House of Commons

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

Monday 23 February 2015

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

1. What progress he has made on strengthening the armed forces covenant.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Anna Soubry)]

I am incredibly proud of the fact that it was this Government who enshrined the covenant in law. We should all be extremely proud of that, and of the work we have done.

I wrote to all the local authorities that signed the covenant. I have been overwhelmed by their response, and by the outstanding work that many are doing in delivering on their pledges. We must now ensure that that work continues throughout the United Kingdom.

[Mr Speaker]

I believe that the Minister’s justified pride is accompanied by a desire for a grouping.

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker. Incidentally, I received a letter from Gedling, whose contents I may share with the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker).

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

10. What progress he has made on strengthening the armed forces covenant.

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

12. What progress he has made on strengthening the armed forces covenant.

[Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)]

14. What progress he has made on strengthening the armed forces covenant.

[Mr Jones]

The Veterans Contact Point armed forces centre, which is based in my constituency, does vital work to support veterans, many of whom have found the transition from the armed forces to civvy street extremely difficult. Will my hon. Friend visit the centre to see the excellent work that is being done by a vital charity that supports people throughout the Coventry and Warwickshire area?

[Anna Soubry]

Yes, indeed. I look forward to visiting it on, I believe, 9 March. I have seen the website of that excellent charity, and I pay wholehearted tribute to the work that is being done by a wide variety of people. I note that the local council has reduced the charity’s rent in recognition of its commitment to the covenant. As I have said, we must now roll out that work throughout the United Kingdom.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Some people leave the armed forces suffering from mental health conditions. What action has been taken by the Government as a whole to help people who are suffering from those debilitating conditions?

[Anna Soubry]

We have invested an extra £7.4 million in precisely that sort of work. I pay tribute to Stockton-on-Tees borough council, which—along with other councils in the north-east—has been doing outstanding work, and whose chief executive has written to me. Councils are working across the piece, bringing together all the relevant bodies and people, and delivering good mental health services to veterans in particular.

[Jack Lopresti]

Is there a follow-up system to ensure that when people leave the armed forces they do not fall by the wayside when it comes to medical provision?

[Anna Soubry]

It is critical that we get that right. At present, such services are delivered only at a local level. Many councils are involved, including those in the Greater Manchester combined authority, which signed the covenant at the end of December. All those councils are doing outstanding work which they are determined to continue, on a completely cross-party basis. They are working with a number of parties, bringing in health authorities, hospital trusts and clinical commissioning groups. What is beginning to happen in councils must now be replicated throughout the United Kingdom.

[Mike Weatherley]

What progress has been made in regard to the commitment to an armed forces charter based on the covenant that was made by the United States and others during the NATO summit?

[Anna Soubry]

That is a good point. We need to proceed with that commitment. It was a great honour for me to go to the United States, meet other veterans Ministers, and share best practice. A number of countries are particularly interested in our work in delivering on the covenant, and, because other countries do things in different ways, we learn from each other. NATO has provided us with a very good device to enable us to share that best practice and, as I have said, to learn from each other.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I am sure the Minister will welcome the fact that Flintshire county council, which is in my area, has signed the covenant, but what assessment has she made of the number of services charities that understand what it means in practice?

[Anna Soubry]

That, too, is a good question. The short answer is that it varies. It is clear from the website of the charity mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) that a huge number of charities have signed up and are delivering across the country. Progress is sporadic, because not everyone “gets it”, but others absolutely do “get it”, and some great work is being done out there.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

I am pleased to say that Telford & Wrekin council has signed the covenant on a cross-party basis. What has the Minister done internally, within the Government, to ensure that individual Departments are delivering on the covenant? The Ministry of Defence is doing a very good job, but it is important for other Departments to commit themselves as well.

[Anna Soubry]

I am really pleased that the hon. Gentleman says we are doing a good job, because I think we are, and he is absolutely right. We now must make sure others do not just sign up, but actually start to deliver. On the work the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, for example, has been doing with jobcentres, I recently went to my own jobcentre in Beeston—not for reasons connected with 7 May, I quickly add—and looked at the work it is doing with reserves and veterans. That is sporadic; not every jobcentre or Jobcentre Plus “gets it”, to put it in that way, but increasingly they do and that is invariably because of the good work of Members of Parliament and local councils.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I am incredibly proud of the fact that Tameside was the first council in Greater Manchester to sign the armed forces covenant, followed very quickly by Stockport, and the Minister is absolutely right to commend the work of the Greater Manchester combined authority, the first whole city region in the country to bring together councils and public bodies across the area for the armed forces covenant, but what is she doing to make sure that in other parts of the country local authorities are committing time and resources and making sure the same services are available to our armed forces personnel so that we do not have a patchwork quilt?

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have an excellent letter here from the leader of Wigan council, Lord Smith, extensively detailing all the great work being done. One of the tasks I want to do in the remaining weeks of this Government is to make sure the covenant team with the MOD brings all this work together and gives more advice to local authorities on sharing best practice, because it is stacked full of ideas. There is £30 million available to deliver on many of these projects, and I am pleased to say many are taking that up as well.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

The armed forces covenant had, of course, the full support of Her Majesty’s Opposition, but does the Minister accept that this is still very much a work in progress? Not all local authorities understand it. Only last week Essex county council refused to continue a support package for the needs of one military family moving with their child from another part of the country.

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I have to say my own county council in Nottinghamshire did not understand the covenant when it came to a soldier constituent of mine coming down from Catterick who needed to have a place for his child. I reminded the county council of the covenant. That is the sort of work that local MPs can do when these cases come to us through our casework. It is about making sure we share best practice. There is masses more work to be done, and it would be nice to think I might be able to continue after 7 May, Mr Speaker, but that takes us into different territory.

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

The Minister of State says that other people do not get it. I am not sure that she gets it, because why else would she be consulting on removing the principle of no disadvantage from the armed forces covenant? I refer of course to the consultation she has commissioned through her officials that Woodnewton Associates is carrying out. She looks confused; I am surprised if she does not know that her own officials are carrying out this consultation. Is that because the Government are still refusing to test their own policies against the principles of no disadvantage? A Labour Government will test our policies against the armed forces covenant, and we will not drop the principle of no disadvantage, which this Government are apparently thinking about doing.

[Anna Soubry]

Of course the hon. Lady forgets that she has got to win an election, and there is every chance she will not do so. Let me make it absolutely clear: as far as I and the rest of the team here are concerned, this is news to us and we are absolutely committed to the principle of no disadvantage. [Interruption.] It is in the covenant, and chuntering from the sidelines achieves nothing.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to promote service in the reserves.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

8. What steps he is taking to promote service in the reserves.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Julian Brazier)]

In the quarter to December, 1,490 personnel joined the Army reserve, an increase of 147% on the equivalent quarter last year. Colleagues will have seen the multimedia campaign showing the range of opportunities the reserves offer. We have unblocked the enlistment pipeline, more than 420 employers have signed corporate covenants and the civil service is setting an excellent example as a supportive employer, too.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

A constituent, Reservist Rifleman Ben Taylor, was awarded the Queen’s gallantry medal for saving the lives of eight comrades in Afghanistan. With hundreds following in Rifleman Taylor’s footsteps every month, does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the Chief of the General Staff’s blueprint for reaching our target is achievable?

