipped out from Rotherhithe. The instructions to the captain of the boat were that he had to bring back a cargo of tobacco to pay for the whole expedition; they were not doing it for free.
In the late 1780s, with the threat of Napoleon coming up, we moved to a position of systematic, government-sponsored trafficking of children to America on the grounds that, “If we are to be overrun by Napoleon, let’s send our children abroad”; and we did, in their thousands. Later, in the 19th century, we have the extraordinary episode of no less a person than Dr Thomas Barnardo, who enjoys near saintly status in this country, taking steps to ascertain how many children each of the Australian states would like if he could provide them. And provide them he did, in their thousands. It is hard to see where he got them from, but I suspect they were the overspill from his own institutional orphanages—in which case that was slavery to make space for more orphans, I suppose. But it was wrong and it was done without any authorisation.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I stand as an Anglican priest alongside the noble Lord, Lord James. We need to be reminded of that harrowing sequence of stories because they illustrate how easily children are exploited, even within the establishment and among the powers that be. I put my name to Amendment 9 and, at this stage, I want to endorse the points made by my colleagues on the Select Committee, the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Kennedy, based on the evidence we heard. I, too, found it very persuasive.
I am delighted that the Government have moved considerably in putting children more strongly in the wording of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, there is precedent for specifying children, in the Sexual Offences Act. In response to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I would say that, clearly, we need improved training and practice. My point is that making children specific in this way will draw attention to the kind of training and practice that needs to be developed.
I endorse the importance of making children specifically visible in this legislation. There is a great temptation in our culture to treat children as young adults. From a very early age, they are economic agents and they dress as though they are 20 years older than they are. It is very easy for children to get lost in the whirl of society. We have heard the references to the terrible cases in Rochdale and other places. To protect children, it may be important to make them visible in legislation in a way that draws attention to their childlikeness. That would encourage the law, its practice and its training to take seriously the gravity of this offence.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, I would ask for some clarification. I am becoming very confused about the difference between the idea of slavery and trafficking and that of child neglect and exploitation, which we have been dealing with for many years through general children’s legislation. Listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, describe her cases, as an ex-director of social services and a social worker, I am appalled that action was not taken. However, I know that it is difficult to work between the criminal and the civil law. Under civil law, social services will act to remove a child and protect it, while at the same time trying to act through the criminal law against the perpetrators. There may be a gap there. Others have worked for years trying to ensure that those things hold together, but that is different from having a new piece of law about exploitation that then overrides the existing provisions in children’s legislation. Is the Minister prepared to look at this, maybe with lawyers, to see whether there is a gap in children’s legislation which this could plug and whether we are not being firm enough about practice and training?
We have seen what happened in Rotherham. In talking to the police this morning at a round-table meeting following the work that the all-party parliamentary group did on children and the police, it was quite clear that they have learnt a great deal and are moving in their practices and procedures. We will see change there. I would like to ensure that similar change happens in local authorities because, although there is good practice, as a former local authority worker I am sometimes appalled and ashamed at what we do about poor practice. I have two questions for the Minister. First, is there a gap? Secondly, what are the Government doing to ensure that everyone is encouraged to practise within the existing law to the highest possible standards?
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, “cautionary” strikes the right note. I am glad that the noble and learned Baroness added to my lexicon. I was searching for the right term and I share her caution.
The EU Rights of Victims of Trafficking in Human Beings, which was published last year, makes it clear that:
“The child’s best interest shall be a primary consideration and shall be assessed on an individual basis”.
That reflects the directive, which refers to a child-sensitive approach but does not provide for a separate offence relating to children. It deals with penalties and special treatment but makes it quite clear that children are within the overall offence. The noble and learned Baroness also referred to the issue of consent, with which we have just dealt.
The forms of exploitation that are listed in the amendments and about which we have heard today are absolutely abhorrent, but I am one of those who are concerned that we do not inadvertently weaken the position in looking after children. In its pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights refers to,
“the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child”,
and says what a shame it is, in effect, that the Government have not responded to that in time for the detail of the response to feed into the Bill. Having made that criticism and referred to that more up-to-date piece of work, the committee goes on to say that although it is “sympathetic”, it recognises that,
“there is considerable evidence to support the Government’s view that there is likely to be a serious practical problem in prosecuting child-specific exploitation and trafficking offences”,
for the reasons that it sets out in the report. I, too, take the Government’s—and indeed the DPP’s—point about proof of age. Age may be an aggravating factor that will go to sentence, which is how I think it should be dealt with.
Reference has been made to article 2 of the directive. Indeed, as has been said, the amendment quotes from article 2. However, as I read it, those words are there not as a stand-alone offence but, in effect, to define exploitation in the context of trafficking for exploitation. Those words are in article 2.3, although the offence is in article 2.1. We will come on to this, and I am prepared to at least be persuaded that we have not got the definition of trafficking wrong. There is a lot of concern that trafficking, as it is dealt with in Clause 2, is not spelt out sufficiently extensively. Article 2 of the directive uses terms including “harbouring” and “reception”, which might answer at least one of the examples that we have heard about. The description of exploitation in article 2 is not there, as I read it, as a separate stand-alone offence.
I cannot let this go without echoing the points that have been made about both practice and training. They are not central to these amendments but, my goodness, they are central to the whole way in which, as a society, we respond through a number of different agencies—and indeed as individuals—to the abhorrence of slavery and trafficking.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lady Doocey and Lord James of Blackheath, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for moving and speaking to their respective amendments. In this group of amendments, I will spend most of my time addressing the arguments made by my noble friend Lady Doocey, with which we are very familiar. I do not mean that in a sense that is in any way derogatory. I realise how passionately she feels about this, and she has been consistent from the period of pre-legislative scrutiny, when she served as a distinguished member of the committee on the draft Bill, which did so much good work. The noble Baroness consistently argued for this specific offence. I hope she might accept in return that, if there were a convincing case and the Government felt that there was a gap that needed to be filled, and given our track record of making changes in this area, we would move to support this without hesitation. At the moment, we are waiting for the evidence that this is the case.
I want to deal with some of the points that have been made and the case studies that have been given today. The offences provided for in the Bill have been changed three times already, especially those regarding children, who are particularly vulnerable in the circumstances of modern slavery, as was said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby. We made changes after the Bill was published, following pre-legislative scrutiny. We made changes in Committee in another place after debate there, and today I moved amendments in the previous group to highlight this.
Our debate on this important issue effectively centres on whether this specific offence is needed, or whether it is already covered. There is then a second set of arguments about whether, given some of the practicalities surrounding securing a conviction in this area, we might end up in the perverse situation—which none of us wants—where it is more difficult to secure a conviction than would be the case using the general provisions in the Modern Slavery Bill or in other legislation.
It is important to remember that we have not just one but a number of relevant pieces of legislation for tackling this sort of child exploitation, as was alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. We have the Sexual Offences Act 2003, relating to sexual exploitation, and we have the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. We have Section 71 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. Perhaps I may consider that particular Act, because we looked at it following our discussions in the interregnum between consideration of the Bill on Second Reading and the start of Committee stage. As to whether the slavery offence in Section 71 has been used, the Crown Prosecution Service has given us the example of a woman who was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment for attempting to sell her baby for £35,000. She was convicted of conspiracy to commit child cruelty and of holding another person in slavery under Section 71 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. An agent who acted as a broker was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment for the same offences, so this legislation is being used.
I return to a point that I make no apologies for repeating time and again: this is not a finished document. To use a phrase that was first used in another context by my noble friend Baroness Hamwee, we are lifting the stone to find the full scale of the horrors that lie beneath. We then need to try to work together to see how we can begin to tackle it. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, made the point that the number of prosecutions is woefully low. We absolutely agree: the number of prosecutions is woefully low compared to the number of victims we know or suspect to be out there.
That is why we are trying to come forward with measures that make this easier for children. We want to give them protection and advocates, and ensure that they have special circumstances. If they come forward in court, there are statutory defences. There are ways in which they can present their evidence in court, either by Skype or behind a screen, and there are ways in which their identity can be protected. We are all looking to find these ways. We are working with the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions and finding out what they need to do the job that we are asking of them: to increase the number of prosecutions so that there are fewer victims of these cases.
I turn to a few of the examples that were raised. I want to underscore the simple argument that I made at the outset. My noble friend Lady Doocey asked about children who are exploited or forced to beg, and this point was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. The amount of money that can be secured through this is extraordinary. One can see why that crime, heinous though it is, is being committed in such an evil way by organised criminals. If a child is used for begging, this could constitute child cruelty contrary to Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. This offence is committed when a person with responsibility for a child aged under 16 wilfully ill treats or neglects them, and it is punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment.
Another example that was given was the exploitation offence of a child being used for benefit fraud. If a child was trafficked for benefit fraud, that benefit fraud would be a relevant exploitation and this would constitute an offence under the Bill. It could form part of a slavery and servitude provision, to which we have already referred. If trafficking was not involved, someone who used a child to obtain benefits would be found guilty of an offence under the Fraud Act 2006 and would be liable to a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
Herein lies another point of which we are conscious, as the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service certainly are too. This is that because we are now increasing the maximum sentence from 14 years to life imprisonment, there is clearly a variation between the types of appalling treatment of children we are seeing. We need to consider whether trying to prosecute somebody who has exploited a child for benefit fraud under that type of clause would lead to the conviction that we all want. I am not arguing that this is happening, but the Crown Prosecution Service tells us that it could potentially happen. My noble friend Lady Doocey mentioned children being brought into the UK from so-called baby farms, which is another heinous activity. However, this practice would involve illegal adoption, which is prohibited under the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
We have said all the way through this that there are many offences, and many avenues that are available for prosecutors to pursue. However, we all acknowledge that, at present, prosecutions are not happening to the level that we want to see. To return to the point made by several noble Lords, that is why we need to increase awareness of the problems that are happening. We are seeing that happen through television advertisements and, not least, through the publicity that has been given to the proceedings in your Lordships’ House. It is also happening through the excellent work of NGOs and charity groups outside your Lordships’ House. These groups are drawing attention to the fact that this crime actually happens here, which was the title of the Centre for Social Justice report that started people thinking about this term of “modern slavery”.
The argument is not that the law is deficient in remedies or provisions that can lead to prosecution but that we need to encourage the police and responsible authorities to bring such prosecutions. Page 13 of the report on the national referral mechanism highlighted where the referrals came from. I was shocked to see that the proportion of cases coming from local authorities, which are often the first to come into contact or suspect that there might be an issue, was very low—at 9%. Non-governmental organisations, the work of many of which has been referred to, were responsible for referring 21% of cases, with the police referring 25% of cases. An Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner who would carry weight and gravitas and understand the issue, and who could make sure that all authorities were fully aware of their responsibility and of the warning signs to look for in child exploitation, would seem to me the right track to head down.
I am not saying that we are at this point ruling out a new offence in perpetuity or even in the very short term. We have said that we will go back to the Crown Prosecution Service, the DPP and the National Crime Agency, which is taking an increasing lead in this area, and say, “Listen, what is your experience? Does this need to be tightened? Does it need to be strengthened? Can you bring forward the prosecutions?”. We will try to get that review undertaken before Report, so that, should my noble friend wish to come to your Lordships’ House at that point, we might have more information available.
The new clause proposed by my noble friend Lord James in his Amendment 29 seeks to address behaviour related to the movement of children where there is no parental or guardian consent for doing so. I recognise that there are a number of scenarios where a child could be removed and placed in residence away from their parent or guardian without their consent, and not always with the apparently beneficial effect that my noble friend referred to in his father’s case. The Bill focuses on the high-harm crime of human trafficking, where a person is moved with a view to exploiting them. In cases where a child has been moved without the consent of parents or guardian, but where there was no intent to exploit the child, the individual who has moved the child may be charged with illegal adoption, immigration offences or kidnapping, depending on the facts of the case.
We want to keep these matters very much under review. We have questions based on the availability of evidence and still have some time between now and Report to review that. We will continue to be open to that and will look forward to looking at it again at that point. In the mean time, I ask my noble friend to consider withdrawing her amendment at this stage.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may seek clarification on one point. One of the reasons for introducing the Modern Slavery Bill was a desire to have in one place all the offences that relate to slavery and servitude. In his response to the gaps identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, he referred to other Acts—which are therefore not in the same place. If the objective of the Bill was to get clarity and to put all the legislation in one place, is that not a strong argument for the review and for separate offences? From the Minister’s answer, it sounded like the gaps identified are not covered by the Bill.
Lord Bates
It is an argument not so much for the amendment as for the Bill. The argument for the Bill bringing together in one place all the offences relating to modern slavery, trafficking and exploitation is something with which we all agree. We are discussing whether there should be a specific child exploitation offence, which, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, highlighted, raises particular issues in relation to the Bill, but the whole purpose of the Bill is very much what my noble friend seeks, which is to bring the offences into one place, to provide one strategy and then to make sure that those who are responsible get out there and go after the people who commit these appalling crimes.
Lord James of Blackheath
I am prepared not to press my amendment provided that the Minister can confirm to me that he is satisfied—he may do it outside this meeting if he will—that the moral hazard of allowing any form of institution to sweep away the flotsam and jetsam by sending them abroad is outlawed by this Bill.
Lord Bates
Yes, I would be happy to do that. Perhaps the best way of doing so would be in writing to my noble friend. My noble friend has done a service to the Committee by reminding us of this country’s dark history regarding certain aspects of child exploitation, and it behoves us to have an element of humility when we look at other countries in that regard. I am happy to undertake to write to my noble friend.
Baroness Doocey
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. It is an emotive topic, which absolutely everyone around the Committee wants to get right. We are all on the same side; this is not a question of one person versus another.
I feel strongly that we need a child exploitation clause. I have no doubt about that but will deal with a couple of points. The Minister gave an example of where the CPS had prosecuted somebody who was begging. I can give the Minister a number of examples where the CPS has not prosecuted in the case of begging, because it was advised that it was not possible to do so. The Minister also said that bringing babies into this country from baby farms with a view to illegal adoption would, under our laws, be illegal. I do not think that anyone would disagree with that, but you would have to find the people who had adopted those children illegally, and unless you did, how on earth could you prosecute them? We need to stop it happening. The Minister also said that it would be necessary to encourage the police to prosecute, but I worked with the Metropolitan Police for eight years and do not believe that they need any encouragement to prosecute. What they need are the tools of their trade in order to do so.
I certainly would not consider trying to argue points of law with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and other noble and learned legal eagles, because I do not know the law. However, what I do know is that every single NGO that works on the ground with children says that what we have at the moment is not working. In this Bill, we have a cut-and-paste from lots of other Bills, putting it all in one place. But there is a major gap in the lack of a child exploitation clause, because it is not possible to prosecute somebody for exploiting a child under the Bill unless you can also prove that they were trafficked with a view to exploitation.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
Before the noble Baroness goes any further, I wish to reinforce the point that she made. She referred to the work that she has done with the Metropolitan Police. I suspect that she will have seen the debate in another place that took place on 4 September. I will cite the quotation given during that debate from a chief inspector of the Metropolitan Police who pointed out the flaws of the current proposals from a prosecution perspective. These were his words:
“If I was reading this from a lay perspective, I would not read into this Bill that a child begging, or using children to obtain fraud which is to their detriment, or putting a child out on the street to steal for sometimes 12 to 18 hours a day is trafficking and exploitation”.
Is that not the main thrust of the argument of the noble Baroness and why, between now and Report, we need to take very seriously the amendment that she has moved?
Baroness Doocey
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for that interjection, which is very timely and demonstrates clearly the points I am trying to make. The other important point is that almost every senior barrister working on these prosecutions, whether advising the CPS or the police, takes the view that it is absolutely vital to have a separate child exploitation clause. Therefore, I am pleased that the Minister has said that the Government are willing to see more evidence, which we will make sure is provided, and to look again at this, because I have absolutely no doubt that we need it as a matter of urgency. How many times have we heard about a major scandal, where we then have a major investigation and hear lessons have been learnt, only to find a couple of months later that something very similar happens? Lessons are not learnt. Let us legislate to make sure not just that there is the corporate memory that is needed but that we can actually prosecute people for this.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
Is the noble Baroness absolutely convinced—because she sounds as though she is—that simply having a new law on the statute book will change this? We have a plethora of laws on the statute book at the moment and children languish in situations of neglect and exploitation—a range of different situations—simply because there is poor practice, a lack of resources and a total lack of understanding. Does she really believe—she probably does but needs to convince me—that another statute will actually change all that?
Baroness Doocey
Yes, the answer is that I do. The reason I do is because everyone who works with children and works in this field on a daily basis, and whose job or life is about trying to deal with child exploitation, believes that it will make an enormous difference. Therefore, I have no need to be convinced because I am utterly convinced. However, having listened to the Minister say that the Government are listening and are perhaps willing to moderate what they are going to do, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
NHS: Five Year Forward View
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement made earlier this afternoon by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health about the NHS. The Statement is as follows.
“I wish today to make a Statement about the future of our NHS, one that I hope everyone in this House will welcome. In October, NHS England and its partner organisations published an ambitious Five Year Forward View that was welcomed across the political divide. Today, I will announce how the Government plan to implement that vision.
Our response has four pillars. The first pillar is to ensure that we have an economy that can pay for the growing costs of our NHS and social care system: a strong NHS needs a strong economy. Some have suggested that the way to fund extra cost pressures is through new taxes, including on people’s homes. However, through prudent economic policies, the Government can today announce additional NHS funding in the Autumn Statement without the need for a tax on homes. The funding includes £1.7 billion to support and modernise the delivery of front-line care, and £1 billion of funding over four years for investment in new primary care infrastructure. That is all possible because under this Government we have become the fastest growing economy in the G7.
The NHS itself can contribute to that strong economy in a number of ways. It is helping people with mental health conditions to get back to work by offering talking therapies to 100,000 more people every year than four years ago. But the NHS can also attract jobs to the UK by playing a pivotal role in our life sciences industry. We have already attracted £3.5 billion of investment and 11,000 jobs in the past three years, as well as announcing plans to be the first country in the world to decode 100,000 research-ready whole genomes. Today, I want to go further by announcing that we are establishing the Genomics England Clinical Interpretation Partnership to bring together external researchers with NHS clinical teams to interpret genomic information so that we go further and faster in developing diagnostics, treatments and therapies for rarer diseases and cancers. Too often, people with such diseases have suffered horribly because it is not economic to invest in finding treatments. We want the UK to lead the world in using genetic sequencing to unlock cures that have previously been beyond our reach.
The second pillar of our plan is to change the models of care to be more suited for an ageing population, where growing numbers of vulnerable older people need support to live better at home with long-term conditions like dementia, diabetes and arthritis. To do that, we need to focus on prevention as much as cure, helping people to stay healthy without allowing illnesses to deteriorate to the point where they need expensive hospital treatment. Some have argued that to do that we need to make clinical commissioning groups part of local government and force GPs to work for hospital groups. Because this would amount to a top-down reorganisation, we reject this approach. We have listened to people in the NHS who say that more than anything the NHS wants structural stability going forward, and, even if others do not, we will heed that message.