[Mr Brazier]

I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend and I join him in congratulating Rifleman Ben Taylor. With the upturn in recruitment, and with retention improving too, the trained strength of the Army Reserve has gone up 560 over the past 12 months to 20,480. That is above our target for the year end, and I am confident that the plans of the new Chief of the General Staff—who, incidentally, was also a rifleman—will be achieved.

[Andrew Stephenson]

On Friday, I held my fourth Pendle jobs and apprenticeships fair, at the Colne municipal hall. I was delighted that the Army was one of more than 20 organisations that took a stall, at which it promoted regular and reserve opportunities. Will my hon. Friend tell us more about the steps that the Ministry of Defence is taking to recruit more reservists in the north of England?

[Mr Brazier]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his initiative. The north of England provides the greatest proportion of our soldiers, regular and reserve, and the relaunch of the Army recruiting campaign’s reserve component last month involved a major event in Liverpool, as he knows. There will be more in the north. Following the Secretary of State’s announcement in October of the intention to restore a post-nominal award to recognise long service in the reserves, I should like to take this opportunity to confirm that such an award will be restored for those of all ranks who achieve 10 years’ service.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

The new 77th Brigade, which will focus on psych-ops, is expected to recruit about 40 % of its members from the reserves. According to press reports, however, by Christmas only about 20 had been recruited. When does the Minister think he will achieve the full complement?

[Mr Brazier]

For obvious reasons, some of the detail of the recruiting in that area will not be published in the House, and I am sure that the hon. Lady—my hon. Friend, if I may call her that—will understand those reasons. There is, however, a big upturn in recruitment right across the reserves, as the figures I gave the House earlier indicated.

[Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)]

Over the past two years, the MOD has spent £16.4 million on television advertising for recruitment purposes. Was that money well spent? How many recruits resulted from that large spend?

[Mr Brazier]

We cannot say what proportion of recruits resulted from it, but we can say that there has been a surge in recruiting, and that it was up 147% on the quarter last year, as the figures I have just given the House show. Additionally, although we are not going to publish the figures on cyber-recruiting, I can say that they are running ahead of the reserves average as a percentage.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

19. Government answers show that the average age of an existing reservist infantryman is in the mid-30s. Given that we have added only 500 reservists in the two years that this plan has been in place, and that that has led to capability gaps and false economies, has not the time come to rethink the plan and to stop trying to get our defence on the cheap?

[Mr Brazier]

Over the past 12 months, we have added more than 800 to the reserves. That followed a long period—a whole generation—of decline. We make no apologies for revising the age requirements for ex-regular soldiers to join the reserves in order to share their knowledge and expertise. We are looking for people with key skills and it is a waste to lose people with specialist skills in areas such as intelligence and medicine. Dare I say that my hon. Friend, with his years of experience, might have something to offer to the reserves?

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

We have had months of failing IT systems, targets being revised downwards and recruitment to the reserves stalling. In addition, we learned last week that recruitment to the regulars was not meeting its targets. Will the Minister confirm the speculation that is going on within the Ministry of Defence and the Army that an alternative plan to scrap the current target of 30,000 is being drawn up?

[Mr Brazier]

There are no plans, and no such planning is going on, to scrap the target. The number I gave earlier, of 1,490 people joining the reserves in just one quarter, indicates that things are now moving sharply in the right direction. That figure relates to the Army Reserve, but the Royal Naval Reserve has been ahead of target all the way through and the Royal Air Force Reserve is also doing well, with 150 joining in a quarter.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

3. What steps he is taking to increase home ownership among members of the armed forces.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

6. What steps he is taking to increase home ownership among members of the armed forces.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)]

I am delighted that the forces Help to Buy scheme, launched just 10 months ago, has already helped 2,600 military personnel on to the property ladder, and a further 1,400 approved applications are awaiting the completion of the property purchase. Those 4,000 fully approved applications are broadly equivalent to the entire military presence at Colchester, and the vast majority of them—more than 80%—are for those from non-officer ranks.

[Henry Smith]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does this scheme not just prove the good work that this Government have been doing in ensuring the improvements to armed forces accommodation, in terms not only of service accommodation but enabling people in the armed forces to buy their own properties?

[Michael Fallon]

Yes, this scheme enables military personnel to have the opportunity to buy their own home and benefit from the increased domestic stability that home ownership brings, bringing a more realistic life choice for those who have chosen to serve their country. We also recognise the importance of continuing to offer subsidised accommodation of a good standard to service personnel who are not yet ready to own their own home, which is why we have committed that from next April no service family will be allocated a house that does not meet the Government’s decent homes standard.

[Stephen Hammond]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the success of this scheme, which shows how potent the Government’s Help to Buy schemes are. Will he ensure that he gets all military groups to work with the new Mayor’s land commission to ensure that any unused land can be brought forward for housing purposes?

[Michael Fallon]

Yes, I will certainly do that. Of course, under Labour the great recession meant that the prospect of buying a first home was no more than a pipe dream for many thousands of hard-working taxpayers. That is why we launched Help to Buy, which enables those who work hard and get on to enjoy the financial security that they deserve.

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

4. What progress his Department has made on delivering its defence equipment plan.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)]

For the third consecutive year, the defence equipment plan demonstrates a realistic and affordable plan to invest £163 billion on new equipment and support for our armed forces over the next 10 years. The delivery of this plan has been independently assessed by the National Audit Office, through the major projects report. The best way to illustrate progress is to compare the report for 2009, when in-year cost overran by £4.5 billion, with cost underspends in 2014 of almost £400 million. My hon. Friend may recall who was responsible for the chaos of defence acquisition in 2009 and who is responsible for the competence we have brought to that department since.

[Oliver Colvile]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for the announcement made on Friday about the Type 26s. What is the timetable for the building of the Type 26 frigates? When will there be an announcement about the base porting, which we hope will be in Plymouth?

[Mr Dunne]

My hon. Friend is a vigorous champion of the merits of Devonport, in his constituency, as home to seven of the Royal Navy’s Type 23 frigates. The Prime Minister did indeed announce on Friday, as confirmed in a statement to the House this morning, that a demonstration phase contract worth £859 million to invest in detailed design work, shore-based test facilities and long-lead items for the first three Type 26 global combat ships will sustain 1,700 jobs. The current planning assumption is that 13 Type 26 vessels will replace the current frigates on a one-for-one basis, aligned to the current split in base port allocation, with the first coming into service in 2022.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

It would be churlish of me not to welcome the recent contract that has been awarded that will benefit David Brown’s, a great employer in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that this Government’s failure to invest in men and equipment means that we are a laughing stock around the world? Our defence capacity is derided by the President of the United States, and President Putin knows very well that we are too weak to be a powerful defence force in Europe?

[Mr Dunne]

I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the defence equipment plan or, indeed, the capability of our defence industry to support it. This country remains the second largest defence exporter in the world. If our capability was so derided, as he says, how come we sold defence equipment worth nearly £10 billion last year?

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Last October, the Government announced the largest Army order in 30 years for the latest set of armoured vehicles. Will the Minister outline the potential for greater procurement from UK firms, which would benefit firms in the midlands, including Elite KL in Tamworth?

[Mr Dunne]

I am proud to confirm that the Scout contract was the largest vehicle contract for the British Army since the Falklands war, and more contracts have now been let through the supply chain for that vehicle. The number of UK jobs secured through the programme is expected to be some 2,400 across more than 160 suppliers. Two-thirds of the suppliers are UK-based, including several in the midlands, and from all parts of the country.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

Three of my constituents from RAF Lossiemouth were killed and a fourth was seriously injured when two Tornadoes collided above the Moray firth. That occurred nearly 20 years after the Ministry of Defence recommended the installation of collision warning systems. Is it really true that only eight out of 100 Tornado aircraft have had such a system installed, that they are not fully operational and that there are no concrete plans for such a system to be installed in the Typhoon fleet?

[Mr Dunne]

The hon. Gentleman has raised that subject many times in this House. He knows full well from the answers that I have given him to parliamentary questions that, when our Tornado fleet has a traffic collision avoidance system installed, it will be the first combat jet fleet anywhere in the world to have such a system. Civil airline fleets have been provided with such systems with success, but introducing such a system into a combat jet environment is exceptionally complicated. I can confirm that currently eight aircraft have been fitted with a system. We are working to iron out some of the residual issues with that system as we install it across the Tornado fleet.

[Sir Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD)]

May I echo the warm welcome for the signing on Friday of the demonstration contract on Type 26? But are the original assumptions from the 2010 strategic defence and security review still valid, or has anything significant changed?

[Mr Dunne]

As my hon. Friend is well aware, we are anticipating that a strategic defence and security review will take place following the general election later this summer, so all the planning assumptions that were introduced in the 2010 review will be reconsidered in 2015. As I mentioned earlier, as far as the frigate contract is concerned, the current planning assumption is for a like-for-like replacement of the Type 23 class.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

That was a very interesting comment from the Minister given that the Prime Minister recently announced that both carriers would be operational. Clearly, it also has implications for the equipment programme. Is the Minister saying that he intends to build 13 frigates for carrier support?

[Mr Dunne]

I just explained in my answer to the previous question what the planning assumption is for replacing frigates. I can reconfirm to the hon. Lady that within the equipment plan is the capital cost of constructing both aircraft carriers, and they are coming in on time and on budget, in stark contrast to what happened under the previous Government.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

5. What steps he is taking to promote diversity in the armed forces.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Mark Francois)]

The Ministry of Defence is committed to creating a more diverse work force, better able to represent the nation it serves and defends. That is why we are developing a comprehensive defence diversity and inclusion programme to increase the diversity of the whole work force, both military and civilian.

[Mike Freer]

I thank the Minister for that answer, but will he reflect on the comments of the Chief of the General Staff who said this month that

“recruitment from the black, Asian and minority ethnic communities has been improving…but it is nowhere near where it needs to be.”

What steps is the Army taking to ensure that it reflects the society that it protects?

[Mr Francois]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the Chief of the General Staff’s initiative, but as the CGS has made clear more needs to be done. For instance, a significant amount is already being done to increase the diversity of the Army, such as targeted recruitment campaigns and high-profile engagement events aimed at the Sikh and Muslim communities, including the establishment of an armed forces Muslim forum.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In calling the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) on the subject of diversity, I note for the benefit of the House his past and possibly current presidency or patronship of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust.

[Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

That is very helpful, Mr Speaker. Thank you so much. My right hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of the extraordinary gallant and distinguished service by Sikhs to this country down the generations. Does he not agree that it is high time to do away with the political correctness that infects some of this thinking and raise a Sikh regiment to serve in the country and make up a very serious gap in our armed forces?

[Mr Francois]

My right hon. Friend is nothing if not a survivor, as have been his illustrious predecessors who have served in this House. With regard to his specific suggestion, he is one of a number of Members of Parliament who have made the suggestion to me recently. We have passed the proposal on to the Chief of the General Staff, who is now considering the issue, and we are awaiting the CGS’s comments. The idea might well have merit.

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

Following on from the comment made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), will the Minister specifically consider the notion of a Sikh company within the reserves as a starting point? There seems to be much more possibility within the reserves to begin what seems like an excellent idea.

[Mr Francois]

I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for his additional suggestion. I said earlier that the idea might have merit, and we are considering as one specific option the possibility of a reserve company that would inherit many of the proud traditions of Sikh regiments in the British Army going back many years. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for the reserves is leading on that aspect and he, too, remains in contact with the CGS on the matter.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

7. What steps his Department is taking to assist Iraqi forces in countering ISIL.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

9. What steps his Department is taking to assist Iraqi forces in countering ISIL.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

13. What recent steps armed forces have taken against ISIL in Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

15. What steps his Department is taking to assist Iraqi forces in countering ISIL.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)]

We are making a major contribution to the coalition. We are conducting infantry training and have trained more than 1,000 Iraqis so far. We are leading on counter-improvised explosive device training and, subject to parliamentary approval, will gift 1,000 hand-held metal detectors. As of Sunday, we have conducted 152 air strikes in Iraq and deployed a range of aircraft to the region, including surveillance aircraft.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

One of the legacies of our time in Afghanistan is our expertise in tackling IEDs. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House when Britain will begin training Iraqi forces in this capability and what equipment—for example, electronic IED counter-measures such as those built by Selex ES in Basildon—will be made available so that they can better tackle ISIL?

[Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question and can tell him that the counter-IED training will begin early next month. UK personnel are already engaged in Baghdad in course design at the coalition headquarters. In conjunction with the metal detector equipment we intend to supply, the training will allow about six Iraqi battalions to have an improved counter-IED capability, as well as creating smaller specialist counter-IED teams.

[Mary Macleod]

Will my right hon. Friend reassure me and many constituents who have written to me in the past few months that the Government are doing all they can to support and protect minority groups, such as Yazidi Christians, especially women, who face unimaginable dangers from ISIL brutality?

[Michael Fallon]

Yazidi Christians, particularly women, have suffered more than most at the hands of ISIL. They are not alone. ISIL is a terrorist organisation that brutally beheads and crucifies people, slaughters children, sells women as slaves and has systematically used rape as a weapon. We flew supplies and surveillance missions last year to help Yazidi refugees on Sinjar mountain. Since beginning air strikes last September, we have, with other coalition partners, hit ISIL positions that have threatened Yazidi refugees and have assisted the Kurdish peshmerga in pushing back and reclaiming territory from ISIL, which, in turn, helps the Yazidi population.