We have already made good progress in improving out-of-hospital care. This year, all those aged 75 and over have been given a named GP responsible for their care, something that was abolished by the previous Government. From next year, not just over-75s but everyone will get named GPs. Some 3.5 million people already benefit from our introduction of evening and weekend GP appointments, which will progressively become available to the whole population by 2020. The better care fund is merging the health and social care systems to provide joined-up care for our most vulnerable patients. Alongside that, the Government have legislated, for the first time ever, on parity of esteem between physical and mental health. To deliver world class community care, we will need much better physical infrastructure. Today, I can announce a £1 billion investment fund in primary and community care facilities over the next four years. This will pay for new surgeries and community care facilities in the places where people most want them: near their own homes and families. These new primary care facilities will also be encouraged to join up closely with local jobcentres, social services and other community services.
Additionally, from the £1.7 billion revenue funding we are also announcing, we will make £200 million available to pilot the new models of care set out in the Five Year Forward View. To deliver these new models, we will need to support the new clinical commissioning groups in taking responsibility, with partners, for the entire health and care needs of their local populations. So as well as commissioning secondary care, from next year they will be given the opportunity to co-commission primary care, specialist care, social care, through the better care fund and, for the first time, if local areas want to do it, public health. The NHS will therefore take the first steps towards true population health commissioning, with care provided by accountable care organisations.
A strong economy and a focus on prevention are the first two pillars of our plan. The third pillar is to be much better at embracing innovation and eliminating waste. We are making good progress in our ambition for the NHS to be paperless by 2018, and last month the number of A&E departments able to access summary GP records exceeded a third for the first time, while from next spring, everyone will be able to access their own GP record online. However, today, I want to go further: £1.5 billion of the extra £1.7 billion revenue funding will go on additional front-line activity. To access this funding, we will ask hospitals to provide assured plans showing how they will be more efficient and sustainable in the year ahead and deliver their commitment to a paperless NHS by 2018.
We also have to face the reality that the NHS has often been too slow to adopt and spread innovation. Sometimes this is because the people buying healthcare have not had the information to see how much smart purchasing can help contain costs, so from next year CCGs will be asked to collect improved financial information, including per-patient costings.
The best way to encourage investment in innovation is a stable financial environment, so I can today announce that the Government, in collaboration with NHS England, will give local authorities and clinical commissioning groups indicative multiyear budgets as soon as possible after the next spending review. We expect that NHS England and Monitor will follow this by modernising the tariff to set multiyear prices and make the development of year-of-care funding packages easier.
The NHS also needs to be better at controlling costs in areas such as procurement, agency staff, the collection of fees from international visitors and reducing litigation and other costs associated with poor care. I have announced plans in all these areas and we will agree the precise level of savings to be achieved through consultation with NHS partner organisations over the next six months. That will lead to a compact signed up to by the department, its arm’s-length bodies and local NHS organisations, with agreed plans to eliminate waste and allow more resources to be directed to patient care.
The final pillar of our plan is the most important and difficult of all. We can find the money, we can support new models of care, and we can embrace innovation, but if we get the culture wrong, if we fail to nurture dignity, respect and compassionate care for every single NHS patient, we are betraying the values that underpin the work done every day by doctors and nurses throughout the NHS. We have made good progress since the Francis report, with a new CQC inspection regime, six hospitals being turned round after being put into special measures, 5,000 more nurses on our wards, the My NHS website and 4.2 million NHS patients being asked for the first time if they would recommend to others the care they received.
In the next few months, however, we will go further, announcing new measures to improve training in safety for new doctors and nurses, launching a national campaign to reduce sepsis and responding to recommendations made in the follow-up Francis report, tackling issues around whistleblowing and the ability to speak out easily about poor care.
Under this Government, the NHS has, according to the independent Commonwealth Fund, become the top-ranked healthcare system in the world. In 2010, we were seventh for patient-centred care, and we have now moved to top. Under this Government, we have also become the safest healthcare system in the world. But with an ageing population, we face huge challenges.
How we prepare the NHS and social care system to meet those challenges will be the litmus test of this Government’s ambition to make Britain the best country in the world to grow old in. We are determined to pass that test and today’s four-pillar plan will help us to do just that. Our plan will need proper funding, backed by a strong economy, so I welcome yesterday’s comment by Simon Stevens that when it comes to money,
‘the Government has played its part’.
However, we also need ambitious reforms to the way we deliver care, focusing on prevention, innovation and a patient-centred culture that treats every single person with dignity and respect—proper reforms not as a substitute for proper funding but as a condition of it, with a long-term plan for the economy and a long-term plan for the NHS. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for reading out the Statement. This weekend, a 16 year-old girl in need of a hospital bed was held for two days in a police cell because there was not a single bed available for her anywhere in the country. As we have warned before, this is by no means an isolated example. The BBC reported on Friday that seven other people had died recently waiting for mental health beds, and it is not just mental health. Last week, we were told of a stroke patient being ferried to hospital by police on a makeshift stretcher, made from blinds in his house, and who later died. This was one of a number of alarming reports of people waiting hours in pain and distress for ambulances to arrive.
To listen to the Statement today, you would have no idea that any of this is happening. That is the problem. Nothing the Minister has said today will address these pressures ahead of this winter. On mental health, does the Minister not accept that there is an undeniable need to open more beds urgently to stop appalling cases like the one at the weekend? What assessment has he made of the ability of the ambulance service to cope this winter and is there a case for emergency support on top of what has been announced? This Statement offers no help now to an NHS on the brink of its worst winter in years.
However, there is another major problem with the Statement. This weekend’s headlines promised £2 billion extra for the NHS but the small print revealed that it is nothing of the sort. It is interesting to note that the figure of £2 billion has not been used in the Statement today but is what the NHS is being led to believe it is getting. Will the Minister confirm that £700 million of the £1.7 billion that he talked about is not new money but already in his budget? A few weeks ago, his department told the Public Accounts Committee that it expects to overspend this year by half a billion pounds. If this is the case, would the Minister care to tell us where this £700 million is coming from and what services are being cut to pay for it? At the weekend we exposed NHS England’s plans to cut the funding for clinical trials, which would have affected thousands of very poorly patients. Is this one of the planned cuts to pay for this? Will the Minister now guarantee that funding for research and clinical trials will not be cut?
Not only is the £700 million recycled; we gather that another £1 billion will be funded from cuts to other departments. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned of “staggeringly big cuts” to local government in the next Parliament. The NHS Confederation has said that:
“If additional NHS funding comes at the expense of tough cuts to local government budgets, this will be a false economy as costs in the NHS will rise”.
Have the Government not learnt the lessons of this Parliament, namely that the NHS cannot be seen in isolation from other services and that cutting social care only leads to extra costs for the NHS?
Figures released on Friday revealed record numbers of older people trapped in hospital because the care was not there for them at home. This is the human consequence of the severe cuts to social care in this Parliament, and it is clear that the Government are preparing to do the same again in the next. Hospital A&Es have now missed the Government’s own target for 71 weeks running. Cancer patients are waiting longer for treatment to start. Everyone is finding it harder and harder to see a GP. Is it not the case that most of what the Government have announced will go to patching up the problems they have created, leaving less than a quarter for the new models of care outlined in the NHS Five Year Forward View? The reality is that what has been announced provides nothing for the NHS now, is not what it seems and, because of that, will not be enough to prevent the NHS tipping into full-blown crisis if the Government are re-elected next year.
It is impossible to see how the Government can find any more for the NHS than this because they have prioritised tax cuts for high earners and have not yet found the money to pay for those. That explains the desperate attempts to inflate these figures and make them sound more than they are. I ask the Minister: is it not the case that, to deliver the Five Year Forward View, the NHS needs truly additional money on the scale that Labour is proposing—an extra £2.5 billion over and above everything that he has promised today—and an ambitious plan for the full integration of health and social care?
The Government have said that they would be the Government who cut the deficit, not the NHS, but it is this Health Secretary who has created a deficit in the NHS and it is because of that deficit that cancer patients are waiting longer, A&E is in crisis and children are being held in police cells, not hospital beds. The reality is that the Statement has nothing of comfort to offer to these patients.
Finally, I want to comment on the terrible irony of the reference in the Statement to the Government rejecting the top-down reorganisation approach. The Statement says that the Government,
“have listened to people in the NHS who say that more than anything the NHS wants structural stability going forward”.
I am sure that the House would be very pleased to hear how the Government consider their £3 billion, top-down reorganisation has delivered structural stability and whether, with hindsight, the Minister can admit that the money would have been much better spent on improving patient care.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I normally thank the Opposition spokesmen for their comments, but that was an absurdly negative response, if I may say so. It does the noble Baroness no credit to do that amount of shroud-waving. She knows perfectly well that the case that she has put is grossly overegged. Yes, of course, the NHS is under pressure; we all know that. There is rising demand on a scale that we have never seen, but it ill befits the party opposite, which agrees that more money is needed for the NHS, to take issue with the money that we are announcing today. I would have hoped that she would have welcomed that, but she has not.
I shall answer the noble Baroness’s questions about where the money has come from. We never pretended that the whole £1.95 billion was new money. Some £550 million comes from reprioritised programme work that we have reallocated from the department; £150 comes, similarly from work that NHS England has reprioritised. So the Treasury is providing an additional £1 billion of funding; the department, as I say, is doing its bit; and the Treasury is also providing additional funding of £1 billion over the next four years, to support investment in out-of-hospital infrastructure and facilities. The £700 million that the Treasury is not providing as new money is made up of savings from a number of programmes which come to a natural end in 2014-15. There are back-office savings and there is contingency funding which is no longer needed. These savings have been found without impacting on existing front-line services, so this funding provides a genuinely additional boost to the NHS.
As for the Treasury’s new money, £1 billion from the forex fines will fund the £1 billion fund over four years to invest in out-of-hospital infrastructure, but the Government’s tight financial management has seen departments continue to exceed savings targets. Historical underspends have been quite considerable. The largest were generated by the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Education and the Department for International Development. These underspends demonstrate the Government’s firm grip of the public finances and continued improvements in spending control and financial management. They allow us to be confident in reallocating spending within the overall totals for 2015-16 to priorities in the health service.
The noble Baroness mentioned mental health. We remain committed to investing in mental health services. The Deputy Prime Minister will be making a full announcement soon, outlining how we will invest an additional £45 million on mental health services. As for the current year, to which she also referred, we have already made significant additional funding available for the NHS this year to support winter and system-resilience planning and to tackle long waits for operations. Robust plans are in place to maintain and improve NHS performance through the rest of this year and we are confident that the NHS will live within its budget this year.
The noble Baroness also mentioned social care and the pressures on those services. Through the better care fund we are moving to a position where we see health and social care no longer as separate budgets and services, but rather as the same thing—a position the patient and carer have been in for a number of years. Any investment in the NHS will provide benefit to social care and, as the Five Year Forward View sets out, the NHS will take decisive steps to break down the barriers in how care is provided between health and social care. This funding will help kick-start that.
As for the noble Baroness’s final barb about the Government’s reforms, I put it to her that the NHS is now set fair to work with the system that we have established. In other words, we have established a system that has health and well-being boards looking at the health priorities of a whole area, with clinicians embedded in that prioritisation process, commissioning for the health needs of an area, and public health centred on local authorities, which many regard as its natural home. We have clinical leadership in those clinical commissioning groups, something we did not have before these reforms, and we have saved a packet of money. The noble Baroness referred to the £3 billion cost of the reforms. That figure is fiction, as I am sure she knows because I have said it many times. The gross cost of the reforms was roughly £1.5 billion. During this Parliament, we will be saving, net, £4.9 billion as a result of the reforms, with £1.5 billion recurring year after year. This is a massive boost to front-line capacity in the NHS and nobody should forget that. This was a set of reforms designed to benefit patients and, by that measure, I put it to the House that it has succeeded in spades.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD)
I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement. I echo the point that, while many of us on all sides of the House may have disagreed with some of the structural changes in the Health and Social Care Act, the last thing the health service wants is another structural reorganisation. The plan by the party opposite to scrap the Health and Social Care Act is a real worry to many professionals. I say to my noble friend that no matter how much money the Chancellor promised today, it will not be enough to meet the demands of a changing healthcare system, where we are seeing, year on year, because of the success of the NHS, people living longer and with lots of different comorbidities.
I have a concern about the Statement. I actually think that Simon Stevens’s report is an excellent report and one that should have united this House rather than dividing us. After all, his pedigree comes from working with the Labour Party on the early reforms in the last Parliament. What really worries me is that neither in Simon Stevens’s report, nor in the Statement, is there a mention of the other crucial element, which is the workforce. The workforce and, indeed, the work of Health Education England, is not even worth a mention in the Statement—yet it is the 500,000 nurses and the 1.4 million care workers who bind the health and care system together and who will deliver the integrated health and social care which all of us in this House want to see.
Will my noble friend make it clear today that no savings will be made by reducing Health Education England’s budget? Will he state clearly that there will be investment in the skills of our staff in order that Simon Stevens’s plan actually works and that we can make it a realisation rather than a hope?
Earl Howe
My noble friend is absolutely right. One of the critical elements of the Five Year Forward View is to ensure that we have the right number of staff with the right qualifications in the right places. While Health Education England is the body charged with ensuring that that happens, it is up to us in government to ensure that there is adequate funding to enable it to do that. I can assure my noble friend that Ministers are very clear that Health Education England should be fully supported to deliver the programme that it has mapped out for itself. That programme is an exciting one. It involves more doctors and nurses in training over the next few years. Our ambition is to see by 2020 an extra 10,000 people working in primary care, for example—and that is only one detail.
As a result of the Government’s reforms to the health service, we have been able to afford a large number of extra posts in front-line care, including doctors and nurses in both primary and secondary care. We have done that by reducing the number of administrators in the system—20,000 fewer than there were in 2010. My noble friend is right to draw attention to this issue; it is one that is very much in our focus.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, pursuing the point about the integration of health and social care—I declare an interest as a member of Cumbria County Council—we in Cumbria face a situation where already our budget has gone down by over £100 million, we face another £80-odd million of cuts in the next four years, and this does not take account of the cost of the tax reductions that the Conservative Party is promising. The numbers of staff will have declined by 2,500 from 2010 to 2017, out of a staff of about 8,000. In this situation, it is impossible to protect social care. It is interesting that the Government are promising a longer-term perspective on health funding. Does this perspective apply to social care funding as well? What guarantees are the Government able to give that they will continue to fund local councils adequately in order to meet the rapidly growing demands of social care?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. It is for precisely that reason that we have looked at the mechanism that we have called the Better Care Fund to bring together budgets for health and social care. It will amount in practice to a transfer of funding into social care from the NHS. We are clear that that is the best way in which we can realise the vision that we have set, which is a preventive one for people—in other words, to forestall admissions to hospital.
Local government is feeling the strain—I do not seek to deny that—but so are many other areas of our national life. Up to now, the Better Care Fund aside, we have found an extra £1.1 billion from the NHS budget to bolster local authority budgets, and we are maintaining public health allocations at the same figure as before, so no cuts there. I realise that the strains are considerable and that local authorities are having to find ingenious ways of moving forward, but I am encouraged by the Better Care Fund plans that are coming forward; they look credible and exciting in terms of the quality of care that local authorities are now looking at.
Lord Walton of Detchant (CB)
My Lords, it may be thought inappropriate that someone of my age should comment upon what is called a forward view but which is in fact a five-year plan. Having said that, I have listened carefully to the Statement repeated by the Minister with his characteristic lucidity and authority, and although I have heard many five-year plans discussed by Governments of all parties over the past 66 years since the NHS began, I think that there are features of this one that are quite important, not least the crucial importance of integration between medical and social care. Will the additional funding that the Minister announced be capable of introducing and maintaining a seven-day week in the NHS, in the community and in the hospitals, which has been long awaited? That is a very important point.
I welcome what the Minister said about developments in the training of healthcare professionals; that is a crucial point at this stage in NHS development. I also welcome what he said about developments in biomedicine. In what way are the Government going to be able to handle the many new orphan and ultra-orphan drugs that are now coming on stream for the treatment of rare diseases, as a result of research in the NHS, which are going to be extremely costly? Is this going to be handled by NICE or do the Government have any specific plans regarding that problem?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Walton, for his welcome of the Statement and indeed of the Five Year Forward View, which I think commanded a great deal of support from many quarters. He asked about the seven-day working plans for the NHS. Part of the Better Care Fund plans involves local areas committing, in one form or another, to seven-day working. Unless we have seven-day working in hospitals, we cannot hope to achieve the smooth and timely discharge of patients. That means a change in approach by a number of professionals. It does not mean that every professional will need to work seven days a week—no one has ever suggested that—but it means a shift in approach by social services, and by consultants in hospitals, in a way that in some areas we have not seen. In other areas this is already happening, and we can build on those models.
On the noble Lord’s question on biomedicine and orphan drugs, he is of course as well informed as he always is on these matters. Orphan drugs, as and when they come forward, can indeed be expensive, particularly if they are termed a stratified medicine applicable to only a narrow cohort of patients. In those instances we will expect NICE to make an assessment of these high-cost, low-volume treatments under its new methodology for those drugs. NICE is already engaged in a number of work streams in those areas. It is right that we take that approach. We have to have some methodology that commands confidence, to ensure that the NHS receives treatments that are not only clinically effective but provide value for money.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and congratulate him on what he has said. However, does he not accept that at the end of five years, welcome though this new injection of money is, there will be even greater demands and greater needs? Will he reflect on the debate introduced last year by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, where almost every speaker from all sides of this House indicated that there is a need for a plurality of funding if our National Health Service is to avoid further problems and disasters? Will he therefore reflect on the wisdom of establishing, with all-party support, a royal commission on the funding of the NHS that can look at everything and rule nothing out? If we are to have a world-class service through this century, we cannot resort to sticking plasters from time to time; we must have a new model of funding.