[John Woodcock]

Does the Secretary of State think that it is acceptable that none of the service chiefs who gave evidence to the Defence Committee as part of its recent inquiry was willing or able to articulate the UK’s objective or strategic plan in Iraq? What exactly is our plan?

[Michael Fallon]

Our plan in Iraq is very simple: first, to disrupt threats to the UK mainland and to our interests overseas; secondly, as part of an international coalition, to defeat ISIL, including discrediting its violent ideology; and, thirdly, to mitigate the impact of ISIL and other violent extremist groups on the stability of the whole region.

[Richard Benyon]

In Iraq, the Brimstone missile provides the UK with a unique capability that minimises collateral damage. What measures are being taken to integrate it with the Typhoon system?

[Michael Fallon]

Let me pay to tribute to the important work being done at AWE sites in my hon. Friend’s constituency and elsewhere in Berkshire and to the highly skilled personnel working there. I will of course look at his point about integration. We are accelerating the integration of those weapons with Typhoon, which will improve its attractiveness as an export and pick up on some of the lessons we have learnt from the campaign in Iraq.

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

Does the Secretary of State recognise that the Kurds, who have lost 1,000 peshmerga, are key to isolating and defeating ISIS but are seriously short of the heavy weapons they urgently need. Will he talk with the Kurdistan Regional Government about how the UK can do much more to help them, as one of our closest and most reliable allies?

[Michael Fallon]

I have met the Kurdish Regional Government and we continue to be in touch with them. We have already gifted heavy machine guns, nearly 500,000 rounds of ammunition and some 49 tonnes of non-lethal equipment. We have also helped transport to the Kurdish region around 300 tonnes of weapons, equipment and ammunition from other eastern European nations, because they tend to use former Soviet equipment. I hope that underlines the amount of help we are giving to the peshmerga, but it is important that we also help the reconstitution of the Iraqi army further south.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

What stance does the Secretary of State take in responding to requests from other Governments in the region seeking military assistance to take on ISIL and its affiliates in the way the Iraqi Government did?

[Michael Fallon]

This is an international coalition, with between 40 and 50 countries involved, and we are one of the 16 that are involved in the air strikes. Indeed, we have so far recorded the second highest number of air strikes—second only to the United States. However, countries in the region and internationally are all helping in different ways—for example, with logistics or by providing bases. The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to continue to reassure other countries in the region that we are committed to their security. That is why we signed the recent naval base agreement in Bahrain and why, for example, I talked this morning with His Excellency the Qatari Defence Minister.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is of course aware that ISIL is operating not only in Iraq, but in Syria and, unfortunately, now in Libya. Will he clarify what role the UK and its armed forces are playing in those theatres?

[Michael Fallon]

The House has not given its authority for military operations to be conducted in Syria at the moment. However, we are preparing plans to help train moderate Syrian opposition forces outside Syria, and we are now drawing up plans to participate in that training at a number of sites outside Syria. The situation in Libya is equally disturbing. It now looks as though ISIL has several footholds along the Libyan seaboard, so we are also considering what further role we might play there.

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

The Kurdish peshmerga have indeed done a magnificent job in halting Daesh and regaining some ground from it. I am proud that we have given them 40 heavy machine guns and that we have 46 members of 2nd Battalion the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment training them in Sulaymaniyah, but I have heard that we are reducing the amount of support we are actually giving them. Will the Secretary of State please outline in detail what extra help we can give the peshmerga forces in Kurdistan?

[Michael Fallon]

We are not reducing our effort; on the contrary, we have the RAF flying Tornadoes virtually day and night—a huge effort—from Cyprus. We have nearly 600 service personnel involved in this battle against ISIL, including more than 140 personnel in Iraq. It is important to help the peshmerga, but it is also important to help the reconstituted Iraqi army.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

What are the Government doing to identify ISIL’s funding sources, and have they taken any action, such as sanctions, against those they have identified?

[Michael Fallon]

The hon. Lady is right that ISIL needs to be defeated not just militarily, but diplomatically and politically with all the instruments at our command, and cutting off its financial sources of support is extremely important. We are working with our international partners to ensure that those financing streams can be cut off, and that proper sanctions can be applied where we can identify exactly where the funding is coming from.

[Sir Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

11. What budgetary assumptions he is making to inform the strategic defence and security review.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)]

The Government’s priority remains the delivery of the 2010 strategic defence and security review. The next SDSR will not begin until after the election.

[Sir Peter Luff]

Does the Secretary of State agree that all the major parties in the coming election should commit to a real-terms increase in the defence budget and to the 2% NATO target, because only in that way can we hope to keep our nation safe in an increasingly hostile and menacing world?

[Michael Fallon]

Since the 2010 SDSR, our planning assumption has been that real growth in the defence budget, with 1% growth on equipment, is required to deliver the highly capable and adaptable armed forces that we set out in Future Force 2020. The scale of our current operations in Kabul, the middle east and Sierra Leone underline the value of the flexibility that we encouraged in that review. So far as the future is concerned, we are spending £34 billion this year; we will be spending £34 billion next year. It is time we heard from Labour whether it will match that spending or whether it plans to cut it.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I congratulate the Defence Secretary on highlighting the real and present danger posed by Mr Putin’s Russia to the stability of Europe and the threat posed by ISIL. Does he agree that it would be folly for the United Kingdom to cut its defence expenditure below the minimum requirement of 2% that NATO has set?

[Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have set out our planning assumptions for the current defence budget, but I still think we ought to hear exactly what the Opposition’s plan is. Are they going to match our £34 billion a year, or are they going to cut it? Is it match or cut? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Not very statesmanlike. Mr Jones, you aspire to be a statesman. I have sought to encourage and nurture your ambitions. [Interruption.] No, he says from a sedentary position. Don’t be so unambitious, man, for goodness’ sake.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

16. What recent assessment he has made of the potential implications of deployment of Russian-made military aircraft to Argentina for the UK’s defence footprint in the south Atlantic.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Mark Francois)]

The Ministry of Defence undertakes regular assessments of current and potential military threats to the Falkland Islands to ensure that we retain the appropriate defensive capability. There is currently no suggestion that there will be any need to vary significantly our capability in the south Atlantic, but contingency plans are in place to do so if required.

[Mr Hollobone]

To what extent is Russia re-establishing relations with Argentina, and to what extent might that pose a military threat to the Falkland Islands?

[Mr Francois]

Let us be clear. The Government are clear about British sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, and in March 2013 the Falkland Islands referendum reaffirmed the islanders’ overwhelming wish to remain British, with 99.8% voting in favour. We should always defend the right of the Falkland islanders to determine their own political future. I believe the question may refer to media reports that the Argentines were proposing to purchase Su-24 aircraft from the Russians, although this proposal came as a surprise even to the Argentine Defence Minister and was swiftly denied by the Argentine Government. Nevertheless, we are not complacent and the Ministry of Defence undertakes regular assessments of potential military challenges to the Falkland Islands to ensure that we retain appropriate defensive capabilities, but it seems that the Russians did not tell him.

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the defence of the Falkland Islands would be made much more difficult if we failed to spend 2%, at least, of our gross domestic product on defence? If we encouraged all parties, including Labour, to do that—

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

And yours.

[Mr Arbuthnot]

And ours, indeed. Then we would be standing by the encouragement and the commitments that we made at the NATO summit only six months ago.

[Mr Francois]

There are currently about 1,200 UK military and civilian personnel in the Falklands Islands. They support a range of air, sea and land capabilities, including Typhoon aircraft, support helicopters, offshore patrol vessels, air defences, and a resident infantry company. My right hon. Friend is an established former member of the Defence Committee—indeed, its former Chair—and the whole House will have heard what he said.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

17. How many service personnel were dismissed from the Army, demoted or otherwise penalised as a result of having received a police caution between 2008 and 2011.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Anna Soubry)]

Initially, in reply to the hon. Lady’s campaign, I said that the figure was 1,500, but we have made further inquiries because our aim is to contact everybody. We now think that the figure is nearer to 1,200—1,000 in the Army. As we make those inquiries, it is important to appreciate that not everybody who was penalised in some way had that happen as a result of their receiving a police caution—other matters may have been involved as well—so we are exploring all that.

[Mrs Moon]

The Minister will be aware that at least 58 of those personnel were discharged from the armed forces. On a rough calculation of losing, say, a £25,000 salary for just one year, compensation of over £1.25 million would be due. What assessment has she made of the cost to the defence budget of the military law-breaking and cover-up that was involved?

[Anna Soubry]

As I have explained, we are identifying all the individuals so that we can contact them and advise them accordingly. I have made it very clear that I want to see action by the three armed forces to anticipate what may come forward so that we do not suffer any more delay and there are no injustices.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)]

My immediate priorities remain our current operations against ISIL and Ebola, as well as the commitments reached at the NATO summit and the delivery of Future Force 2020. We are building our reserve forces and investing in the equipment that our armed forces need to keep Britain safe.

The House may also want to know that the solider reported as missing last week has now been located and is being returned to his unit.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

Will the Secretary of State assure the House that Britain is playing a key role in Ukraine and that we have not been relegated to a mere junior partner in negotiations?

[Michael Fallon]

We have been playing the leading role politically in ensuring that Russia is subject to a proper degree of sanction for the actions it has been taking, and we will continue to press the case for further sanctions if Russia’s aggression is not halted. We are playing a key role politically and diplomatically in trying to bring the conflict to an end.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

T2. Further to that answer, will the Secretary of State update the House on his assessment of the recent militaristic threats of action in Ukraine by Russia?

[Michael Fallon]

Ahead of the second Minsk meeting, Russia stepped up its military support to the separatists. It transferred hundreds of heavy weapons, including rocket launchers, heavy artillery, tanks and armoured vehicles. It maintains hundreds of regular soldiers, including special forces in Ukraine. Since the latest Minsk agreement, we have seen the ground offensive at Debaltseve, leading to the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces, and the denial of access for OSCE monitors—both flagrant breaches of the Minsk agreement. What matters now is that Russia returns to what it agreed at Minsk and implements it as soon as possible.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Does the Defence Secretary agree that episodes in recent months in which RAF jets have been scrambled to escort Russian bombers close to our airspace, aircraft from our NATO partners have been asked to help locate a suspected Russian submarine off the west coast of Scotland, and the Royal Navy has been seen escorting a Russian warship in the English channel are very serious and risk a very serious incident? Will he tell the House how is he meeting these ongoing challenges and assure us that gaps in our military capability such as the lack of maritime patrol aircraft do not hinder us in any way in responding to such events?

[Michael Fallon]

These are indeed serious issues and serious threats. So far as the incursion of Russian aircraft around British airspace is concerned, we have successfully intercepted all of those potential incursions and they have been shadowed by our quick-reaction aircraft based at either Lossiemouth or Coningsby. Our Royal Navy has picked up and shadowed the transit of Russian ships through the channel. We will, of course, respond, though not in the sense of being provoked; we will ensure that any potential incursion into our airspace or maritime area is properly dealt with.

So far as maritime patrol aircraft are concerned, of course we will look at that capability again in the new review, but we share capabilities with our NATO allies. We helped to lift French troops into Mali and, in return, we share other capabilities with NATO allies.

[Vernon Coaker]

I thank the Defence Secretary for that answer. He will, of course, be aware of ongoing events in eastern Ukraine and concerns about the stability of other areas in the region. He recently talked of Russia seeking to “test” NATO, so, while our response needs to be calm and considered, it also has to make strategic sense. What is the Defence Secretary’s latest assessment of the implementation of the ceasefire agreement, especially in the light of the deadly incident in Kharkiv yesterday; and what role is Britain playing, as a leading member of NATO, to reassure our partners of the fortitude, resilience and involving nature of that alliance?

[Michael Fallon]

It is pretty clear that the ceasefire agreement is not being properly respected. Russia needs to get back to the terms of that agreement and ensure that the fighting stops, that the heavy armour and other equipment I have referred to are withdrawn and that the territory of Ukraine is therefore respected. We have already been supplying non-lethal aid to Ukraine, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and we are continuing to consider what further help to provide in terms of training that might help to reduce the number of casualties and fatalities and build up the capability of the Ukrainian forces, which have been subject to an awful onslaught.

[Mr Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

T3. May I also congratulate the Defence Secretary on his forthright warning about an expansionist and aggressive Russia under President Putin representing a real and present danger to the Baltic states and, therefore, to NATO and European peace? May I be the third former Defence Minister from the previous SDSR to urge the Defence Secretary to use the current SDSR to improve defence capability rather than reduce it? May I also reassure him that there is a huge groundswell of opinion on the Benches behind him in support of an increase in defence spending and certainly not in support of a cut?

[Michael Fallon]

I hope that my right hon. Friend, who served with distinction as a Minister in my Department, will recognise that, by investing in two aircraft carriers, committing to a replacement of the Type 23s, investing in armoured vehicles, purchasing fighters and commissioning new offshore patrol vessels, we are improving our defence capability. It is because we sorted out the defence budget that we are able to invest in new equipment in a way that the previous Government could not possibly have done.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

On the basis of a previous answer, can the Secretary of State give an absolute assurance that none of the British military activities in Iraq will be allowed to drift across the border into Syria?