Earl Howe
My Lords, my noble friend, as ever, has rightly identified the likelihood of greater and greater demands on our health service over the coming years. Certainly, building a non-partisan consensus is something to be desired regarding the way that we fund our health service. Having said that, I can tell my noble friend that there has been no thinking whatever on the part of Ministers to depart from the current model of funding for the NHS. We believe passionately that the NHS should be free at the point of use, regardless of ability to pay. That is one of the core principles on which the NHS has been founded since 1948 and it is paid for out of general taxation. While I take on board my noble friend’s desire to look afresh at this area, I think that we have some way to go before cross-party talks need to take place. We are clear that we can proceed on the current basis.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
The noble Earl has always taken a very serious attitude towards his ministerial responsibilities and he has just spoken about the desirability of moving to an all-party consensus on health matters. Does he not therefore rather regret, in retrospect, that the Government decided to spin this announcement, leaking it in advance of the Statement in the House of Commons and putting it about that there was £2 billion of new money for the NHS—the implication being that this was the result of more buoyant government revenues because of a higher growth rate? In fact, it is nothing of the kind as the noble Earl has now revealed to the House. It is roughly £1 billion being reallocated within the NHS budget and £1 billion being reallocated from other department budgets, including from defence where there has been underspend, which is very damaging to this country’s interest. Would it not have been better, and easier to develop a consensus in this country—to which the noble Earl quite rightly looks forward—if in fact the Government were slightly more straightforward and candid with the public over announcements of this kind?
Earl Howe
I do not think one can develop a consensus prior to a government Statement—that is probably wishing for the moon. The charge that the noble Lord levels against the Government is also, if I may say so, misplaced. We have never pretended that all the money being announced today is new money. I do not seek to suggest that, as I have already explained. As regards the timing, I think it is standard practice for key elements of the Autumn Statement to be trailed ahead of the formal announcement. However my right honourable friend the Chancellor will confirm everything we have said today in the Autumn Statement on Wednesday, and that is as it should be.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has not said anything about specialised units. I declare an interest as president of the Spinal Injuries Association. Spinal units are vitally important when patients need treatment, yet some spinal units have cut the services of physiotherapists and occupational therapists, who are vital for rehabilitation. The answer is always, “It is up to the trusts”. The trusts can be wrong and in this case they are. Can the Minister give an assurance that there will be enough trained doctors, nurses and therapists for the next five years in spinal units?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I will have to take advice about that question. What I can say is that we now have in place a system of workforce planning that is better than its predecessor. I do not think there can ever be such a thing as a perfect system of workforce planning. We now have a national body, Health Education England, that is responsible for making sure that we have adequate numbers of professionals with the right skills. However, we also have local education training boards whose members include representatives from the acute trusts. It is up to those boards to make clear what the requirements are for trained staff and feed those requirements up to Health Education England so that planning over the coming years can be done in a rational and sensible way. I would expect that spinal units should make their case in that fashion so that if there is a need for physiotherapists in spinal units, and those physios are—for any reason—not available, then they will come forward in adequate numbers in years to come.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, the Minister started his Statement by saying that the Government recognise the importance of life sciences in both economic growth and in delivering mental health care. Of course, I would agree with that and I take it from the Statement that the Government therefore have no intention of cutting the budget of either clinical or medical research in the spending review to come. I welcome the suggestion that the Government will recruit more people to decode genetic information. Of course, we will need that if we are to develop better biomarkers or drugs for treatment, but the personalised medicine that would lead to is expensive and the budgets it will require will be far greater that what we have now.
I also welcome the idea that we integrate the care of patients and do not have a demarcation between primary care, community care and hospital care, but the model that he suggested might not quite do that. He might like to reassure us that the model he has in mind is of complete integration of care, otherwise we will not win the battle for better care for people suffering from long-term conditions.
The comment about future budgets requires a greater debate. I have read the review in detail and it is a bold statement to say we can conduct a five-year review of healthcare without any further restructuring. I, for one, do not mind some restructuring if it will lead to better delivery of healthcare.
Earl Howe
I think that the restructuring the Government believe is necessary is the restructuring of the delivery of care and the culture, as the Statement made clear. What we do not think necessary is a restructuring of the architecture of the National Health Service. That has been done and, as I have said, we are set fair for the future. As regards integration, will it be complete integration? “Integration” is a word that is bandied about and it will mean different things in different areas, depending on what is necessary. We are clear that the better care fund plans, for example, which focus on this idea of integration, should most definitely involve the acute sector and social care along with primary and community care, and in many cases other disciplines as well. Pharmacy, for example, has a major part to play in reducing unplanned hospital admissions and I could cite many other professional disciplines. It depends on what each area requires.
I cannot give an answer on the research budget in the next spending review because that spending review will be conducted by the next Government, whoever they will be. Meanwhile, we are clear that the research budget is an absolutely essential part of the NHS’s future ability to provide quality care for patients over the long term. As the noble Lord knows, we have protected that budget during this Parliament.
Modern Slavery Bill
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, has caught us slightly on the hop with her amendments, so we have got to government Amendment 13. This is one of a number of amendments I have tabled to ensure that we are clear and consistent in showing that the offences in the Bill are effective for children. The amendment makes clear that the consent of a victim to their travel is irrelevant, regardless of whether they are an adult or a child. This reflects the fact that many adult victims of trafficking believe, for example, that they are travelling into the UK to do a job or for a better life, and so they consent to that travel without knowing the severe abuse which may lie ahead of them. This provision has been in the Bill throughout, but we thought it helpful to spell out that it applies to all people, including children.
I now turn to a number of amendments further on which relate to trafficking. The approach we have taken in the Bill in defining trafficking reflects the same broad approach that has been taken in our legislation since trafficking was first created as an offence here in 2002, an approach that is tried and tested and well understood by law enforcement. I acknowledge the real concerns that defining the offence differently in the Bill would add unnecessary confusion for law enforcement and prosecutors, who understand and use the trafficking offence, when we want them to focus on gaining more convictions in practice. When giving evidence to the Public Bill Committee in another place, the Director of Public Prosecutions highlighted that the offences in the Bill are clearer than the alternatives which the pre-legislative scrutiny committee suggested.
Both alternative approaches to defining trafficking also, probably inadvertently, could make prosecution harder than under the offence as set out in the Bill, because they seek to tie the conduct element of the offence to the specific means set out in the EU directive. There is no requirement for any particular means to be involved in the conduct element of the offence in the Bill or in existing law, so replacing this approach with an exhaustive list which indicates the means through which someone may be trafficked would have a narrower effect than the current provision. I doubt that anyone would want to see that happen. That relates to Amendment 13, which stands in my name. I am happy to respond to other amendments as they are spoken to by other noble Lords. I beg to move.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for moving his amendment, which I am happy to support, but I wish to discuss some profound changes in relation to the offence of trafficking and will therefore speak to Amendments 23 and 25. Our opposition to Clause 3 standing part of the Bill is of course consequential on those two amendments.
Amendment 23 aims to delete the current definition of human trafficking and insert a new one based on international definitions, while Amendment 25 would create a separate offence of exploitation to ensure that a conviction can still happen without the element of travel. We have a unique opportunity here to strengthen the law, with a view to protecting victims and to securing more prosecutions. The fact there are so few prosecutions shows that the current definitions do not work, although I well understand the view expressed earlier by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, that the Bill must be a means of prevention, not just a means to more prosecutions.
I do not understand why the Government have decided, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said earlier, to copy and paste existing offences into this new Bill. If the offences have not worked in the past, I do not believe that they will work after the Bill has been enacted. At Second Reading, various examples were given by my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe—more have been given today—of perpetrators who should have been prosecuted but who were either not prosecuted or prosecuted for lesser offences. In the discussion on the last group, the Minister said that we must not make it more difficult to secure prosecutions, which of course I agree with, that we need to increase awareness, which is absolutely right, and that we need more training, which I certainly agree with. Given that in debates on other Bills we have talked about the need for training, but it has simply not happened, I wonder whether in due course we should make certain sorts of training mandatory. However, that is for another day. Notwithstanding those facts, even if there were increased awareness and better training, it would not be enough, although I note that the noble Lord will have further discussions with the DPP and CPS between now and Report.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, on that last point—on Amendment 24—the noble Baroness and the House will understand how much I support the need to look at an offence of exploitation, because that, after all, was the rationale for my Amendment 100 in the earlier group.
However, if we take the point—which I absolutely do—about fitting in with international legislation, I wonder about the suggestion of a separate offence of trafficking and exploitation, because Article 2 of the directive, which has been referred to, is about trafficking “for” exploitation. So one has to be careful about making sure that we do fit in. However, on the point of whether there should be a separate offence of exploitation, yes, I am absolutely in agreement with that.
Whether, as the noble Baroness says, the list is the one that one would want to end up with—and, I have to say, whether it is something one would want to go to without the opportunity of consultation, which is why I had my amendment in the form that I had it in—I am not sure. The term “on the hoof” was used earlier. I would not quite say that, because we have all been thinking about this for some time, but we have to be quite careful before creating more offences, important as they are.
The issue of the international—the European, at any rate—definitions concerns me greatly. The Government have reassured us that all our international obligations are covered, and I do not doubt for a moment their good faith, but I wonder whether there is a sort of natural, human reluctance to change a provision to something that was “not invented here”. I am sorry if that is cruel.
I would accept, at least as an argument to be explored, being told that because the offences in the Bill repeat offences from earlier legislation, there was case law that we did not want to lose. However, I put that to members of the Bill team and they said that at that point it was not in their thinking.
I wonder, and I ask the Minister, whether there could be a direct reference to Article 2 of the directive, such as to any act proscribed by that article—or, to put it another way, to say that “travel” shall be construed as including the intentional acts punishable under that article. This is drafting on the hoof, but the article deals with harbouring and reception, which are among the items that are causing us all quite a lot of trouble.
I will put a specific example to the Minister. A man who is grooming a young woman arranges to meet her when she is travelling—undertaking travel in the normal sense of the word—and then his mates or customers, whatever you want to call them, happen to be at that meeting point and he passes her on to others to be raped. If he said, “See you at the Station Hotel. Come and have a drink—you get there under your own steam—and we can hang out”—is that arranging travel within Clause 2, the trafficking offence? I am concerned that there may be a distinction between that and, “I’ll pick you up at nine on the corner and we will go—I will drive you—to the Station Hotel and we will have a drink and hang out”. That is the sort of thing that worries me as to whether Clause 2 is sufficiently extensive.
I have Amendment 27 in this group. That would add in, at the end of the first subsection of Clause 3, actions or offences that are planned or in contemplation. This is simply probing. Clause 2(1) covers travel with a view to exploitation. Clause 3 seems to require the commission of an offence, not just having it in view. So if people are transported with a view to their being exploited but, for instance, are found at a port of entry before they have been exploited, is that covered? I think that that is what is meant by Clause 2(1), but I want to be certain and this seemed to be the time to raise the point.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has looked at the directive. I have gone back to the convention of the Council of Europe, which comes before the directive but is couched in very similar terms. I am somewhat surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, did not pursue her amendments, because they seem to me to be closer to what is needed. They wanted to put in the phraseology that is in the convention and the directive: “recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons” and so on. Clause 2 is fine so far as it goes, but it does not go quite far enough.
We seem to have an extraordinary English desire for the word “traffic” to mean movement. However, that is not how it is seen across Europe. What worries me about that is that this is going to be a flagship Bill of great importance which may well be followed by countries round Europe and far beyond. However, we may not fall in line with all the conventions from the Palermo Protocol through to the Council of Europe convention and the directive of the European Union and we may want to use the Bill internationally—I hope we may—to persuade other countries to send their offenders to us, or to ask them to send over our offenders.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I want to underline what the noble and learned Baroness has just said for a particular reason. The Government have been keen on saying that, in accepting the European arrest warrant, they want to make clear that they will not allow it to be used for offences committed in other countries which are not offences here. In those circumstances it is most important that we get the offences here right in parallel with what is an offence in another country. It is that point which I think the noble and learned Baroness has put her finger on and it is that which we have to get right.
I question the Government’s view on the restriction of the European arrest warrant. However, if they want to do that, they have to make sure that we do not find ourselves in a position where we have ill defined a particular offence so that it does not operate in the way we would like it to do in any complementary legislation in other countries. I hope that my noble friend will consider this suggestion very carefully, probably not at this moment, but between now and the next stage of the Bill, as it is worth trying to get this matter right.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I will comment on a slightly wider point and back up my noble friend on the definitions of trafficking and exploitation. She spoke about the benefits of having stronger definitions of trafficking and exploitation and referred to the comment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, that stronger definitions could lead to the prevention of trafficking and exploitation. I will add that a benefit of having clear and strong definitions is in the identification of trafficking. Here I am talking specifically about identification when one is in court.
As noble Lords may know, I sit as a magistrate in both adult and youth courts. I have sat in youth courts on quite a few occasions where a young person has been brought in for either pickpocketing or shoplifting and a man is sat at the back of the court who we are told is the young person’s uncle. We have received training on what to do when our suspicions are raised with regard to the status of the person sitting at the back of the court, who is there supposedly in the interests of the youth appearing before it.
I know that the YOTs, the probation service and the police have also received training on this matter. It is important that we have clear identification and that the courts can act quickly when they think this issue is being raised, because when one is actually going through the court process, one does not have very long to identify potential victims of either trafficking or exploitation. Therefore, it is important that this definition is as clear as possible and is well known by the various agencies that deal with young people—and not so young people—who may have been trafficked.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for speaking to the amendment and, as is so often the case, expressing sentiments and views which are shared on all sides of the Committee. It is perhaps not unusual that we are rehearsing some of the general principles discussed on previous groups of amendments. It is interesting to note that paragraph 2.3 at page 15 of the Modern Slavery Strategy document underscores the point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. It states:
“However, we also know that a high number of victims are UK nationals, including children. Not all victims of modern slavery are trafficked across the border. We know that the internal trafficking of victims to other parts of the country takes place, and other forms of modern slavery take place that involve no movement of the victim at all”.
My noble friend Lord Deben made a very interesting point. We want to see the Palermo Protocol used as a basis for harmonisation. The Palermo Protocol sets out an international definition of trafficking in persons as,
“the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation”.
That definition is relevant to the point made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. She asked about a particular set of circumstances. I will look at that case study. Case studies are extremely helpful in this world, because they provide us with an opportunity to explore the options. All case studies will be matters for the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and ultimately the courts to adjudicate on. I would certainly have thought that the individual to whom she referred would, at a minimum, be caught by Clause 4, “Committing offence with intent to commit offence under section 2”. It states:
“A person commits an offence under this section if the person commits any offence with the intention of committing an offence under section 2 (including an offence committed by aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring an offence under that section)”.
I will be happy to come back to this and look further at it, but that is my initial thought in relation to that question.
I turn to the specifics of the amendment and some of the questions which were raised. The alternative trafficking offence set out in Amendment 23 also removes the reference to travel. I fully appreciate the intention behind the amendments. However, I am confident that the language used in Clause 2 is already entirely consistent with the EU directive—the point made by my noble friend Lord Deben. The offence of arranging or facilitating the travel of another person with a view to exploitation includes all the ways through which human trafficking may be committed, as set out in the Palermo Protocol and EU directive, to which I have already referred. Those international instruments are explicitly concerned with human trafficking. The serious evil they rightly identify is trafficking and clearly trafficking involves some element of movement or travel of the victim.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, referred to Clause 2. I must pay tribute to her incredible sharpness of mind, despite her having flown in from sub-Saharan Africa and arrived at something like 5.30 this morning. I just got the train down from Newcastle and I have to say that I am feeling a little bit groggy. I think that probably reflects the difference in mental capacity between the two of us, but we will carry on. In Clause 2, we have already responded to concerns during pre-legislative scrutiny and made clear on the face of the Bill that a person may arrange or facilitate travel by recruiting, transporting, transferring, harbouring or receiving, or transferring or exchanging control over a person—words which are used in the protocol.
The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked specifically whether we needed a general exploitation offence, because forced begging is not covered in the offences of the Bill. Forced begging is an offence under Clause 1 as it amounts to forced or compulsory labour and therefore our view is that it would be caught by that.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee asked whether the trafficking offence covers incitement of the victim to travel to a particular location, which was the example that was given. The trafficking offence can cover inciting a victim to travel somewhere with a view to exploiting them—for example, the perpetrator telling a victim to meet them at a particular time and in a particular place with a view to exploiting the victim. There is no requirement that the perpetrator physically moves the victim. Any kind of arranging or facilitating their travel is enough.
In the case of grooming a victim for use in prostitution or for rape, as in my noble friend’s example, then telling the victim to meet them at a hotel—to hang out, as she asked—would certainly be covered by the trafficking offence. Inciting a victim for prostitution is a form of exploitation under Clause 3 and such conduct is an offence under Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. As I referred to from the strategy document, any arranging or facilitating a victim’s travel, including travel within the UK, for that purpose will amount to an offence under Clause 2.
My noble friend also asked whether the trafficking offence covers all the acts proscribed in Article 2.1 of the EU trafficking directive. The UK is fully compliant with all our international obligations in relation to human trafficking, including in relation to the EU directive. It is not inconsistent with the international instruments to retain the concept of travel in the offence. Our offences, ever since they were created, have had that element. The international instruments are explicitly concerned with human trafficking. The evil that we are trying to tackle is trafficking and clearly trafficking involves some element of movement and travel of the victim. Following pre-legislative scrutiny, we took the opportunity to make clear in Clause 2(3) that a person may,
“arrange or facilitate V’s travel by recruiting V, transporting or transferring V, harbouring or receiving V, or transferring or exchanging control over V”.
The words reflect those used in Article 2.1 of the EU directive. Therefore, we do not think that there is a need for a specific reference to Article 2, as suggested by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
I believe that the noble Lord’s amendment will come before mine in the pecking order. I want to make two points. Of course, I hear what he says about the views of the DPP, but a huge number of lawyers and other people involved in the system are looking at these issues, including charities and various organisations. They are all deeply concerned that notwithstanding the fact that we have this plethora of laws at the moment, as was said at Second Reading, the UK Human Trafficking Centre last year identified 2,744 victims of trafficking, including 600 children. Yet, since the introduction of that offence there have been no prosecutions when the victim was a child, and there have been very few prosecutions at all. I agree with the noble Lord that awareness training is terribly important but there must be something wrong with the current offences if they cannot be used to prosecute people who are perpetrating the most evil of crimes. Therefore, I ask him to look at this again.
In relation to the definition of trafficking, I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said, but it would be very good if he could respond on Report to the points made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I still think that there is something missing, and it is not in the Bill that we are absolutely in tune with our European partners. That needs to be on the face of the Bill. I would be content with that in terms of human trafficking but I certainly want to come back to the issue of an offence. We have to do something about getting more prosecutions for these heinous crimes.
Baroness Hamwee
I remain concerned about the definition of trafficking, and I am sure that we will come back to that. I want to ask the noble Lord on the narrow point of whether I am right in understanding that he is saying that incitement falls within arranging. He referred to Clause 2(1), which states,
“if the person arranges or facilitates the travel”.
He may not want to answer that now but I ask the question now whether incitement is within that term. The answer may come later.
Lord Bates
I think that “incitement” is a new word here. Whether it will be covered by aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring—
Baroness Hamwee
The Minister used the term “incitement”. That is why I picked it up.