[Michael Fallon]

The hon. Gentleman knows that we have authority under the terms of the motion passed in this House to act in Iraq but not in Syria. That, of course, enables other members of the coalition to help the battle against ISIL in Syria; indeed, it frees up some of their capacity to do so. It is important that ISIL is defeated in both countries. ISIL does not respect the borders to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

T5. The RAF has been using precision munitions effectively in Iraq, which, as far as is possible, are good at minimising collateral damage. Further to the earlier comments by the Secretary of State, will the Minister reassure the House that that important capability will not be lost when the Tornado combat jet is retired in 2019?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)]

Further to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s answer to an earlier question, I can confirm that—as it happens, yesterday—I witnessed a contract signature for the investment of a further £165 million to integrate Brimstone precision munitions on to Royal Air Force Typhoons, which will enable this unique air-to-ground strike capability to enter service on our Typhoon fleet in 2018, before the Tornadoes come out of service in 2019.

[Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)]

T8. What assurance can the Minister give that the costs of the new Type 26 global combat ship will not rise ever upwards? How much clout does his Department have in avoiding some of the mistakes of the past?

[Mr Dunne]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question, because he invites me to draw another comparison with the way in which this Government have sorted out the manner of our defence procurement, in stark contrast to the previous Administration. We are undertaking detailed analysis and taking contract negotiations to a much greater degree of granularity before entering contracts so that we know what we are buying and we remove risk from layers of prime contractors, following the model that we introduced in the aircraft carrier renegotiation last year.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

T6. As civil nuclear developments expand the market for skilled nuclear engineers, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that we maintain the skills levels of the hundreds of nuclear engineers at the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Berkshire?

[Mr Dunne]

The facility in Berkshire is extremely important—part of it is in my hon. Friend’s constituency—and I have led cross-Government talks to consider how we ensure that demands for nuclear engineering skills across defence and civil sectors are successfully managed by recruiting, training and retaining appropriately skilled engineers. Next week, I will host an event in Downing street to raise awareness of degree courses in nuclear engineering.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

Ministry of Defence police officers and their colleagues in the defence fire and rescue service are currently subject to the state pension age; yet their counterparts in the Home Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government can retire up to seven years earlier. Does the Minister think that is fair?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Anna Soubry)]

We are in the process of working with other colleagues in the Government to conclude that matter, and I very much hope that we can make an announcement very soon. I pay tribute to the fire service and the MDP, both of which do an outstanding job.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

T7. In addition to the training that my right hon. Friend mentioned earlier, will he tell the House what equipment the British Government are providing to the Kurdish peshmerga, and whether they are providing any equipment on behalf of other countries to assist their fight against ISIL?

[Michael Fallon]

May I wish my hon. Friend a very happy birthday?

As I said, Her Majesty’s Government have gifted some 40 heavy machine guns with spares and some 480,000 rounds of 12.7 mm ammunition, in addition to 49 tonnes of non-lethal assistance, which was directly supported with training on machine guns. Most of the requests for equipment we have received are of types that British forces do not normally use, but through our strategic air transport capability, we have been able to work with other countries to deliver more than 300 tonnes of weapons, ammunition and equipment from mostly east European—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. So many distinguished colleagues; so little time to hear them.

[Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State explain why the House is not allowed to know how many people were recruited from an online source?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Julian Brazier)]

There has been no attempt to refuse to answer that question. All Army recruits, regular and reserve—100%—come through online applications. We have published the numbers of enlistments. [Interruption.] The number I cited earlier—1,490—was the number of Army reservists. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with other numbers. There is no secret about this at all: all Army recruits come through the online system.

[Mr Speaker]

Put a copy in the Library.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

T9. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to our fast jet airmen, who help keep our skies safe and are dealing with the increasingly frequent Russian incursions?

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Mark Francois)]

I do indeed pay tribute to them. This Department works in the recesses too, and last week I went to Royal Air Force Lossiemouth and met our fighter pilots, who help defend the skies against any incursion from wherever it may come. They are incredibly impressive and they now include female pilots too. “Top Gun” was on television last night. I have seen the real thing and it is more impressive than the movie.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Six hundred British citizens have travelled abroad to support ISIL and we have heard the anguished pleas of the parents of three young London girls who have gone for similar reasons. What further steps are we going to take to stop British nationals travelling in that way?

[Michael Fallon]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Home Secretary is producing further proposals to ensure that we continue to prevent the radicalisation of our young people in mosques and schools, and to introduce further passport controls where necessary to discourage the movement of young, radicalised Muslims to Syria.

[Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)]

Given the very welcome commitments that the Prime Minister made in Scotland just last week about ongoing defence expenditure, bases and so on, will the Government confirm that those commitments extend to the all-important and long-standing BUTEC—British underwater test and evaluation centre—submarine range in and around Kyle of Lochalsh and that it has a viable future, given that defence will loom so large at the general election?

[Mr Dunne]

I confirm that the UK Government have no plans to close the British underwater test and evaluation centre on the Applecross peninsula and at Kyle of Lochalsh. In fact, QinetiQ, supported by the Ministry of Defence, has plans to invest £22 million in its research and testing facilities up there, which, of course, would not have happened had Scotland been independent.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Can the Secretary of State say more about the circumstances in which the deserted soldier in Syria was found? What steps can he take to prevent a recurrence of that situation? Does he understand the frustration that must be felt by many in our armed forces who want to do more to fight ISIL, but who see the Government not doing enough?

[Michael Fallon]

We are, as I said, making a major contribution to the fight against ISIL, with nearly 600 service personnel involved, not just in Cyprus but in Irbil, Baghdad and elsewhere in the Gulf. We are fully involved in this struggle. I would prefer not to comment on the soldier who has been located and is being returned safely to his unit until he has been fully debriefed.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

T10. May I support the Defence Secretary’s warning about the danger that Russia poses to world peace? We should look at supporting brave Ukraine before Mariupol is put under pressure or falls.

[Michael Fallon]

We have increased our assistance to the Ukrainian armed forces. Following the start of the crisis in spring last year, we have provided non-lethal support, including personal protective equipment and other supplies. We are helping with defence reform and modernisation. We are considering providing further non-lethal assistance to enhance the capacity of the Ukrainian armed forces to reduce casualties and fatalities and to build their resilience, for example through further training.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

If the Secretary of State is so pleased with our present defence capacity, will he say when was the last time an American President begged a British Prime Minister not to run down British forces any further?

[Michael Fallon]

I have made it clear throughout this Question Time that far from running down our forces, we are investing in them for the future. We are investing in aircraft carriers, armoured vehicles, new frigates, offshore patrol vessels and fresh equipment of all kinds. What we have not yet heard is whether the Labour party would match our £34 billion of spending or cut it.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

There are four drivers and constraints on the defence budget: the international security environment, including what is happening in Ukraine; commitments already entered into, including upgrading our nuclear deterrent; the overall fiscal position; and our international obligations and moral authority. Does the direction of travel of any of those four things justify our defence spending falling below 2% of GDP? Is this a case, if ever there was one, for a proper cross-party consensus in Britain?