Lord Bates
The incitement element is important from the general definition in the Palermo Protocol, and I referred to that part of it. We will certainly get clarification on that point and return to it. Of course, we are always open to look at new evidence that becomes available, or evidence that comes from speaking to the Crown Prosecution Service and the National Crime Agency, as well as the stakeholder group. If we draw the offence too widely, it becomes more difficult to prosecute. We are totally on the same side when we talk about the number of prosecutions being woefully low, as I said previously. We need that number to increase, and for that reason we have taken the view that we need to be very explicit about the offences that we have in mind. The noble Baroness has invited me to reflect on her arguments and the remarks made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I will certainly do that ahead of Report.
Lord Hylton
“Access to employment tribunals
It shall be an offence to deny access to an employment tribunal to a person entering the United Kingdom on a visa restricting the person to a single employer.”
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I will refer briefly to Amendment 94, to which I have added my name. That goes to the root of the problems of foreign domestic workers in the United Kingdom. Amendments 28 and 95, which are both in my name, and in this group, try to improve the nuts and bolts of the situation as it presently is here.
I submit that it is a fundamental right of all employees in this country, whether citizens, residents or visitors, to have access to an employment tribunal if they have serious complaints about working conditions or pay. At Second Reading I raised the cases of foreign domestic workers whose visas tie them to a single named employer. They are usually resident on the employer’s premises and are thus wide open to exploitation. In too many cases, their passports are removed and they are confined to the house or allowed out only under close escort. In such circumstances, they cannot get essential legal advice and they cannot reach a tribunal. The result is that serious exploitation, maltreatment and non-payment of wages go unpunished.
I detailed at Second Reading some of the abuses recorded over many years and I will not repeat them now. Since then I have heard nothing from the Home Office about better protection and remedies. I have therefore tabled Amendment 28 to make it an offence to deny access to a tribunal to anyone on a restricted visa. Perhaps the proposed offence should be wider still. It may be that I should have specified penalties for summary trial and on indictment. That is something to which we can come back at a later stage. Meanwhile. I commend the amendment.
I should also speak to Amendment 95 in this group, which also relates to something I said at Second Reading. There have been a few cases where embassies or foreign diplomats have failed to observe best practice in relation to their domestic workers, who are often recruited overseas. Some cases may not have reached legal decision, and in others, enforcement may have failed—in both categories because of diplomatic immunity. In my understanding, such immunity is given for the protection of diplomatic functions and not as a cover for employment malpractice. I was therefore encouraged to read in the Irish Times of 26 November that an employment appeals tribunal in Dublin awarded €80,000 each to three Filipino women against an ambassador and his wife. The women had been paid less than the national minimum and their conditions were described as “horrific”. If this can be done in Ireland, it should be possible here.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has undoubtedly drawn attention, as he did at Second Reading, to the abuse of people who are under tied visa arrangements. We await with interest the Government’s response to the points that he has made. We are associated with Amendment 94, which will be debated much later, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has added his name, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, as well as my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon. The amendment seeks to insert a new clause entitled “Protection from slavery for overseas domestic workers”, which would enable such workers to change their employment and not remain under the tied visa arrangements. That is the goal that we, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and others, seek to achieve. Amendment 94 will be debated later. For the moment, we await the Government’s response to the two amendments to which the noble Lord has spoken.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I would very much like to support my noble friend Lord Hylton, and I follow the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in his support for Amendments 28 and 95. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has rightly reminded us that when we get to Amendment 94 there will be a chance to have a wider debate about the whole question of the overseas domestic worker visa.
Many of us would say that the subject of denying someone the right to go to an employment tribunal—that is what my noble friend’s Amendment 28 specifically deals with—is a sort of curtain-raiser to the debate that will come later. Enabling migrant domestic workers to change employer, to apply to renew their visa annually if in full-time employment, and to have the right to go to an employment tribunal, would be a significant step towards preventing abuses against migrant domestic workers, including forced labour for their employers, and would enable them to seek redress without fearing deportation from the United Kingdom.
My noble friend Lord Hylton has a long and honourable record of raising this question for all the years that I have been in your Lordships’ House, so it comes as no surprise to me that he has tabled these amendments. He is not, of course, alone in raising this question. Amnesty International UK, the Anti Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit, the Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group, Human Rights Watch, the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, Kalayaan and Liberty are among those who support moves in this direction.
Evidence since the introduction of the tied ODW visa in 2012 demonstrates how the current tied visa system facilitates the abuse of migrant domestic workers in the UK and therefore undermines the objectives of this timely and very welcome Bill and the Government’s efforts to fight modern slavery. Because of its deleterious effects, the 2012 decision, whether it was made wittingly or otherwise, is something we need to return to in the course of our deliberations, to see what we can do about it.
The Joint Committee on the draft Modern Slavery Bill identified the 2012 policy as having,
“unintentionally strengthened the hand of the slave master against the victim of slavery”,
and said:
“Tying migrant domestic workers to their employer institutionalises their abuse”.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights reported that it,
“regards the removal of the right of an Overseas Domestic Worker to change employer as a backward step in the protection of migrant domestic workers, particularly as the pre-2012 regime had been cited internationally as good practice, and recommends that the Bill be amended to reverse the relevant changes to the Immigration Rules and to reinstate the pre-2012 protections in the Bill”.
We have heard a great deal already today about the importance of having what my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss described earlier as flagship legislation. I know that it is the Government’s wish that this should be seen as an international gold standard piece of legislation that others will be able to imitate, and that they hope it would be capable of implementation worldwide. But that is in doubt unless we put right this defect that was incorporated into our legislation. I recognise that it may not be possible to do that today, but I hope that when the noble Baroness replies to the debate she will indicate to my noble friend that we will continue to discuss this issue to see what we can do to remedy something that was done in 2012 and has, wittingly or unwittingly, brought about these consequences. One of those consequences is, as is highlighted in Amendment 28, that people are prevented from having access to employment tribunals.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, one of the things that has struck me in our discussions about the rights of overseas domestic workers is the importance of enabling them to enforce their rights. That is what the amendment aims to do. This should not need saying, but it has come through to me very strongly that we need to give people the tools and make sure that they are available.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, I have been trying to think of the adjectives that would best describe my noble friend’s amendment, and I have come up with “reasonable”, “ingenious” and “brave”. It is reasonable because we all feel indignation about this issue; there is no question about that. It is ingenious because I think my noble friend is anticipating the result of Amendment 94. We must not be drawn into that today, but it will be interesting to see whether this presents a way out for the Minister in relation to Amendment 94; I hope it does not. The amendment is brave because my noble friend is trying to tackle the question of diplomatic immunity. I think that the Government would like to do that on many fronts at the moment. My noble friend is to be commended.
Finally, I have to say that the Bill does nothing to release domestic servants from their bondage. They are, fundamentally, in this Bill, so I do not know—the Minister may like to reflect on this—why this category has somehow been left out or gone unnoticed. We will wait and see how the Bill can correct the situation at a later stage—but this amendment is a very clever alternative.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling these amendments, and I echo the comments about his distinguished record on such matters. I thank, too, the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Alton, my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for their comments.
These amendments raise the important issues of ensuring equal access to employment tribunals, and of diplomatic and state immunity, with particular reference to overseas domestic workers. I welcome the opportunity to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to protecting individuals who have come to work in the UK as overseas domestic workers—or indeed in any other capacity —who, while they are here, are subjected to abuse. I know that Members of the Committee feel strongly about this. The Government share the commitment to ensure that no individual in this country is subjected to abuse and exploitation.
Holding anyone in modern slavery is totally unacceptable. Overseas domestic workers, like anyone else, deserve protection from modern slavery, as well as support and help if abuse takes place. The Government intend that the Bill should give that protection to all victims, regardless of who they are, why they are in the UK and for whom they are working. This intention must none the less take account of this country’s existing international obligations, and I will address the point concerning immunity in a moment.
The Committee will wish to know that overseas domestic workers, in common with any other employee in the UK—irrespective of whether they can switch employers or not—already have the right to access employment tribunals and the courts, where the tribunal or the court has jurisdiction.
Perhaps I may turn to the new clauses tabled by the noble Lord. Amendment 28 would create an offence where a person whose visa restricts them to a single employer is not permitted to access an employment tribunal. Employees and workers in this country, including people from overseas who are working legally in Great Britain, are entitled to the rights and protections of our employment law. If those rights are breached, the individual can bring a claim to the employment tribunal. Access to employment tribunals is a matter of law and it is for the tribunal to decide whether it has jurisdiction. An employer therefore cannot dictate whether someone working for them can bring a claim, as this is not in the employer’s control. They also cannot decide when the tribunal has jurisdiction to process the claim, so the offence created by Amendment 28 is unnecessary and would have no impact on employers. Where diplomatic or state immunity applies, this operates in relation to the offence, so it would also have no effect.
The Government take seriously the ability of individuals to access the justice to which they are entitled and fully support the aims that the noble Lord is trying to achieve. I can reassure the Committee that the current system of dealing with complaints in relation to employment rights is generally available to those legally working in the country. Noble Lords may be interested to know that we are currently trialling a system at Heathrow Terminal 5 whereby employees are handed a card about knowing their rights, and with numbers to call. We shall be monitoring how helpful and effective the trial proves to be.
The effect of Amendment 95 would be to disapply state immunity in respect of the enforcement of judgments against diplomatic missions where the judgment is made under the proposed Act. I noted the noble Earl’s comment that the words, “reasonable”, “ingenious” and “brave”, might be applied to this amendment. Immunity from jurisdiction is a well established principle of customary international law. The fact that this is a principle of customary international law means that the UK is bound by it. The aim of the amendment appears to be to remove in certain circumstances the immunity from enforcement jurisdiction. This could put the UK in breach of international law, and I do not believe that that is the intention of the noble Lord. The Committee will understand the need carefully to consider the implications of this amendment.
It may be helpful to explain the role that diplomatic immunity plays in cases of alleged mistreatment of overseas domestic workers and the measures that are in place to deal with such allegations. Diplomatic immunity is an important part of a package of principles within the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations that are designed not to benefit individuals, but rather to ensure the efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions. They provide diplomats with necessary protections from the authorities in the receiving state to enable them to carry out their functions effectively. They work on the basis of reciprocity, and if UK diplomats are to be protected overseas, it is important that the UK respects the law of immunity as regards diplomats serving here. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations requires all diplomats to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving state. This applies to the terms and conditions of employment for all domestic staff, which employers have to agree with their workers in accordance with a prescribed template before the worker applies for an overseas domestic worker visa to come to the UK.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office treats any allegation of mistreatment of domestic workers in diplomatic households very seriously. Few such allegations are brought to the FCO’s attention by the police, and when they are, the FCO liaises as necessary with the relevant diplomatic mission, UK Visas and Immigration and the UK Border Force to work for an appropriate response. If an allegation of mistreatment requires further investigation by the police, the FCO will request from the diplomatic mission concerned on behalf of the police a waiver of the diplomat’s immunity, and failure to provide a waiver may result in the FCO demanding the immediate withdrawal of the diplomat. It is not appropriate to seek to impede the operation of or amend the State Immunity Act 1978 or the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 through the creation of criminal offences or exceptions in the Modern Slavery Bill without reference to the underlying legal obligations they reflect.
Overseas domestic workers should feel confident that if they are abused while they are in the UK, they can come to the authorities and will be treated and supported as victims. However, I do not believe that these amendments would add to the existing protections, or that they are appropriate having regard to our existing international obligations. I am confident that the current legislation covering employment, the measures in this Bill and the measures the Government are looking at to enhance protections for overseas domestic workers represent the best way of tackling any abuse of such workers. We are working to see that they are implemented. Given this response, I hope that the noble Lord will feel free to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hylton
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the four noble Lords who have spoken in favour of my first and, to some extent, the second amendment. I think I can reasonably claim that Amendment 28 has received support from all around the Committee. I was glad to hear from the Government that they believe that overseas domestic workers on short-term visas deserve protection. However, I fail to see how the Bill increases any protection, which at the moment is to a very large extent lacking. Will Clause 3(2) give additional grounds for prosecuting those who exploit and abuse their domestic staff?
Further to that, the noble Baroness referred to the card that is supposed to be given to overseas domestic workers before they leave a foreign country to come here. While that may be helpful to some extent, particularly if the card spells out what the minimum wage levels are in this country, it would be stronger still if a model contract was in existence. This is a point on which I have already written to the noble Lord, Lord Bates. A model contract would give both the employer and the employee a much better idea of what we expect to happen when they both come to Britain.
If the Government could give me some encouragement that it would be possible to have a meeting on these subjects between now and Report, I would be somewhat readier and more willing to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that, yes, indeed, a further meeting would certainly be possible. The card that is handed out states what the minimum wage should be and that workers should have a written contract of terms and conditions. Moreover, there are emergency numbers that can be called. These are elements of information which should be helpful, but obviously the question then is getting workers themselves into a position where they are able to access and implement the information.
Lord Hylton
My Lords, it would be a great help to everyone concerned if there could be a model contract, but with the encouragement I have been given by the Government, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Electoral Conduct
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alderdice
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Electoral Conduct, and its various recommendations.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, as a result of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, we know that it will be five months until the next Westminster election. Those of us who observe the culture and feel of politics also know that this election will find immigration as one of the top priorities and concerns of the voters and therefore of the political parties. When there is this degree of polarisation in politics, not just in this country but much more widely, one cannot but be concerned that the conduct of the next election may not particularly distinguish politics in this country. That is because of the possibility that, in the conduct of the election, some of those involved—whether in newer or more traditional political parties—might expose many of our people to unseemly conduct, behaviour and remarks. It therefore seemed to me appropriate to ask Her Majesty’s Government what their response is to the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Electoral Conduct, which was chaired by Labour’s Natascha Engel MP, chair of the Backbench Business Committee in the other place.
It may be helpful to your Lordships’ House if I reprise the history of this report. Back in 2005, John Mann, the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Antisemitism, commissioned a report on anti-Semitism in elections, because there had been a number of complaints. The report was produced in 2006. There were some 35 recommendations. In particular, the report suggested that the Electoral Commission should draw up a contract of acceptable behaviour outlining the duty of all election candidates to exercise due care when addressing issues such as racism, community relations and minorities during political campaigning. In the Government’s 2007 response to that inquiry, they advised that the matter was one for the Electoral Commission. However, in its submission to the inquiry, the Electoral Commission advised the panel that it believed that codes beyond the reach of the law were unenforceable. The committee essentially concurred with this.
As time went on, John Mann was increasingly frustrated by the lack of action on the basis of that report. It was clear that there was reason to be worried about racism, sexism, homophobia and discrimination against candidates on the basis of their mental health. He commissioned an inquiry that would go much more widely into all aspects of electoral conduct where these matters might arise. I declare an interest, as one of the Members of your Lordships’ House who took part in that inquiry. It had participation from across our parties in the two Houses. Its aim was to investigate electoral conduct with a focus on discriminatory behaviour, to assess current rules, to uncover models of good practice and to make recommendations for change. At all times, we were explicitly clear that we did not seek to inhibit freedom of speech. The report included 11 obvious and self-evident basic principles for free speech in campaigning, which drew heavily on the report of my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, Political Speech and Race Relations in a Liberal Democracy, produced in the early 1990s. Its principles still stand.
The response to our call for evidence was strong. We secured 50 responses from a wide range of concerned parties including, but not limited to, domestic and international elections agencies, the police, academics, trade unions, councils, elected officials, community groups and leading NGOs. We held two oral evidence sessions. At these we heard disturbing stories of racism from former Minister Parmjit Dhanda and the honourable Member for Ilford North, Lee Scott MP. We also heard from political parties including UKIP, the SDLP and the Liberal Democrats. In fact, all the political parties represented in Parliament, with the exception of Respect, submitted evidence.
When our report was published in October 2013, it received public praise from the Speaker, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the President of the Liberal Democrats, the Chairman of the Conservative Party, the General Secretary of the Labour Party and key stakeholders. So there was a good deal of encouragement, but it seems to me that it is now time to ask Her Majesty’s Government what their response is.
There were four main areas, the first of which was policing, regulation and the law. The response from the Association of Chief Police Officers was extremely positive. It already had a strong set of plans and a good programme and it wrote to advise that it would be implementing nearly all our recommendations. However, we found that, while in many ways there was sufficient legal provision to address incidents of racism and discrimination in UK elections, the law was underused or, perhaps in some situations, misunderstood. We recommended that some of the language of electoral law might be updated. We were advised by the Law Commission that it was undertaking a consultation on such a change. It wrote to tell us that our recommendations would help in the design of its consultation. It would be helpful if my noble friend the Minister could indicate whether the Law Commission has made any representations to the Government.
The Commission for Racial Equality had been very helpful in producing guidance and demystifying the law in the past, but the successor body, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, had perhaps been less impressive in that regard. However, at our urging a meeting was held between the Minister, Helen Grant, the EHRC and the committee chair Natascha Engel. The Minister said that an application for funding from the EHRC would be carefully considered, because the EHRC had said that it would have to access a project fund if it was to be able to take forward work on electoral conduct and on a guide for local authorities, as that was outside its core business plan. It would be helpful if my noble friend could update us on the progress of that bid and any consultations that there have been.
Press and advertising are another key element of the problem. We addressed concerns about discrimination in the media, having heard evidence of homophobia, racism and anti-Semitism. Under the former Press Complaints Commission code, if a group of, for example, Muslims was subject to alleged discrimination, an individual from that group would be required to complain under clause 1—accuracy—of the code and not under the relevant part on discrimination. The committee saw this as illogical and outdated. Since the inquiry, we have made representations to the Editors’ Code of Practice Committee. At the end of September, we were told that updating the code would be a key priority for the newly formed Independent Press Standards Organisation. We believe that attempts to secure a sensible balance between the defence of freedom of expression and the protection from discrimination should be possible. It would be helpful if my noble friend could reassure me that Ministers will reiterate these concerns to IPSO.
Another concern is the development of new communications media, which enables broadcasting on the internet, and, of course, the use of Facebook, Twitter and so on. This is a challenge for us all and the issue was raised by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I declare an interest as a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. In its 13th report, Command Paper 8208, on party funding, the committee expressed a concern about the impact of new media that went beyond the question of funding. Do the Government have any thoughts on this issue?
The key agents in elections are the political parties themselves. In order to ensure that there is appropriate behaviour, a draft framework has been put together for the parties. We will continue to seek cross-party agreement. This is something with a historic precedent. In the 1990s, the three major parties at that time agreed a compact on how they would behave, which was subsequently extended to the nationalist parties. Now, however, we are in a situation where there are even more parties which are significant in the electoral process and which may be considered significant in this matter. If my noble friend the Minister could take back the group’s shared, cross-party desire for a draft framework agreed by the various parties, and for the Government to encourage the parties to reach such an agreement, it would be most welcome.
Finally, we registered a concern, which was also mentioned by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its report, that non-party campaigning groups may become an increasingly significant aspect of elections in this country, as they have in the United States of America. The Committee on Standards in Public Life was looking at this question particularly in terms of party funding, but we believe that the ability of parties to depend on third parties to behave in a way that would not direct opprobrium and guilt towards the official party but would nevertheless be inappropriate behaviour is a significant dilemma. We would welcome an indication from my noble friend the Minister as to whether this is an issue that the Government are also monitoring and addressing in the upcoming elections. It is timely for the Government, having had the report for about a year, to now give us a response. In view of the upcoming election, such a response would be very welcome.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I can hardly conceive of circumstances in which I would find myself seriously at odds with my noble friend Lord Alderdice. No one has a fuller understanding than my noble friend of the situation in Northern Ireland and of how stability can be preserved there. I almost invariably agree with his views on the affairs of the Province, in which I take a particular interest, and I am largely at one with my noble friend again this evening.
The report before us is a formidable document, based on wide inquiry and careful research. It is all the more persuasive because it does not overstate the problems with which it is concerned. In paragraph 9, for example, the report makes it clear that,
“the UK is not out of step with international good practice. Taking a wider view, the UK is also performing well in a European and global context”.
The report’s introduction emphasises the overwhelming importance of preserving free speech. It endorses the fine description of free speech produced some years ago by my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, to which my noble friend Lord Alderdice referred. The report reminds us that,
“free speech must not be misused in the name of political freedom or prejudice and intolerance as a political weapon to instigate hatred”.
The report is a balanced and measured document, which keeps the issues of discrimination and racism in proportion but rightly recalls some truly dreadful incidents, to which my noble friend has already referred, that have occurred at recent elections. They remind us that everything possible must be done to diminish the possibility of similar occurrences in future. No one should be satisfied with anything other than the highest standards of electoral conduct in all parts of our country.
Of course, that expectation is a comparatively modern phenomenon in British electoral history. Until the late 19th century, rowdiness, riot and rudeness were the chief characteristics of British elections. Disraeli had to endure unbridled anti-Semitism in the 1830s and 1840s before he became the representative of the comparatively well behaved and courteous electors of Buckinghamshire, although he rather enjoyed answering back his would-be tormentors from the hustings.
The days of uncontrolled misconduct are firmly over and none mourn their passing. Nevertheless, elections are and will always remain highly charged occasions in which strong feelings will be vigorously expressed, often in indecorous language. The report fully accepts that. Its aim is to prevent the kind of crude, base insults and racial intolerance which have on some recent occasions inflicted appalling distress on candidates and their families, undermined good community relations and damaged the reputation of British democracy. Now the very rapid expansion of social media, particularly since the last election, creates new and formidable challenges, to which my noble friend Lord Alderdice also referred.
In those respects, the coming election—now just a few months away—will be a testing time. We need to consider strengthening our arrangements to guard against the extreme campaigning, to which the report refers in paragraph 38, which has the potential to “fracture communities”. The recommendations it makes to try to avoid such an eventuality require the most careful consideration by the Government and political parties.
It is more than a little disquieting to find in the report considerable disappointment with the Equality and Human Rights Commission. In the report’s summary, it is described as having,
“neglected its responsibilities and lost some of the good practices carried out under its former guise as the Commission for Racial Equality”.
There are more strong words of criticism in paragraph 23 of the report. The report’s first and most important recommendation is that,
“the EHRC produce a plan for engaging in work on electoral conduct and specifically that it continues to update and issue the election toolkit which embodied good practice, providing clarity in what can be complex legal and procedural matters”.
In other words, the all-party inquiry is very strongly of the view that the EHRC should do at the next election what its predecessor body did in the past.
Since the report was published, those involved with the all-party inquiry have continued to express concern about the approach of the EHRC. Critics give the impression that in the absence of the kind of EHRC initiative they believe to be necessary, standards of electoral conduct may be seriously impaired. But there are some who seem to take the view that the role of the EHRC has been largely superseded by the Electoral Commission. This is an issue that needs to be clarified and resolved.
Clear codes of conduct, such as that produced by the Electoral Commission and agreed with the Statutory Parliamentary Parties Panel, have in the past few years come to occupy a significant place in the arrangements designed to combat discrimination and racism. The political parties produce internal codes of their own. The report contains a number of proposals to secure more effective enforcement of those codes through training, disciplinary action and other means, such as a common framework accepted by all parties for reporting discrimination during elections.
The list of recommendations directed at the political parties is a long one and perhaps there is a danger of seeking an unduly elaborate set of requirements. It is hardly realistic, for example, to imagine that party officials would be able to vet every single leaflet before it is issued during the coming campaign. What is important and pressing, surely, is that the parties make their codes crystal clear as the election approaches, and explain how they will be enforced.
I have ceased to be involved with the central organisation of the Conservative Party—no longer known as Conservative Central Office but as Conservative Campaign Headquarters. In the tightly organised era of Mr Lynton Crosby, there is unlikely to be any lack of resources to ensure adequate training for candidates and agents or for the enforcement of a rigorous code of conduct. The Conservative Party makes no secret of its intention to mount a hard-fought, remorseless campaign at a time of heightened concern about race relations. That makes it more important to keep standards of conduct high and to bear down heavily on any breaches of them in a manner that commands public confidence. The same, of course, goes for the other parties.
We know that the Electoral Commission’s essential role in this area is much valued by the political parties. The commission is in the process of revising and updating its code of conduct for campaigners. It is a pity, perhaps, that the commission does not seem to have supplied a background briefing note for this debate. It would be hard to overestimate the advantages of having one single code of conduct to which all parties fully subscribe in place of the present plethora of individual party documents. Perhaps the time has now come to consider that. When the inquiry into electoral conduct was announced last year, Mr John Mann MP, the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Anti-Semitism, said that he hoped to see considered thought given to a transparent, workable and enforceable framework on electoral conduct which can be agreed by the political parties. Surely that is a goal worth striving to achieve.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Alderdice—who, as he said, was a member of the all-party inquiry into electoral misconduct—for bringing these issues to the attention of the House as we approach the next general election, as well as local elections in much of England next May. This is therefore a very timely debate.
I was pleased to be able to provide evidence informally to the inquiry, based on my experience of involvement in election campaigns over more than 40 years, since I first became an active member of the Liberal Party as a teenager in the 1970s. I believe that the inquiry raised important issues for debate and action. I also thank John Mann and his assistant Danny Stone, who I met, for their work in initiating this, and also for the earlier report by a cross-party group of MPs concerning anti-Semitism.
The inquiry chaired by Natascha Engel helped to illuminate continuing problems with prejudicial behaviour, such as discriminatory language, in the conduct of our elections. I believe that the most blatant use of discriminatory language by candidates from the major and most established parties in this country is fortunately now very rare. However, all the major parties had severe embarrassment in the past. I remember being personally very deeply unhappy and distressed about the use of the phrase “secure family background” in the Liberal Party leaflet for the Brecon and Radnor by-election of 1985, in which neither of the other two major candidates were married. My late noble friend Richard Livsey had to apologise immediately for a leaflet that he had had no involvement whatever in producing.
When I took overall responsibility for parliamentary by-elections for the Liberal Democrats a few years after this incident, I helped to ensure that we took great care in those campaigns to avoid even the kind of unconscious discriminatory language that could otherwise have slipped through. However, it is not possible for a national party to monitor every leaflet produced at local level. In 1993, I was enraged when some of the literature that my party produced for a council by-election in Tower Hamlets was clearly pandering to racism. It was also clear in that campaign that Labour literature had had the effect of boosting the BNP vote, enabling a BNP councillor to be elected. This controversy led Paddy Ashdown, who was then the leader of my party, to ask my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill to conduct an investigation and to produce a report. I believe that what he said in his report, Political Speech and Race Relations in a Liberal Democracy, was very pertinent to this inquiry. He wrote:
“The right to free and unfettered political speech and debate is fundamental to democracy”.
However, he added the important rider:
“Whilst essential to political speech and public debate, free speech is not an absolute right without limits. Other fundamental values must be of equal value, including the unequivocal commitment to the principles of religious and racial acceptance and cultural diversity in an atmosphere of tolerance and respect”.
This inquiry sought to address the problem of how to deal with people when they go beyond the tolerant norms of society and, often, beyond the scope of what the law can allow in a civilised society, because to do so unfairly demeans others and may incite hatred, or even violence.
One of the most shocking cases of such behaviour that I have come across in recent years was during a council by-election in the London borough of Waltham Forest. One of the sitting Liberal Democrat councillors was in an openly gay relationship, but the Labour candidate in that campaign put around false rumours that he was a paedophile. There were no leaflets, but the rumours were effectively spread by word of mouth. As a result the councillor was harassed, his property was attacked and he lost the election to the candidate who spread the vile rumours.
After the election, some of the truth came out when local residents who were aware of the real facts revealed what they had been told and identified the source of it. The new Labour councillor was prosecuted, convicted and forced to stand down. The Liberal Democrats won the by-election that followed, but by then our shattered ex-councillor had been forced to leave the area. Such legal action will always be rare, and it could not provide proper redress in this case.
I have described this particularly unpleasant incident in order to highlight my belief that the greatest responsibility must be on all the political parties to take sufficient care in their approval of candidates, so that none of them could behave as this particular Labour candidate did. All parties must make it plain to all concerned that such behaviour is not remotely acceptable, that candidates and those working for them should be governed by proper codes of conduct, and that they may also be subject to prosecution.
The point was well made in the inquiry that, while the major parties may have greatly improved their assessment, approval and training of parliamentary candidates, generally they lack the resources to do this sufficiently well at local level. The task of vetting local council candidates is generally done by volunteers. The inquiry report calls for funding from the Equality and Human Rights Commission to provide support, training and guidance to the parties about non-discriminatory campaigning. I believe that it could again undertake some of the useful work that was done by the Commission for Racial Equality, with which I have worked previously.
However, a significant problem is one of resources for the parties themselves. If we are to improve the quality and diversity of candidates standing for public office at all levels, and to ensure that they behave as they should, there is also a case for public funding to assist parties with the tasks of identifying, approving and training candidates at different levels to prevent such problems occurring.
When problems do occur, legal remedies may apply in the most serious cases. Candidates always have the protection of the law in relation to defamation, but legal routes are neither quick nor affordable for most people. Candidates and agents should in future be rather wary after the case brought by my friend Elwyn Watkins against Phil Woolas at the last general election. The election court that met in the Oldham East and Saddleworth constituency after the 2010 general election agreed that false statements had been made by Mr Woolas, who was thereby disqualified from Parliament and a parliamentary by-election took place. The court case revealed that the intention of the then Labour agent—now, I am told, a member of UKIP—had been to,
“make the white folk angry”.
The court was able to obtain and to see the chain of e-mails within the Labour campaign that revealed a blatant attempt to appeal to racism. As a result, an MP was disqualified from public office and the costs to him and the Labour Party may well have been in excess of £1 million.
Serious malpractice therefore still exists, but my own conclusion is that the major responsibility for dealing with it must lie with the political parties. They must make sure that their agents and organisers are fully aware of their responsibilities, both legally and according to appropriate codes of conduct, and that they are subject to party discipline.
As Natascha Engel concluded in the debate on the report in the other place:
“I hope we can foster an atmosphere of fairness so that we fight elections on policy, not on personality or people’s sexual orientation or religious or ethnic background”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/5/14; col. 102WH.]
The political parties have a responsibility to promote these values. I hope that government and all appropriate independent bodies will work with all the parties and help them to do just that.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, on putting down this Question for debate and thank those Members of the House who have taken part in the inquiry and have spoken today.
As we have all agreed, the report that they have produced is an excellent document, and its recommendations give all political parties and the Government issues to reflect on. The need to address the recommendations and conclusions of the inquiry is as urgent as other noble Lords have said, as we are coming up to the general election. As my honourable friend Sharon Hodgson said in the debate in May in the Commons, we support the report’s recommendations.
As noble Lords have said, the inquiry was chaired by my honourable friend Natascha Engel. In addition to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, it also included my noble friend Lord Beecham among its members. I was very struck, as were other noble Lords, by some of the things that are in the report. Natascha Engel said in that debate:
“Our inquiry found that people in some areas were not putting their names forward as candidates out of fear for their lives, which happened across the board. Whether the tensions were religious, ethnic or based on their sexuality or gender, we found that people who would have been good candidates for elected office at any level were not putting their names forward”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/5/14; col. 97WH.]
I think that we would agree that this is unacceptable in a modern UK and a modern, mature democracy.
We can all cite, as did the noble Lord, Lord Rennard—although I notice that he cited only Labour cases—examples of malpractice.
Lord Rennard
I referred also to the Liberal campaigns in the Brecon and Radnor by-election and in Tower Hamlets. I was not being one-sided. I cited examples of bad practice by both my party and the noble Baroness’s.
Baroness Thornton
I accept that rebuke, although I have to say that the noble Lord went into some detail.
I remember being Harriet Harman’s “minder”—as they are called these days—during a by-election in 1982. She was pregnant with her first child, and the Liberal candidate, who is now a Member of your Lordships’ House, used the fact that she was pregnant all the way through the campaign as an argument for her not being fit to be an MP. As we all know, Simon Hughes has apologised for the campaign that was mounted against Peter Tatchell, the gay rights campaigner, during the by-election in Bermondsey. We all have issues that need to be addressed. Even today, none of us can cease to be vigilant as party politicians to ensure that every single word that we utter and every single word that is printed in our name is appropriate.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, that, as far as I can tell—and it was certainly what I was taught as a Labour activist and someone who has run lots of elections—that you have the responsibility to make sure that every single word that is published and every single leaflet that is put out in the name of your party is proper and correct, and does not contravene any rules. That is difficult, and people will make mistakes, but there is no doubt where the responsibility for those things lies. It is true that we have a proud history in the UK of fair and free elections with proportionate regulation, and broad agreement that discrimination and racism have no place in society in general, and certainly not in our democratic processes. However, as we all have agreed, we know that racist, homophobic and other discrimination takes place during election campaigns.
The committee produced a series of recommendations and we give our full support to those, tackling, as they do, discrimination as it affects our democratic process. Like other noble Lords, I am puzzled as to why the Equality and Human Rights Commission has to be urged in the way it is being in this report—and by noble Lords—to produce a plan for engaging with electoral conduct, which is clearly an excellent idea. It would pick up on the work carried out by the former CRE. This should be done as a matter of course. It makes sense that the EHRC, the Electoral Commission and the police should work together to make sure that the guidance produced for our elections and election procedures is clear; makes it easy for people who are running elections, particularly in local elections where it is being done by volunteers; makes it clear what our responsibilities are; but also tells everyone how to deal with issues of redress.
Since the political parties’ annual briefing from ACPO and the Electoral Commission focusing on voter fraud takes place, the report is right in asking: why not expand that sort of event to include discrimination? I think the Electoral Commission trialling an online briefing for candidates seems an excellent idea and, where possible, should be integrated into the work political parties are undertaking with their candidates. However, as the report rightly points out, it is new parties, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, mentioned, and independent candidates, who are the ones who may not know their responsibilities and what they should or should not say. Of course, parties from a racist background are the ones we need to be particularly wary of and which need to be watched most carefully.
All police forces appoint a single point of contact for matters concerning electoral fraud. This has proved invaluable. Expanding that role and appointing a second officer may be one way to deal with these issues. One of the other issues not referred to in quite the same way in the debate is the code for parties to work within concerning non-broadcast media. While it is the case that generally parties and candidates have behaved responsibly, surely there will be those who have pushed the boundaries. What does the Minister think should happen in those cases?
I turn to new media. We face an election where social media and online campaigning will be present in a way that it never previously has been in our general elections. I remember a few years ago being targeted by the online discussion in our local newspaper in Bradford—I think it was by UKIP, to be honest—in a vile and horrible way. The problem was that the newspaper was not mediating the online discussion properly. When eventually it was pointed out to the editor that they had a responsibility not to allow people to be vilified in this fashion on the website of their newspaper, they took action. Multiply that by hundreds and hundreds of other incidents and I think all noble Lords would agree that we potentially have some very serious problems.
It will take concentrated and co-ordinated action to deal with such issues. I believe the Government have a responsibility to make sure that those things are pulled together. Every single political party has a responsibility, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said, for the behaviour of its own candidates. Certainly in the Labour Party we take this extremely seriously: we have no hesitation in referring people to our disciplinary committee. We carry out the appropriate punishments, including expulsion from the party, and occasionally involve the police. We have no doubt that those are our responsibilities as a political party, but also that we all need to work together to ensure that our free and fair elections continue to be so.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we are all aware of the difficulty of distinguishing between free speech, robust campaigning and incorrect and improper speech. I think all noble Lords in the debate have taken part in some fairly robust campaigns. The first campaign I took part in, in 1970, had National Front candidates. To say the least, they stretched the boundaries of acceptable campaigning in a whole range of ways. The Liberals in Huddersfield did our best to stand up to them. We were complimented by our Conservative and Labour counterparts for so doing. They were not quite so explicit but they captured more votes; that is always part of the delicacy of campaigning. We have to remember that the electorate do not solely consist of liberally, openly and tolerantly minded people, which means that the sort of robust campaigning we are talking about often has real appeal and gains great political dividends. When she presented this report in a Commons debate, Natascha Engel said:
“We tried to achieve balance in our report”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/5/14; col. 98WH]—
between “where … robust political campaigning” ends and discrimination begins. That is the problem we all have.
All parties have suffered embarrassing moments, usually from local election candidates and campaigns but sometimes also from parliamentary candidates and campaigns. As has been said in the debate, all parties have done their best to tighten up their procedures: to produce internal codes of conduct and to vet, assess and train their candidates and agents in advance. That does not always succeed and there are occasions when our local representatives slip beneath the standards that we would like. We are also aware that there are parties outside what one might call the consensus of established parties. We are going to have an election in which there will be a large number of candidates from a range of different parties, some of which will not want to accept the current consensus. They will decry what they will call political correctness and wish to be politically incorrect. We are going to have to cope with that when the next election comes along but it is much easier to cope with through the established procedures when conventional methods of campaigning take place, through leaflets and so on.
The new media, all the way from telephone canvassing through to the internet, with Twitter and so on, are much more difficult. In one of the seats where I was campaigning in the last election, I was very conscious that telephone canvassing appeared to be putting out messages that the Liberal Democrats were in favour of uncontrolled immigration into this country. That message was clearly coming back at us in the last week on the doorsteps; it clearly came, I suspect, from a script provided by one of the other parties for telephone canvassing. Of course, that is very difficult to get hold of and when you then move on to social media, we are all familiar with the internet trolls who exist and the dreadfully negative comments that are attached to so many of the media areas that we see. How you get hold of those politically minded internet trolls is, again, going to be very difficult for us all.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has done us a good favour by raising a range of questions. Let me try and answer the government questions because, of the 30 recommendations in this report, only five were really addressed directly to the Government. Some were directed to the parties themselves; others were to the Law Commission, the EHRC, the Electoral Commission and so on. On the question of issuing a voluntary code of advertising, the Government are certainly prepared actively to encourage political parties themselves to agree such a code. Recommendations 25 and 29 suggest that the requirement for an imprint for parties and non-party campaigners should be extended to incorporate online and other election communications. We are certainly willing to look at that. The Electoral Commission is of course directly responsible for looking at such issues but it will be very complex to devise workable rules that would extend to online materials, let alone in primary legislation. That is part of what we are all going to have to struggle with in this coming campaign.