[Michael Fallon]

Only because we sorted out the budget mess that we inherited have we been able to invest in and modernise our defence equipment. I fully agree with my right hon. Friend: we would be in a stronger place if there was more consensus. We have yet to hear whether Labour would match our £34 billion or cut it. Is it time we had an answer?

Tax Avoidance (HSBC)

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

15:35

[Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the HSBC tax evasion scandal.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not wish to be pedantic, simply accurate, but I think the wording of the urgent question was “avoidance”—the tax avoidance scandal. The point is on the record.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

The allegations about tax evasion at HSBC Swiss are extremely serious and have been the subject of extensive investigation by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Money has been recovered for the Exchequer, and HMRC continues to be in active discussion with our prosecuting authorities. The chief executive of HMRC and the Director of Public Prosecutions have confirmed that they have the necessary resources to carry out their work on this matter, and if they need more resources they will get them.

The House should know, however, that in each and every case the alleged tax evasion—both by individuals and the bank—happened before 2006 when the shadow Chancellor was the principal adviser on tax policy and economic affairs to the then Labour Government. News that the French had got hold of the files with the names of the bank accounts became publicly known in 2009 when the shadow Chancellor was sitting on the Government Benches, and the files were requested and recovered by HMRC before May 2010, when he was a member of the Cabinet.

The right hon. Gentleman has written to ask me five questions about my responsibilities. I will answer each one directly, and in return he can account for his own responsibilities. He asked about what he calls the selective prosecution policy pursued by HMRC, and whether that decision was made by Ministers. Yes, that decision was made by Ministers, and the Inland Revenue’s overall approach to prosecuting cases of suspected serious tax fraud was set out in the Official Report on 7 November 2002, column 784W, in an answer by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). That was confirmed again when HMRC was created in 2005—again by the right hon. Gentleman. I have increased resources for tackling tax evasion, and as a result prosecutions are up fivefold. I have answered for my responsibility on that question; perhaps the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) will answer for his and tell us whether he drafted that policy.

Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman asked when I was first made aware of the HSBC files, what action I took, and whether I discussed them with the Prime Minister. I first became aware of the existence of the files in 2009 when a story appeared in the Financial Times. I was shadow Chancellor at the time so I could take no action, and I could not discuss it with the then Prime Minister because I was not on speaking terms with him. That is what I knew. The right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood was a Cabinet Minister. When he heard about these revelations, did he speak to the Prime Minister about them?

Thirdly, the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood asked why we appointed Stephen Green to the Government. We appointed him because we thought he would do a good job as trade Minister, as did the Labour party, which welcomed the appointment. The trade job was not Stephen Green’s first public appointment. That was when he was appointed by the previous Government to be not just a member of the Prime Minister’s business council but its chair—a post he continued to hold after the existence of the HSBC files became public and after HMRC negotiated to recover them under the previous Government. I have explained why we appointed Stephen Green. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood will explain why he appointed Stephen Green.

Fourthly, the right hon. Gentleman asked about discussions with Stephen Green on tax evasion. I can confirm that the Cabinet Secretary and the director general of ethics at the Cabinet Office carried out the background checks for ministerial appointments that were put in place by the previous Government. Stephen Green’s personal tax affairs were examined by HMRC on behalf of the House of Lords Appointments Commission, again using the procedures put in place by the previous Government. Those are the procedures we followed when we appointed Stephen Green. What procedures did the right hon. Gentleman follow?

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked me why I signed a deal with the Swiss authorities in 2012. He does not need my explanation. Listen to what the shadow Chief Secretary at the time, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), said:

“We support the agreement signed by the UK and Swiss Governments to secure billions in unpaid tax.”––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 26 June 2012; c. 655.]

She is right: billions of unpaid tax never collected under a Labour Government. Under this Government, tax evasion is at the top of the G8 agenda. We have collected more money and prosecutions have increased five times over. Ahead of the Budget, I set the Treasury to work on providing further ways to pursue not just the tax evaders, but those providing them with advice. So anyone involved in tax evasion, whatever your role, this Government are coming after you. Unlike the previous Government, who simply turned a blind eye, this Government are taking action now and will do so again at the Budget. So I am happy, any time, to answer for our record on tackling tax evasion. Now, let him account for his.

[Ed Balls]

Finally, the Chancellor has been dragged to the House to answer questions about the HSBC scandal, which broke a full two weeks ago. At a time when the living standards of working people are squeezed, when our public services are under pressure, when HSBC is paying out high bonuses and when the amount of uncollected tax has gone up under this Government, we need proper answers, not another Chancellor sweeping these issues under the carpet as we have heard today. [Interruption.] I think the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) should listen to these questions and then the Chancellor can tell us whether he actually has any answers. Don’t you agree, Mr Speaker?

Detailed information was passed to this Government in May 2010 about 1,100 HSBC clients—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. These exchanges are not, frankly, to the advantage of this House. They will be conducted in a more decorous atmosphere. I say to Members on both sides who are calculatedly trying to whip it up and are shouting at the tops of their voices, some holding very senior positions in this House: cut it out or get out.

[Ed Balls]

We know when they shout that it is because they have something to hide, Mr Speaker. That is the truth.

First, let me ask the Chancellor about what he knew and when. Two weeks ago, Downing street announced that no Minister found out about the HSBC issues until two-and-a-half weeks ago. At the weekend, the Chancellor said that he should not be involved in the tax dealings of any individual bank. Today, he has told us he knew in 2009. If he knew about systemic abuse on this scale in 2009, why did he not act when he became Chancellor? That is the first question.

Secondly, given that the Chancellor says he knew about this in 2009, why, five years on, has there been only one prosecution after the provision of 1,100 names? We know that in November 2012 HMRC confirmed that the Government had adopted a selective prosecution policy. Let me ask the Chancellor: given he knew what was happening at HSBC, did he confirm he wanted a selective prosecution policy in these cases?

Thirdly, why in 2012 did the Chancellor sign a deal with the Swiss authorities that has prevented the UK from actively obtaining similar information in the future? The agreement states that the UK and Swiss Governments will

“not actively seek to acquire customer data stolen from Swiss banks”.

Why sign up to a declaration that clearly impedes HMRC’s and the Government’s ability to act in the future? Two weeks ago, they told us it was because they did not know, but we now know that the Chancellor has known for six years. Why did he sign that deal?

Fourthly, if the Chancellor and the Prime Minister knew what was happening at HSBC in 2009, why, one month after the Government received these files, did they appoint the chair of HSBC during the period in question as a Conservative peer and Minister? What due diligence did the Government carry out in advance, and did the Prime Minister and the Chancellor see the details? Fifthly, did Lord Green have any involvement in the Swiss tax deal when he was a trade Minister? Did he ever advise the Treasury on it? Did the Chancellor discuss what happened at HSBC with Lord Green in the almost three years he was a Conservative Minister? Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister was unable to answer that question. Did the Chancellor discuss the Swiss deal and those past events at HSBC with Lord Green, who was appointed as a Minister after this scandal came to light?