Recommendation 27 suggests that non-party campaigners in local campaigns should register with the returning officer and submit spending returns. We went through the issue of non-party campaigns on the transparency of lobbying Act. I bear the scars of that Act, during the passage of which a number of non-governmental organisations refused to accept that there were real problems with non-party campaigning groups and that we needed to take a degree of action to limit them, as the Act has now done, in spending limits and in requiring them to retain receipts for expenditure, both nationally and within constituencies.
Recommendation 28 proposes that non-party campaigners be required to maintain a database of election campaign literature to assist the police when accusations of misconduct arise. That would be ideal, although I am not entirely sure that every established political party maintains a correct library of all the leaflets that they have put out.
I now address some of the other issues touched on. There are recommendations to parties on the diversity of candidates—women, the disabled, ethnic minorities. My party has had a particularly worthwhile scheme, led by my noble friend Lady Brinton, who I am happy to say has just been elected our party president, to encourage candidates from those groups. I have no doubt that the other two parties have been doing the same—indeed, the evidence is there in some of those elected last time. It is very important that all the parties—at least, all the three parties—now have clear internal codes and elements of training for candidates and agents.
I turn to the EHRC, which has been criticised. First, the EHRC is not the CRE; it has a more limited remit. Some of the areas where the CRE worked are now being managed by the Electoral Commission and a number of these are matters for the police. We are all aware that there have been concerns that the police, in past election campaigns, have not treated allegations of this sort with sufficient attention. I am very glad that this report has drawn attention to the need for ACPO to pay much more attention to problems of electoral fraud and campaigning of the sort which we have seen evidence of in parts of London and elsewhere in recent years. Certainly, from my limited experience of talking to police in Yorkshire and elsewhere, the police are now more aware of this as a problem, so we hope that there will be greater attention to this in the coming campaign.
The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, suggested that a single code of conduct would be better than a proliferation of different party codes. I have to say, speaking on behalf of the Government, that that is a matter for the parties to agree among themselves. The Government should not interfere too sharply in what parties do among themselves, but it is something we encourage the parties to talk further about. On the question of guidance for campaigners from the Electoral Commission, I say that the Electoral Commission will be publishing its guidance in time for the 2015 election, and the chair of the commission has written to Natascha Engel to say that it will engage with those parties which are not part of the statutory parliamentary parties panel on the form of this guidance. We are all conscious that five, six or seven significant parties will be fighting a wide range of constituencies in the coming election, so we need to engage with a wider number of participants.
The EHRC is now looking at how best to update its guidance on elections for local authorities and other organisations for use in 2015. That is thought to provide the sort of guidance that others have been asking for.
On the question of the role of IPSO, clause 12 of the editors’ code of practice, which is administered by IPSO, deals with discrimination. It is vital that editors adhere to the code at all times, not just in elections, and we look to IPSO to ensure that the code is obeyed by the media during the course of the campaign.
Lastly, I touch on the role of the Law Commission. The commission will be publishing a consultation setting out its proposals for electoral reform early this month, with a report to be published with recommendations in the summer of 2015, which thus will not be of use to us in this coming election but means that we are moving forward for the campaigns after that.
The Government are extremely grateful for this report because it raises a whole set of questions that all parties need to think through. I hope that this conversation will continue and that all those who are consulting on this, with the Electoral Commission and elsewhere, will ensure that the three parties we now refer to in some ways as the established parties, and indeed which UKIP loves to accuse of being the established parties, will draw in others as well—the regional parties, the other national parties—to ensure that we have a robust but clean campaign and do not stretch the boundaries of free speech too far.
Modern Slavery Bill
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Young of Hornsey
“Legal liability for the beneficiaries of slavery
(1) The Secretary of State shall within six months of the coming into force of this Act make regulations to ensure that a person benefiting from an offence under section 1 or 2 of this Act committed by a third party shall have committed an offence where—
(a) the third party acted for that person’s benefit, and(b) that person’s lack of supervision or control made possible the committing of the offence by the third party.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) shall be made by statutory instrument and shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by each House of Parliament.”
Baroness Young of Hornsey (CB)
My Lords, first, I would like to thank Klara Skrivankova from Anti-Slavery International for her work on this issue. The proposed new clause requires the Secretary of State to bring forward measures along the lines set out in EU directive 2011/36/EU on preventing trafficking in human beings, which I mentioned at Second Reading a couple of weeks ago. The amendment is designed to penalise those individuals and companies that benefit from the use of slave labour in their business dealings. The amendment will make clear in the Bill that those businesses that benefit from slavery are legally liable and deemed to have committed an offence if a third party has acted for their benefit and that the third party’s offence was made possible due to a lack of control or supervision on the part of the person.
I shall give an example of what is meant here. In November 2012, the management of Carestel—a former motorway and airport caterer—was condemned by a Belgian court as accessory to the crimes of human trafficking and organised fraud. There were two defendants in the case. One was Charalampos who, as anticipated, did not appear in court. He has been awarded the contract to clean the petrol stations and directly employed the women involved. The other defendant was Carestel, which at the time was a substantial operator of motorway and airport services where the women were working. The conditions under which these eastern European women were employed as lavatory cleaners at petrol stations were all too shockingly familiar. They worked up to 17 hours a day, in appalling conditions and were paid well below the minimum wage at €3 an hour, all of which added up to what the court described as constituting modern slavery. Charalampos was accused of recruiting women on deficient contracts that allowed his company to circumvent Belgian employment laws, but, importantly in the context of this amendment, according to the prosecution he could not have continued his operation without the active co-operation of Carestel. So not only the subcontractor but also the main company was condemned, in spite of the latter’s defence of ignorance and in spite of it claiming not to have had any idea that its cleaners were trafficked and abused.
Of course we have Part 6 of the Bill and the transparency provisions are a good starting point, but without other provisions that would ensure penalties for non-compliance or for continually reporting that a company has made no improvement in its monitoring, it is hard to see how progressive change can be achieved in some businesses. There are no incentives for companies to work to improve conditions in the supply chain and, perhaps more tellingly, no deterrents or any actions that would discourage persistent attempts to thwart the intentions of Part 6. There is an absence of an enforcement mechanism in the transparency clauses too. This provision would reinforce the potential impact of the transparency provision, as would the civil liability clause to which we will come later.
In his letter to noble Lords responding to the issues raised about the Bill at Second Reading, the Minister stated:
“We expect compliance with this measure—
the transparency measure—
“to be driven mainly by consumer, investor and campaigner pressure. If businesses do not provide disclosures which demonstrate real action, it will be evident to both customers and shareholders who will apply pressure to the company to comply or do more”.
That is a fair question to ask of investors, shareholders and campaigners, who are categories of activists, but I am not sure that it is fair or realistic to expect hard-pressed consumers to track down the statements of all the companies that provide them with their goods and services. It would be a particularly onerous task for those who are enduring financial hardship, where their priority is to buy whatever is cheapest. When company executives begin to worry about being held liable, a real shift in attitudes and behaviour will occur.
At Second Reading, many noble Lords referred to the need to strengthen Part 6, which relates to transparency in the supply chain. This amendment would also be a safeguard for businesses that are trying to operate ethically and would give assurance that those that undercut them by drawing unfair advantage through using forced labour can be held liable. It is a measure designed to improve the ways in which we can, to appropriate the words of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation,
“disrupt the business of forced labour”,
and constitutes an effective step towards regulating slavery and forced labour out of the EU. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this amendment as an opportunity to look at the financial proceeds of this wicked crime. We will deal with this in subsequent groups and amendments, and I have no doubt that we will return to it at various stages on the way through. Amendment 30 allows us to debate how the Modern Slavery Bill will ensure that committing modern slavery offences does not benefit the offenders or third parties who either benefit or look the other way when these crimes are committed. It would place a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure that legal persons benefiting from modern slavery offences or whose lack of supervision makes them possible will have committed an offence.
I greatly welcome the opportunity presented by the amendment to debate the role of legal persons, such as companies, in modern slavery. We will return to that subject in more detail—in particular, as the noble Baroness referred to, when we come to the section on supply chains. It is absolutely right that companies who profit from modern slavery can be held responsible, so it is right that the offences in the Bill can be committed by all persons, including legal persons. That means they can be committed by companies provided that the usual legal principles of corporate criminal liability apply. As the noble Baroness mentioned, companies can also be held liable under the civil law —such as negligence and proceeds of crime legislation—where they benefit from modern slavery committed for their benefit. Therefore, companies that make money as a result of modern slavery committed for their benefit can be deprived of those profits and pursued for damages by the victims. Article 5.2 of the EU trafficking directive does not require legal persons to be criminally liable; liability for the commission of offences by third parties that occur as a result of lack of supervision can be criminal, civil or administrative.
We are confident that currently—and under the Modern Slavery Bill—we are fully compliant with the requirements of the trafficking directive around the liability of legal persons. We want to make sure that we recover the ill gotten gains of slave-masters and traffickers. That is why Clause 7 subjects those convicted of slavery and trafficking to the most robust available asset recovery regime. That element of recovery of assets was also a provision of the Serious Crime Bill, part of the Proceeds of Crime Act, and all those provisions will of course apply in the case of modern slavery. It is absolutely vital that modern slavery should be viewed as no different from any other organised criminal activity in that where we can obtain the proceeds of that—so that criminals do not see the profits—and use it to help the victims of these evil crimes, that is what the Government want to do. We are satisfied at this stage that the law provides for that, as currently drafted in the Bill, but we have listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness has said and we will continue to review this in the light of that. Perhaps, therefore, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Young of Hornsey
I thank the Minister for his reply and I am glad that he also said that this is still open to review. I agree with him that it complies to some extent with what we have to do and with all the other bits of legislation to which he has referred. However, it is a question that goes a bit wider than that and links it to the issue of transparency in the supply chain, which many people feel does not have any teeth—there are no sanctions and no real deterrence embedded in it. So to have something else in the Bill that would make a real statement about that would be very useful. None the less, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
“Paying for sexual services
(1) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) For section 53A (paying for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force etc) substitute—
“53A Paying for sexual services of a person
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if A obtains sexual services from a person (B) in exchange for payment—
(a) if the payment is made or promised by A; or(b) if the payment is made or promised by a third party.(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or both;(b) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both.(3) For the avoidance of doubt, person B is not guilty of aiding, abetting or counselling the commission of an offence under this section.”
(3) The Secretary of State shall, at least once in every year, publish a strategy, to ensure that a programme of assistance and support is made available to a person who wishes to leave prostitution.”
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
Amendment 31 would make it an offence to pay for the sexual services of a person. This is to address the demand for commercial sex, which feeds the trafficking of individuals, particularly women and girls, into and within the United Kingdom.
Both the Council of Europe convention and the EU directive on trafficking call for states to adopt measures to address the demand for exploitation that fosters trafficking. National referral mechanism statistics clearly demonstrate that since 2009 paid sex has consistently been the most prevalent form of exploitation experienced by victims of trafficking in the United Kingdom. It accounts for around 40% of victims and around 60% of female victims. The National Crime Agency strategic threat assessment of the nature and scale of human trafficking, published in September, reports victims being sexually exploited in brothels, in hotels, on the streets and in private residences. The NCA report is clear that of all forms of trafficking identified in this country, sexual exploitation is the most prevalent.
The Government have taken steps to address the demand for labour exploitation through the supply chains provision—which of course I completely welcome and support—but what are we doing to address the demand for sexual exploitation? In 2009 I supported the introduction of Section 14 of the Policing and Crime Act, which made it an offence to pay for sex with someone who is coerced. This might sound like the perfect solution but it has not worked in practice. Evidence of that was clear from those who contributed to an all-party parliamentary group inquiry, of which I was part, which ran from 2013 to 2014. We published our report in March this year and I encourage noble Lords to review its findings. The number of convictions under this offence has been very low. In 2012-13 there was not a single prosecution or conviction. This offence has not done what we hoped it would do.
In considering the law on prostitution our all-party group heard evidence that a Section 14 offence is complex and difficult to prove, and we concluded:
“There are inadequate deterrents for individuals controlling others in prostitution for gain and for those deriving demand from the sex trade. This promotes the UK as a lucrative destination for trafficking with the purpose of sexual exploitation, both domestically and internationally”.
I for one certainly do not want this country to be considered a lucrative destination for traffickers, and I am sure many noble Lords would agree.
I want to set out why I think Amendment 31 is the best option. In 2009 research in London with 103 men who buy sex, 77% of them agreed that a greater criminal penalty would deter them from purchasing sex, while only 47% said that they would be deterred by being required to attend an educational programme. There is strong international evidence that this offence can work, not only by reducing the instance of prostitution and deterring trafficking but, vitally, by creating a culture change, which is the main contributor to reducing demand.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 31 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McColl. First, I must offer my apologies to noble Lords that I was not able to be here for the Second Reading debate.
Trafficking of human beings is the worst form of commodification that there can be. It is a process that views a person as an object to be used to make profit, with no thought to the dignity and humanity of the person being exploited. Perhaps that commodification is expressed most starkly in sexual exploitation where a person’s body is purchased and used for the gratification of the buyer.
It is not sufficient to tackle trafficking and slavery by trying to increase the number of prosecutions for those offences, however vital that is. If we are truly to bring an end to slavery in the 21st century, some 200 years after abolishing legal slavery, we must look to address the root causes. We must not be shy of tackling difficult issues and making bold laws. The connection between prostitution and trafficking is one area where new thinking is required. I commend the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for being bold enough to ask the question of what we will do to reduce the opportunities for traffickers to profit from commercial sexual exploitation.
I should like to focus my comments on some of the arguments that are often made against proposals such as those contained in Amendment 31 and explain why I believe they are unconvincing. The first is the underground thesis. Those who oppose this approach to prostitution law regularly use one particular argument, suggesting that criminalising the purchasing of sexual services could drive prostitution underground, putting prostitutes at risk of harm and making it more difficult for them to seek help. At first sight this idea would be of great concern since the intention of the clause is to protect those in prostitution. However, on closer examination, these fears are not borne out.
First, prostitution can never entirely go underground. It is a system that requires buyers. Without buyers, prostitution will collapse. Therefore, those involved in or who control others in prostitution need to advertise publicly in some way. We already see this in local newspapers or on the internet. However the law changes, this connection with buyers still needs to be made, and if the average client can find an advert for sexual services, then so can the police. This underground argument has also been refuted strongly by the evaluation of the laws in Sweden and Norway.
The next argument that is often put up is concern about the impact on safety. The second part of this opposing argument suggests that it will make prostitution more dangerous. But the truth is that prostitution is already dangerous. Indeed, the Association of Chief Police Officers’ strategic guidance refers to research findings that people in prostitution are 60 to 120 times more likely to be victims of murder than the general population and also experience high levels of rape and physical assault. A paper produced for the Northern Ireland Department of Justice in 2011 states that many women in prostitution in Northern Ireland are subjected to extreme violence. A 2008 prostitution inquiry conducted in Sweden established that the claims made by opponents there about a worsening situation were baseless. Data from Norway show a decrease in severe violence against those in prostitution. The recent evaluation of the Norwegian law states that researchers did,
“not find any evidence of more violence against prostitutes after the ban on buying sex entered into force”.
Many opponents of the Nordic laws promote the decriminalisation model implemented in New Zealand. However, when they do they fail to acknowledge that the official review of that law heard that even five years after removal of all criminal sanctions relating to prostitution of adults, individuals still reported experiencing violence and fear. There is simply no way to get around the fact that prostitution is an inherently violent and harmful activity.
I must say that I agree with the Canadian Justice Minister, Peter MacKay, who said:
“The government does not accept the proposition that prostitution is inevitable and therefore that we must decriminalize and regulate it … On the contrary, the government maintains that prostitution’s inherent harms and dangers would only grow and be exacerbated in a regime that perpetrates and condones the exploitation of vulnerable individuals through legalized prostitution”.
Many critics of this approach have stated that it conflates human trafficking and prostitution which should be kept separate. I do not believe that it is a credible argument that prostitution and trafficking should be treated entirely separately. The fact is that for a significant group of people trafficked into and within this country, the purpose of their trafficking is exploitation through prostitution. Of course, I accept that not all people in prostitution are trafficked, but without addressing the demand that makes it profitable for people to traffic others for prostitution, this trafficking will continue. The laws we have at the moment are not acting as a deterrent. In contrast, in Sweden, which criminalised the purchase of sexual services in 1999, police report that the law acts as,
“a barrier that is preventing human traffickers and pimps from becoming established in Sweden”.
Trafficking statistics show that Sweden has a lower rate of trafficking than other neighbouring countries. Given such statistics, as well as the research cited by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, about the particular vulnerability of the majority of women in prostitution, I think it is an entirely legitimate aim to seek to reduce demand for prostitution.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I, too, would like to support my colleague from the Joint Committee, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and I associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont. In the context of the Bill, this is to do with supply and demand, as we have heard. I will not repeat it, but it is well known that serious research into the Nordic model shows the effectiveness of this kind of legislation. A strong argument was aired briefly in the other place about the market and people’s freedom to work in ways they choose, but I want to draw briefly on my own experience to explore the myth that prostitution can be simply a marketable form of employment.
I have been involved in work with people engaged in prostitution, as well as those who work with them. It is evident that almost everybody who I have come across or who colleagues work with are pathetic, abused and often drug-centred young women. Earlier this year I came across a Thai woman who was being raped 10 times a day in a brothel in Kensington, not far from here. That is what being able to purchase sex is doing to people. A few weeks ago, I met a woman who said, movingly, that before she managed to escape from prostitution, she used to ask for drugs because the pain of servicing all those people was so intense. She requested drugs, and was supplied with them. Something that has not been said but which ought to be noted in this debate is that a lot of research shows that a high proportion of those who purchase sex from prostitutes are married men. What does that say about our understanding of family and relationships? There is a strong case for taking seriously the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord McColl.
I recognise that there might be some real politics in terms of where the amendment would fit in the Bill and how this kind of legislation might arrive at being effective, but I endorse the amendment because it asks the Government to do some form of review. It would be good to do some research to see whether this kind of legislation would reduce significantly the numbers of those in sexual slavery. Would it reduce the demand that is out there on the streets? Would it reduce the numbers who are trafficked into this country like the poor Thai woman I have just spoken about? She was brought here with the promise of a good job, and then she ended up in the appalling situation of being simply a commodity for people to buy at will. Such a review would gather information from the many people who work with those in the sex trade and could receive comments from the public. We could ask for the views of organisations like the Association of Chief Police Officers, which has been mentioned. There are many people in this area who have experience and who could help us to build up a picture that would show us the outcomes if we proceed in this direction.
The passion that unites noble Lords across the Committee on this Bill is to free victims from being abused and treated like commodities—and, in a sense, such cheap commodities. It would be wonderful if we could at least try to review the effect that this kind of legislation would have. Evidence from other parts of the world shows that when a Government are bold enough to adopt it, it has enormously positive social consequences as well as a massive impact on the evil of sexual trafficking.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I will refer to what happened in Ipswich on the terrible occasion when the murders of a series of young women hit the headlines. All of them were described in the press as prostitutes. In fact, they would be better described as drug addicts who had fallen into prostitution.
I am not sure that this is the right Bill to make these changes, or that they can be made in these circumstances, but I am sure that we ought to be clear about a different approach to prostitution from that which we have had before. In Victorian days, prostitution was thought to be appalling and the women were blamed. The men were rarely considered to be in any way guilty. The Victorian approach was that men were like that. I hope that we have reached a stage where we understand how wrong that was as an attitude. However, instead, I fear we are moving to the kind of approach that my noble friend Lord McColl pointed to, where other people are treated as things for the gratification of some and for the earning of money by others. That is the real issue and where the problem really lies. I liked the way in which my noble friend presented his amendment because it seems to me that he emphasised, very characteristically, the nature of the human being, the duty that we owe to human beings and the respect which we should have for all, whoever they may be and however unworthy others may think them.
The terrible events of Ipswich concentrated the minds of people locally in a way which has never happened before. It was very interesting to see how people who would historically have dismissed this as one of those things that was nothing to do with them thought much more seriously about the nature of this offence and the way in which it made a statement about our society and how we think of other people. I know that I would not carry the Committee with me if I were to go too far with these comparators, but I must say that I think we live in a society which treats human life in a most disgraceful way. We point at others outside this country and forget what happens here to babies and what we sometimes ask to happen to older people. We are not good at recognising the value of human life nor are we good at recognising that the greatest gift given to any human being is the part that we can play in creation. It is the gift. Therefore we ought to be particularly careful in any circumstances where human beings are not just trafficked but are degraded by those who treat them as if they were not human. That is the issue that we are concerned with tonight.
I do not think that it would be proper to make so sweeping a change in the context of a Bill which has a whole range of other things that it needs to do, but it would be unfortunate if the Government were to complete the debates on this Bill without giving a real undertaking that this issue will be properly investigated and brought back to Parliament so that we can make a proper decision on it. It is a big issue. We are, on this occasion, very much helped by the work that has been done in Scandinavia. We are not in the same position as we have been before. We have seen what happens when steps like this are taken. We should not delay in treating this seriously, but should do it in a proper format. I do not think that this Bill is the proper format, but I do not want the Government to go away saying it is not the proper format, full stop. I want them to say that it is not the proper format but that they will speedily bring legislation in front of this House, after proper consideration, in order that the House and the other place might consider how best to protect people from being treated as things.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, it has been well worth while staying on after dinner just to listen to a debate of this quality. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, has done a real service in bringing forward this amendment. I thought that his survey of the international scene was masterly.
I can understand that the Government may have reasons for not accepting the amendment as it stands, but I call on the Minister to give some detail about exits from prostitution for those who want to leave it. There must be many such people. In the past, Mr Gladstone was one of those who tried to help people to come out. That has been followed up by voluntary organisations and religious orders, which have provided help and care to those wanting to leave. What are the Government doing to make this easier and how are they enlisting local authorities and other organisations to this end?
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, our amendment is not as precise in the changes it proposes as the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich. Our amendment provides for the Secretary of State to,
“undertake a review of the links between prostitution and human trafficking and sexual exploitation in England and Wales”,
and sets out the issues that must be considered in that review; namely,
“the extent to which the current legislation governing prostitution in England and Wales acts as an effective deterrent to demand for sexual services from exploited persons … the extent to which the current legislation governing prostitution in England and Wales enables effective enforcement action against those trafficking people for sexual exploitation; and … the extent to which alternative legal frameworks for governing prostitution adopted by other countries within the European Union, including Northern Ireland, have been effective at reducing sexual exploitation and the number of people trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation”.
Delving into the world of buying and selling sex reveals a complex web of abuse, control, money and power. Last year the Home Office estimated that the trade in the human trafficking of women to be sexually exploited in the United Kingdom was worth at least £130 million. One example was of a woman who came to our country from Uganda to get away from her abusive husband. She was told by a friend that he could find her a job in a catering company. When she arrived, however, she was driven to a house in Manchester, locked in a room, raped, beaten and forced into prostitution. After a few months, she managed to escape.
It has been estimated by the Home Office that 80,000 people in the UK, mainly women and girls, are involved in prostitution. The reality is that there are thousands of women in our country who are living in sexual slavery. They get there by different routes—pimped by people they know or trafficked by organised gangs—and many are extremely vulnerable, having been abused in the past. As the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, said, a report published last summer by the Serious Organised Crime Agency showed that sexual exploitation was the most likely type of exploitation for people trafficked into England and Wales. There is growing evidence that many of those in prostitution began to be involved in this work before they were 18 and Home Office research has revealed that approximately 50% of women in prostitution became involved before reaching that age.
The physical and psychological consequences for those exploited through prostitution can be severe. The Journal of Trauma Practice found that once they have become embroiled in the trade, nine out of 10 women report wanting to exit but feel unable to so do. They do not know where to get support or do not believe that other work is available to them. The Home Office’s own figures suggest that more than half of the women involved in prostitution have been victims of rape or sexual assault.
We need to look at how countries elsewhere may have reformed their laws to protect women, developed effective exit strategies, reduced the number of people trafficked for sexual exploitation, reduced violence and reduced the market for buying sex, which traffickers and pimps exploit and from which they profit, as we know. That is why we have put forward this amendment to require the Government to carry out a detailed review, with the ultimate objective of seeking measures to keep more women safe.
Of course, we should not make changes without fully understanding the impact they might have. There are differing views on possible courses of action, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, would accept. We need to be sure that any changes will not push women into even more vulnerable and dangerous situations, and we need to consult and seek a wide range of views. However, we surely cannot continue as we are. This amendment, with the provision for a review of the links between prostitution, human trafficking and sexual exploitation, seeks to provide a considered and appropriate way forward. I hope it will find favour with the Government.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I waited until I had heard the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, before expressing any views on these amendments. I entirely understand the admirable motivation behind the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, but one has to bear in mind that prostitution is one of the oldest trades over hundreds of years, if not thousands.
Something somewhat similar was proposed in the other place by Fiona Mactaggart MP. I certainly received a large number of e-mails about it from the various associations of women prostitutes. They were very much opposed to the sort of legislation which has now come before this House, although I understand that it is not exactly the same as that which was proposed by Fiona Mactaggart. Having said that, there is undoubtedly a real problem, because some of those who are prostitutes are certainly trafficked.
I recall going to a small town in Holland where, as noble Lords will know, prostitution is legal. I saw women sitting in the windows in what was quite a small town. The curtains were open if they were not working, and they were all on their mobiles talking to the pimps. There is no doubt at all, from what the local mayor told me when he took me round, that he knew that a large proportion of these women were actually trafficked, although they could not tell him that and they were all registered for business purposes, if you can believe that. He arranged for his staff to ask them whether they had come as victims of trafficking, but none of them would say so because they could not afford to do so.
There is a very major problem in this country, as well as in Holland and in other countries. I strongly support the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. The time has come to look at prostitution right across the board, but particularly at its impact on women who come into this country—or are already in this country—who are in fact the victims of slavery, and who are not doing this work voluntarily.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for speaking so eloquently to Amendments 31 and 31A. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord McColl, who has given us the chance to look at this difficult and controversial issue of prostitution law. He highlighted the difficulties of exploitation and, indeed, the work of the APPG. Prostitution raises strong moral and ethical questions, but the Government’s overriding priority in this context is the safety of people involved in it. Existing legislation regarding buying and selling sex is already focused on minimising the harm and exploitation that can be associated with prostitution. Of course, not everyone involved in prostitution has made an independent and free choice to do so. We need the law to protect the vulnerable and punish the perpetrator, but when considering these amendments, we must consider carefully whether we are confident that they support the safety of the people involved in prostitution.
My noble friend set out the approach of Sweden and some neighbouring countries, often referred to as the “Nordic model”, which his amendments seek to emulate. We are also aware of recent legislative developments in Northern Ireland, alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Browne. We are mindful of the reservations expressed by the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice about the value and effectiveness of this approach. This is of course a devolved matter, so it is for the Northern Ireland Assembly to take the approach that it feels is most appropriate for it, but we know that the Northern Irish Minister of Justice opposed the adoption of the Nordic model for the same reasons that the coalition Government oppose it: it is far from clear that the change would make a vulnerable group safer and may do the opposite. We certainly would not seek to create any unintended consequences that made life more difficult for the people involved in this difficult area. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has indicated, submissions received from organisations such as Women Against Rape and the English Collective of Prostitutes have shown that such an approach can encourage the sellers and buyers of sex to operate further out of sight, exposing them to a greater risk of violence.
At this stage, we do not believe that there is sufficient evidence of the value of such significant changes to the legal and moral position of buying sexual services in reducing harm to those involved. We can well understand the principles behind my noble friend’s proposed amendments to the criminal law on prostitution. We have heard from around the Committee strong opposition to all violence against women and a common desire to protect them. However, as regards prostitution, it is important to reflect that there is an alternative view, as expressed by a variety of organisations that represent people involved in it. This challenges the position that all paying for sex is by definition violence. Before legislating, we should have a full debate on these important moral issues, as a number of noble Lords have indicated.
On exiting prostitution, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Rosser, the amendment also sets out a requirement to publish an annual strategy for assistance and support to those who wish to leave prostitution and it is absolutely right that they should be supported in doing so. The Policing and Crime Act 2009 took steps to improve the safety and support available for individuals involved in prostitution through the introduction of Section 17 engagement and support orders. That legislation provides the courts with an alternative to fining those convicted of loitering and soliciting: a requirement to attend meetings with a court-appointed supervisor. Engagement and support orders came into force on 1 April 2010. This is deemed to be an effective tool in providing support and access to services that might otherwise be out of reach, including medical care, housing and drug/alcohol dependency programmes. The right reverend Prelate mentioned the connections with other forms of drug and alcohol dependency. This is considered to be a more constructive long-term approach.
Such an approach is fundamental to our focus on minimising the harm that can be associated with prostitution. As such, it is part of our broader approach to violence against women and girls—an action plan that is kept under constant review. We support emphasis being put on supporting those who wish to exit prostitution, but legislation is not necessary to achieve this worthy aim.
Amendment 31A would place an obligation on the Government formally to review any links between prostitution and human trafficking and exploitation, including the legal frameworks around prostitution both here and overseas. Contributions to this debate have emphasised the importance of evidence and consultation. Legislation on this difficult and sensitive topic needs to be approached judiciously to ensure that our shared aim, harm reduction, is being served.
The coalition Government are committed to tackling all forms of violence against women and girls, and are pursuing a range of measures to improve protection, reporting, and prosecution. Our progress is constantly reviewed via the cross-government action plan on violence against women and girls. We are in regular dialogue with the relevant policing leads and the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that legislation and its enforcement remain as effective as possible.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
I thank everyone for taking part in this splendid debate. The contributions have been outstanding. I am sure that this is not the Bill for putting this into law. However, there is no doubt in my mind that it eventually will become law. The wind of change is blowing through the western world—Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, Canada and France. King Canute was not actually trying to keep the tide from coming in; he was trying to show his sycophantic followers that he was unable to do so. I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
“Proceeds of crime: MSV Fund
(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations establish the Modern Slavery Victims’ Fund (“MSV Fund”) to receive and distribute the proceeds referred to under subsection (2) which have been recovered under a confiscation order, where that order is made in respect of a person who has been convicted of an offence under section 1, 2 or 4.
(2) The MSV Fund shall receive no less than 50 per cent of any money recovered under a confiscation order.
(3) Subject to subsection (4), the proceeds referred to under subsection (2) shall be distributed by the MSV Fund as follows—
(a) 50 per cent of the proceeds shall be distributed as compensation to the person or persons identified as victims of slavery or victims of human trafficking;(b) 25 per cent of the proceeds shall be distributed to the charities or other organisations listed in the regulations, which provide services, assistance, support and protection to victims of slavery and victims of human trafficking; and(c) 25 per cent of the proceeds shall be distributed to the organisations listed in the regulations, whose purpose is to prevent slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour or to help to investigate or prosecute people who commit offences under this Act.(4) For the purposes of any distribution under subsection (3)—
(a) for victims of slavery or victims of human trafficking under paragraph (a), the monies paid—(i) shall be distributed equally between those persons who have been directly identified as the victims of slavery or victims of human trafficking to whom the conviction referred to under subsection (1) relates; and(ii) shall not be reduced or diminished by reference to any other compensation that such person or persons may receive from other sources, (b) for the charities and organisations referred to in paragraphs (b) and (c), the monies paid shall be distributed equally between those charities and organisations.(5) The regulations referred to in subsection (1) shall provide rules determining the composition, management and financial accountability of the MSV Fund together with such other provisions that the Secretary of State may consider necessary for the exercise of its functions.
(6) The Secretary of State must appoint the Commissioner as a member of the management board of the MSV Fund.
(7) Before making any regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as he thinks fit.
(8) Regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(9) In this section—
“the Assets Recovery Agency” means the Agency referred to in section 1 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002;
“the Commissioner” means the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner appointed under section 40;
“confiscation order” means a confiscation order under section 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.”
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, Amendment 32 stands in my name and that of my noble friends Lady Cox, of Queensbury, and Lord Hylton. I thank them for their support for the amendment. I also thank the Public Bill Office of your Lordships’ House, which gave me a lot of help with the drafting of the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to give the Secretary of State power by regulation to,
“establish the Modern Slavery Victims’ Fund (“MSV Fund”) to receive and distribute the proceeds referred to under subsection (2) which have been recovered under a confiscation order, where that order is made in respect of a person who has been convicted of an offence under section 1, 2 or 4”.
If the amendment were to be incorporated in the legislation, it would enable the MSV fund to receive,
“no less than 50 per cent of any money recovered under a confiscation order. Subject to subsection (4), the proceeds referred to under subsection (2)”,
would then be distributed by the fund, with 50% of the proceeds given as compensation to victims, 25% distributed to the charities and other organisations listed in the regulations, and 25% distributed to the organisations whose purpose is to prevent slavery. I would have in mind, obviously, the police, but also others such as the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner.
Modern slavery is very profitable. The International Labour Organization estimates annual profits from slavery to be around $150 billion a year. For example, a child trafficked and forced to pickpocket on the streets of London can, according to Anti-Slavery International, bring traffickers yields of £5,000 to £10,000 every month. Modern slavery is a high-profit, low-risk crime. Most of those involved escape justice and, even where there is a conviction, asset seizure is often considered too late in the process so the perpetrator has had a chance to move their assets elsewhere. Even where confiscation is made as part of the criminal proceedings, compensation is very rarely ordered.
The amendment would address this by bringing confiscation of assets and compensation to the very heart of the Bill and, in doing this, it would be similar to the United States anti-trafficking legislation. Confiscation has the effect of hitting the perpetrators where it hurts and its deterrent effect is potentially more significant than the threat of a long prison sentence, which can easily be avoided by entering a plea bargain. As the average prison sentence for modern slavery offences has been relatively low— around five and a half years—unless the perpetrator is stripped of their assets they can come out of prison and enjoy a luxurious life, while victims continue to suffer.
Restorative justice is also a function of compensation for victims and is the key to this amendment. By awarding damages to the victim, their suffering is acknowledged in a way that convicting the perpetrator rarely achieves. Victims who act as witnesses are of course often re-traumatized in the process. Furthermore, compensation gives victims stability and a chance to rebuild their lives. For example, one victim who was compensated has invested the compensation to pay for university education and is now pursuing a law degree.
I first raised the possibility of using confiscated assets to help victims and deter traffickers in 2002, during the passage of the Proceeds of Crime Bill. I argued that there were simply insufficient resources to adequately address a crime which, too often, was out of sight and out of mind. Yet even then, the United Nations had identified people trafficking as the fastest growing facet of organised crime and the third largest source of profit for organised crime, after the trafficking of drugs and firearms. At the time, the Government admitted:
“At present there is no specific offence of trafficking in human beings and so no data exist about the confiscation of assets of those engaged in this practice”.—[Official Report, 18/6/02; col. WA 70.]
My 2002 amendment called for the proceeds of trafficking to be channelled into the support of victims and the resourcing of a strategy to tackle this scourge at source. Supporting the amendments then and the use of confiscated assets to hit the traffickers where it hurts, the late Lord Wilberforce, a Law Lord and a descendant of William Wilberforce, described trafficking as,
“a pervasive crime committed in all kinds of areas by all kinds of people. It must be dealt with by a great variety of authorities”—
I repeat, a great variety of authorities—
“and police forces all over the country, many of which have no idea of the nature of the crime or the remedies available to deal with it”.—[Official Report, 25/6/02; col. 1225.]
Since 2002, the Government have been persuaded to develop the principle of confiscating assets which have been accumulated through the pursuit of crime. I strongly welcome this but it would help this debate if the Minister could describe what has been the experience of the Proceeds of Crime Act to date. It has been suggested that there may already be as much as £2 billion in uncollected POCA fines, so whether or not there is a dedicated dispersal fund, as the amendment would require, it would be helpful to know how the Government intend to improve the collection rate and what their estimate is of the sums currently outstanding.
Addressing Pope Francis at a Vatican conference on human trafficking held in April this year in Rome the Home Secretary, the right honourable Theresa May MP, said:
“Our efforts must also focus on going after the profits of those involved, and compensating victims with seized assets”.
The Bill itself recognises that the first call on seized assets should be to provide reparation to the victims of the modern slavery offence. Where there are seized funds left over, the Government say that they will benefit criminal justice agencies through the existing asset recovery incentivisation scheme. ARIS has the objective of providing all operational partners who use the asset recovery powers in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 with incentives to pursue asset recovery as a contribution to the overall objective of reducing crime and delivering justice. It is not, however, specifically targeted at tackling human trafficking and modern slavery. However, that scheme is not on a statutory footing, although some of the moneys distributed under ARIS are used to fund improvements in asset recovery capabilities and on community projects, and I welcome that. This amendment would create a statutory scheme.
Around £80 million was returned to operational partners from ARIS in 2013-14. The Minister might like to say how much of that money is used specifically to deter and bring to justice the perpetrators of modern slavery. I would also be grateful if he would quantify what he believes will be necessary to fund this ambitious legislation, otherwise it risks becoming yet another declamatory law which sounds good but can make little difference. Will he say how much money will be set aside to support this legislation? We all recall the Climate Change Act 2008, which imposed what was called a “legally binding obligation” for reduction of 80% of greenhouse gas by 2050. It was never made clear how it was to be done, who was to be held to account if this target was not realised and what punishments there would be.
The Child Poverty Act 2010 was not much better, requiring the elimination of child poverty by 2020. If the Bill is not to be added to the list of declamatory legislation which has inadequate resources attached to it to ensure its enforcement, we need to insist on ways of providing adequate resources. Although the Minister says that the Government are unconvinced about the need to ring-fence these assets for this dedicated use, he has indicated his willingness to discuss the amendment and said, in a letter to me:
“There is a great deal of common ground between us on the principles of how seized assets should be used, in terms of using the funds raised to compensate victims and support law enforcement agencies”.
I welcome that greatly.
The Government tend to suggest that the police is the agency which needs to be funded to bring perpetrators to justice. Of course, there is a lot in that argument. However, as the late Lord Wilberforce recognised, a great variety of authorities need to be involved and many, along with the police, are completely underresourced. At Second Reading, I highlighted the position of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, established in 2006 in the aftermath of the tragic death of 23 Chinese cockle-pickers who died in Morecambe Bay, part of a criminal racket exploiting workers all over England, and estimated to funnel £1 million per day back to China.
In 2013, Professor Gary Craig of Durham University, working with the Wilberforce Institute for the study of Slavery and Emancipation and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, published Forced Labour in the United Kingdom, a report which specifically said that the GLA was insufficiently resourced. The report found that:
“The scope of the GLA should be extended to cover all sectors using labour providers and greater resources should be available for the GLA to be able to fulfil its role effectively”.
The three-year study draws on data from legal, policy and regulatory bodies and calls for the Government to reconsider some key policies and take a broader view of the problem. The report also found that:
“Monitoring for severe labour exploitation is generally weak and needs to be strengthened”.
Professor Craig, who is professor of community development and social justice, says that workplace enforcement agencies are now doing fewer inspections, becoming focused on only the most serious offences rather than tackling all types of serious labour exploitation. Commenting on the scale of the problem he says:
“Criminal activity of this nature is difficult to monitor, but conservative estimates are that there are currently at least several thousand cases of forced labour in the UK and 880,000 across the European Union”,
and that those trafficked for labour exploitation would soon exceed those trafficked for sexual exploitation.
I turn to the need for public education, something which many noble Lords have raised today and which the Government acknowledge the need for. No one has said how that would be resourced. Professor Craig remarks that there is a “real problem” getting people to acknowledge not only that slavery exists in the UK, but that, as his research suggests, there may be upwards of 10,000 people at any one time in conditions which we would class as modern slavery. I noticed over the weekend that the BBC added another 3,000 to that number.
In addition to recommending the extension of the mandate of the GLA, providing powers of arrest and investigation, Professor Craig argues that the GLA should be able to keep fines to fund its work, adding that the resources directed to the GLA are totally inadequate. If the dedicated fund specified in the amendment were created, it could be used to extend the mandate and work of the GLA and other agencies involved in this most serious of crimes. The Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, Kevin Hyland, has also said in an interview in the Sunday Times that the resources needed should be raised as a result of using the confiscated assets of funds that have been seized.
Lord Warner (Lab)
My Lords, if I may, for the convenience of the Committee, I will group my Amendment 33 with Amendment 32 as my amendment is meant to help fill the pot that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, wants to distribute. I am sorry that I did not group it at an earlier stage.
My amendment is much less ambitious than the noble Lord’s amendment. It follows on from an amendment that my noble friend Lady Smith moved to the Serious Crime Bill. I was a member of the Joint Committee on the draft Modern Slavery Bill. We were concerned to maximise the confiscation of resources from perpetrators of slavery that could go to help victims much more than had happened in the past. Indeed, the confiscation of criminal assets under SOCA had not been one of the most glorious bits of public administration in this country, as I think was recognised by the Government following a PAC report. Therefore, we need to strengthen this.
I am the first to recognise that the Government went some way towards meeting the recommendations from the Joint Committee in this area and I am very grateful to the Government for moving some way. For example, I am glad that the Government have reduced the legislative requirement for a restraint order from reasonable cause to believe to reasonable suspicion. However, I remain concerned that they have not gone further and accepted the committee’s recommendation to remove the test that there must be a risk of dissipation of assets before action is taken by the prosecutor. Frankly, the advice that the Home Secretary seems to have been getting on this issue is a bit fanciful. The characters we are talking about in this area have a track record of dissipating assets. They move very quickly when it is known that they are going to be charged and prosecuted. I think that hanging on to the idea that they need to be protected from gung-ho prosecutors by actually keeping the intention that they have to show that they will dissipate their assets is rather fanciful. The Government need to look again at that area.
I will not spend very long at this late hour talking about the areas where the Government said they were going to look further at two or three of the other recommendations in paragraph 210 on page 97 of the Joint Committee’s report. Rather than detain the House now, perhaps the Minister could write to us about how things have progressed in those areas that the Government were reviewing further.
What I want to do on this amendment is to persuade the Government that it would be useful to have a consultation to look further at strengthening the arrangements around this very technical area. I understand the difficulties of actually finding technical solutions and I am not someone who is going to try to move complicated technical amendments to the Bill at this late stage in its passage. However, I think the Government need to have another look at this so we can maximise the confiscation of assets to produce the kind of fund that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is talking about. It is no good having a grand scheme for distribution if there is nothing in the pot to distribute. We have to work a lot harder. The kind of consultation that we are proposing in this amendment is meant to be helpful to the Government so that we can move on and strengthen this area of confiscation to the maximum advantage of victims.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I should like to make a short point on these amendments. I consider the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, to be extremely interesting. The idea that the proceeds, if there are any, should go not only to victims but to other organisations is one which, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has said, attracted the Home Secretary. I would particularly like to refer to the idea that 25% of proceeds should be distributed to organisations whose purpose is to prevent slavery. One example is that of the Bedfordshire police who spent an enormous amount of time and effort, and a great deal of the police budget, in managing to bring the Connors family to justice. They were the Gypsies who had a large number of men living in appalling accommodation. They had recruited them from homeless units or soup kitchens by offering them money but then treated them in the most appalling way. They eventually took a great many of them to Sweden, trafficking them from the UK to Sweden, where they were living in caravans again and working 18 hours a day on construction sites without receiving a single penny. They in fact came back to England but I am not sure we looked after them very well when they came back. The Bedfordshire police did an extremely good job and it cost them a great portion of their budget. Andrew Selous MP has raised this issue on various occasions and I am happy to raise it again in this House. That is the sort of organisation which ought to be compensated to some extent for the use of its budget—way beyond what is normal—to get a prosecution of a large group of very successful and very wicked traffickers.
Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has said, unless you have the money you cannot give it out to anybody else. The Government are to be congratulated on adding criminal lifestyle offences to Clause 7, taking the provisions from the Proceeds of Crime Act. I suggest to the Government that they really ought to look at civil proceedings before the arrest has been made. If the intention is to make an arrest, knowing that the lifestyle of a particular person makes them likely to be a trafficker and therefore likely to be prosecuted, you want to catch the money before he is arrested because otherwise the minute he is arrested he will get it out of the country. Anyone can get money out of the country extremely fast. Therefore, there should be some provision in the civil courts—by which I mean the High Court in particular—that where there is sufficient evidence to be able to make an arrest there should be not a confiscation but a freezing order. Freezing orders are perfectly well known right through the civil courts. If you can get a freezing order a few days or weeks before the actual arrest is made, you may take the trafficker unawares. That is where you get the money to get the pot of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, sufficiently filled. There is no question that this is either the second or third most profitable criminal enterprise in the world. It is worth something in excess of $30 billion, quite a lot of which comes through this country. It does not stay long enough, but if we can get it in the civil courts, it can fill the pot that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, wants.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is very interesting, particularly, as has been said, as it identifies the work done by organisations and the need for them to be funded to support individuals, as distinct from compensation going directly to an individual. It is complicated work, and in many cases very long term. However, I am sure the noble Lord would agree that nothing this might provide should let the state off the hook of its responsibilities. I am not sure about naming the organisations in regulations, but that is a detail.
As regards the work of the police—the noble Lord mentioned ARIS, and the noble and learned Baroness mentioned the Connors case—I am aware of another case where a different force put together a hugely detailed and complex plan for multi-agencies to be available when they raided premises and rescued a number of individuals. That must have cost an enormous amount of money. It was very important that those who were found in forced labour—I do not think that the case has come to trial yet, but I suspect that it will be forced labour—are received in a sensitive way and helped from the very beginning. That is intrinsically important, and it is important to ensure that they are in position to give the evidence that the police need to be able to proceed and do not disappear into thin air, as sometimes happens in these cases; facing authority, they do not want to have anything to do with it. Therefore, I am very pleased that the noble Lord has brought this to the attention of the House.
I will make one other small point on organisations that do this work. It sometimes seems that the smaller and less formal organisations are the most successful, because they are less likely to be perceived as authority by those whom they seek to help.
On the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, my view remains the same as when we discussed the matter in the Serious Crime Bill. Of course we should assess and evaluate the impact of the changes made by the Bill—which is still a Bill—and be prepared to make changes. I was worried that it was not sensible to have a consultation that runs in parallel with the introduction of some changes that were being made by the Bill, which might be rather confusing. April 2015 is very close—there will not have been much experience, if any, of the changes included in that Bill; I am not sure when it is likely to be commenced. Therefore, the point about review and assessment and evaluation and consultation in general is good; I am worried about the timing.
Lord Hylton
My Lords, I foresee that the Government may say that my noble friend’s Amendment 32 is too prescriptive, and that Amendment 33, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, is only consultative. I hope that they will not dismiss both of them on those kinds of grounds. It would be very helpful if they said to what extent they accept the principle behind them. While doing so, perhaps they could also say how the present law on criminal compensation could interact with these ideas.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I will be brief in view of the time. It is vital that those who profit from modern slavery crime should know that their ill gotten gains can and will be confiscated, by extending Schedule 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to these serious offences. However, my noble friend Lord Warner has made the case for his amendment, with which I am associated, and for the consultation on a number of questions for which it provides, in the light of the weaknesses in the present arrangements. I will not go into those weaknesses; they were highlighted by my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon during the debates on the Serious Crime Bill.
Victims of modern slavery should be compensated, but, as my noble friend Lord Warner said, money cannot go to victims if we are not recovering it from the perpetrators of the crimes. We need to strengthen and improve the present legal framework on the recovery of assets and the use of property derived from the proceeds of these crimes. This amendment, with which I am associated, provides for a consultation by the Secretary of State to do just this. I hope that the Government will feel able to give a favourable response.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I am grateful for the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and grouped with the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. In many ways it might be easier if I sum up by taking the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, first, because it feeds into the principle of—if you like—the hopper, which then comes down to the general fund, which is the subject of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
I shall touch on a few things on the way through. The scale of the proceeds gained through this is widely acknowledged: the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, mentioned a figure she found on page 38 of the strategy document that we put out. We used a figure from the ILO, which estimates the global proceeds from this activity at about $150 billion. That equates to something like $34,800 per victim. So the amounts concerned—as we have heard all the way through—are very sizeable, and that is the underlying reason why organised criminals are moving increasingly towards the trafficking of human beings, rather than the drugs, guns and other weapons that we have seen in the past. It is because it is lucrative.
That is why we are absolutely determined that their financial resources—there is a financial motivation—ought to be the target of our activities. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee mentioned, this debate reflects a significant debate that we had on the Serious Crime Bill, where we talked about the process for doing this and inserted a legal test for obtaining such an order to be reasonable cause to believe that the alleged offender has benefited from his criminal conduct. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, was good enough to recognise that that was a step forward. There was a general feeling that if one applied for the restraint order or the freeze early in the proceedings, that could in some cases alert the perpetrators to the fact that there was an imminent investigation, and perhaps arrests, and that some of the jointly held assets might cause that to happen. That is not to say that this is our final position but it is something that we looked at very carefully before coming up with the current proposal.
The recovery regime, which has been strengthened in the Serious Crime Bill—your Lordships’ amendments to which are currently under consideration in another place—is aimed very much at increasing the resources recovered from organised crime. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about the amount of funds that had been recovered. I think that in the order of £746 million worth of criminal assets have been seized across all four means of recovery, which is a record amount. We expect that to increase.
Noble Lords may also be interested to note that paragraph 4.32 of the strategy document states:
“Over £2 million has been recovered from slave drivers and traffickers in the past four years”.
Compared with the amount which has been earned, that is a pitiful and woefully low sum, and is why this legislation is before us to strengthen the law and to ensure that more assets are recovered. How is that to be done? I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Warner, was at the Home Office when the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was going through.
Lord Bates
The noble Lord says, “Not guilty”, but he should be proud of the measure because it tightened the loopholes to which he referred. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, also mentioned that in the Serious Crime Bill we have introduced the criminal lifestyle element which is a tougher test for extracting an appropriate amount of funds. We are also providing for the deployment of asset recovery advisers to priority jurisdictions as part of the asset recovery strategy. In general terms, that is what we are trying to do to tighten the regime so that we get more funds in under the asset recovery incentivisation scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked me to set out where those funds are currently located. I will come back to that in a second but effectively they are divided between key areas—namely, the police, the prosecuting authorities and the courts. But ahead of those, of course, are the victims. It is the victims who are compensated first. That is what is contained in the Bill for the reparation orders. The reparation orders will ensure that the victims, who are the ones who have suffered, are compensated first.
The noble Lord’s argument, as I take it, through his amendment—he rightly picks up the tone of my letter to him on this subject—is not saying that we do not recognise that there could be a role for this fund in providing some support to other organisations that are aiding victims. That is not something that we are ruling out. In fact, there is a ministerially-chaired Criminal Finances Board review of the asset recovery incentivisation scheme going on at this precise time. It will report in December. I offer this undertaking to the noble Lord: officials have been listening very carefully to what he said and the arguments that he has made, and which other noble Lords have made. Those arguments will be fed into this review to be put forward.
I also believe that in this response, the use of funds, which, of course, we expect as a result of the tougher measures and the greater sanctions that we have available under the new laws that are coming into effect, will result in more prosecutions and greater funds coming into this scheme. We fully expect those funds to increase. I am sure that the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner-designate, as we must still say at this stage, will have an eye on how those funds are used to best ensure that we get more prosecutions, and help more victims. As we have heard time and again—the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I think, referred to this as well—much of the evidence that we have of the mistreatment and the case examples are as a result of the excellent work of those charities and organisations that are out there meeting the victims and getting them to feed into the national referral mechanism, leading, it is hoped, to prosecutions.
I am sure that that is not as far as either noble Lord would like us to go, but I hope a couple of steps there will offer the noble Lord, Lord Alton, whose work in this area we all acknowledge, the opportunity to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
Before the noble Lord sits down, I do not want to waste time, and I understand the point that the Minister is making about not alerting a potential trafficker so that he might skip the country, but what you can do, for instance, is get a without notice order in the civil court to freeze the assets and then arrest immediately afterwards. You do not have to alert the trafficker in order to freeze the assets. However, I am not sure that the powers for freezing assets would include people who are traffickers. That is the point that I want to put to the Minister.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
Before the Minister sits down, is he going to reply to my noble and learned friend first, or may I also put a point to him?
Lord Bates
I think that I am probably going to have to reflect on that point and come back to the noble and learned Baroness in writing, certainly before Report.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
I am grateful to the Minister. As a young Member of another place, I was once given the quite good advice always to beware Ministers when they are promising reviews, but in this case the Minister has said that the review is already under way. I am very grateful to him for saying that. He says that it is going to report in December. Will that be in time for us to be able to come back on Report acting on the outcome of the review? What is his estimate of the timetable?
Lord Bates
In the matter of the timetable and in many other matters I am grateful to have the Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Taylor, on the Bench beside me. He has signalled his assent to the suggestion that this may be something where the report will be published, in all likelihood, before Report. Therefore, there will be an opportunity to revisit it then.
I should also say, as I have found the note, that the current distribution of the scheme provides that 50% of the proceeds go to the Home Office; 18.75% to investigation agencies; 18.75% to prosecution agencies; and 12.5% to HM Courts and Tribunal Service, which enforces the orders. That is the current distribution. I hope that is helpful.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
The noble Lord has been incredibly helpful to the Committee. It is very late and I do not intend to detain the Committee for long now. I simply want to thank my noble and learned friend, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for putting his argument so effectively. He is right that we have to generate the funds in the first place to provide the pots in order to do the things that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Hylton all recognise need to be done. Indeed, the Minister himself has recognised that the principle behind this is not a bad one and is worth looking at further. He has engaged with the arguments in his usual courteous and characteristically helpful way. I am extremely grateful to him at this stage. We will see what the review holds and will keep open the possibility of coming back on Report if his noble friend is able to timetable events to ensure that the chronology works out that way. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.
Lord Warner
“Recovering the proceeds of crime: consultation
(1) The Secretary of State shall consult on ways to strengthen and improve the legal framework in relation to the recovery and use of property derived from the proceeds of crime, which are recovered under the provisions of section 7.
(2) A consultation under subsection (1) shall include, but not be limited to—
(a) how to strengthen and improve the effectiveness of restraint and confiscation orders and in particular—(i) whether it should remain a condition of making a restraint order that there is a real risk that the defendant will dissipate his or her assets, and, if so, whether the burden should be reversed to require the defendant to show that he or she will not dissipate his or her assets;(ii) whether the costs recoverable by the defendant when an application for a restraint order is denied should be capped at legal aid rates;(iii) whether to provide the court with the power, when making an order, to require the defendant to disclose any interests, including third party interests, in realisable property;(iv) whether the court, when making an order, should be able to require the defendant to return to the United Kingdom any realisable liquid assets overseas;(b) how to improve the effectiveness of the United Kingdom’s mutual legal assistance arrangement with overseas jurisdiction in cases concerning the proceeds of crime; and(c) how to use the recovered proceeds of crime for the victims of modern slavery.(3) A consultation under subsection (1) shall end no later than 1 April 2015.”
Lord Warner
I wish to say briefly that I would like to withdraw Amendment 33 but want to register the point that the track record of confiscating assets from the proceeds of crime has not been a happy one. I want to keep open, until we have seen the review, whether we come back to the issue of a legal framework being looked at again and give the Home Secretary powers to take action if things do not work out as well as they might have done. I particularly want to consider the points made about civil orders by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. There is a package of issues to which we may have to return on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