It is not good enough for the Chancellor to shout and bluster, and to try and sweep these questions under the carpet and claim he did not ask the questions. Since the Government were given the files, he has been the Chancellor for five years. Is it not clear either that he and the Prime Minister were negligent in failing to act on the evidence the Government received, including about HSBC and Lord Green, or, just as with the appointment of Mr Coulson, that they deliberately turned a blind eye?

[Mr Osborne]

Well, I do not think that performance will save the shadow Chancellor’s political career. Every single question he asked I had already answered. The whole House can see that the person bringing this question to the House is the person with the most to answer for, and that he has no answers. He has nothing to say about the fact that every single one of these alleged offences occurred when he was the principal tax adviser to the last Labour Government, and nothing to say about the fact that the HSBC files came to light while he was in office. He said I admitted I knew about them in 2009. I read the Financial Times—it was in the newspapers; he was in the Cabinet and did absolutely nothing about it. He said that the information was provided to the Government in May 2010.

[Ed Balls]

indicated assent.

[Mr Osborne]

He nods his head, but the information was provided in April 2010, when there was a Labour Government and he was in the Cabinet. He has nothing to say either about the agreement with the French authorities restricting the use that could be made of this information—an agreement that we are now busily trying to change.

None of these things has the shadow Chancellor admitted to or apologised for, and none of it is of any surprise to Government Members, because the Labour party was the friend of the tax avoiders and the tax evaders when it was in office. When we entered office, City bankers were paying lower tax rates than those who cleaned for them; foreigners were not paying capital gains tax; hedge funds were abusing partnership rules; and the richest in our society routinely did not pay stamp duty at all. We have put at end to all of that, and we will take more action in the Budget. All we have on the Opposition Benches is a bunch of arsonists throwing rocks at the firefighters who are putting out the fire that they started.

The shadow Chancellor comes to the House fighting for his political life. He asks about tax evasion, but he was the principal tax adviser when tax evasion occurred. His economic policy is in tatters, and he cannot name a single business supporter of his business policy. His tax avoidance campaign has turned into a war with his own window cleaner. Now he has lost the confidence of his colleagues and his leader, but he lost the confidence of the country a long time ago.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Will the Chancellor confirm that British taxpayers will receive more money back from tax evaders as a result of civil actions than they would through criminal actions?

[Mr Osborne]

When we can pursue criminal prosecutions, of course we do so, but that is a matter for the independent prosecuting authorities. Frankly, the suggestion from some on the Labour Benches that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should direct the prosecutions of our independent prosecuting authorities shows how far they have gone from the constitutional principles of government. We set the overall resourcing for HMRC and pass the tax laws, but we have independent prosecuting authorities. The shadow Chancellor goes on about the policy, but the policy was set out by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath in 2002 and repeated in 2005.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Does the Chancellor agree that obtaining financial advantage by deception is a criminal offence even when carried out by bankers? Does he recognise that HSBC has 556 subsidiary companies in tax havens? We know what has happened with one of them, but when will there be an inquiry into the other 555?

[Mr Osborne]

Some very serious allegations have been made about HSBC Swiss and its role in knowingly advising people on tax evasion. Of course, our prosecuting authorities will want to look into the matter, but the House needs to know that the information that was received from the French authorities under the last Government—[Interruption.] This is important, and it is relevant to the right hon. Gentleman’s question. The information was received as the result of a negotiation with the French authorities about what use it could be put to, and the French agreement struck by the last Government said that we could use it only for prosecuting or pursuing individuals with regard to their tax affairs. We are currently in active discussion, which I think will come to a fruitful end, to get the French to allow us to pass some of that information to the Serious Fraud Office and other prosecuting authorities, to address the concern that he rightly raises about the potential or alleged role of banks in the affair.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend explain to the House how many tax avoidance schemes that he inherited in 2010 he has had to close down?

[Mr Osborne]

More than 40 tax avoidance schemes or loopholes have been closed. Of course, we have also introduced an anti-avoidance and anti-abuse rule, which the Labour Government had 13 years to introduce. Now Labour Members are saying that we should be stiffening the penalties under that anti-abuse rule, but—[Interruption.] I will tell Members who was in charge. The shadow Chancellor was in charge for 13 years and did absolutely nothing. We came in, closed the loopholes, introduced the anti-abuse rule, got rid of the abuse of partnerships by hedge funds, got rid of the abuse of stamp duty by the richest in our society and started collecting the tax that should have been collected long ago.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

The revelations about HSBC are just the latest in a long line of misdeeds by our banks, which are undermining confidence in the system throughout. Too often, HMRC seems to be on the back foot. The Chancellor said that if it required more resources it would be given them. Will he commit those resources to a proactive investigation of the role of banks, and some of the larger accountancy firms, in both tax avoidance and tax evasion?

[Mr Osborne]

The amount collected by HMRC as a result of abuse of this kind has risen from £17 billion to £26 billion. That is partly because we have put additional resources into tackling tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. We have done a great deal. However, I am the first to say that there is more to be done, and, as I said in my statement, more will be done in the Budget.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Does the Chancellor think that corporate entities that advise on tax evasion or enable it to take place should themselves be subject to criminal prosecution?

[Mr Osborne]

Yesterday the Chief Secretary referred to a policy that the Treasury has been considering for the purposes of the Budget, involving the penalties that should be paid by those who actively facilitate tax evasion. As I have said, we are considering that policy, but the hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the Budget.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

If the position is now so clear and has now been dealt with, why did the former Tory treasurer say only the other week that “everyone” was engaged in tax avoidance? He meant the rich. Is not the situation summed up very well by an American woman, Leona Helmsley, who ran hotels? She said—and it apparently still applies in this country to a large extent—

“We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.”

That illustrates the divide between the vast majority of people in our country and the rich.

[Mr Osborne]

We have taken steps to deal with precisely the abuses to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded, such as the use of vehicles to avoid paying stamp duty, the creation of partnerships so that hedge funds do not pay the proper amounts, and the fact that foreigners did not pay capital gains tax. Disguised income is another abuse that we have sought to clamp down on—and, by the way, the Labour party voted against our action in that regard. As more abuses come to light and more contrived schemes are discovered, we take action to deal with them, but I have to say that we have had very little support from the Labour party.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

When objective members of the public review these exchanges, they could be forgiven for thinking that there was little to choose between our parties. Will the Chancellor confirm that he has instituted not just the general anti-abuse rule, but follower notices and accelerated payments, and will he also confirm that our party has dealt with this issue far more robustly than the Labour party?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The accelerated payments scheme means that if tax is in dispute, we ask for it up front, and if people can prove that we have got it wrong, they get the money back. That is the rule with which the vast majority of our citizens must comply at present, but it was not complied with by those who were very well off. We introduced the accelerator, and as a result we are collecting hundreds of millions of pounds of tax that was previously not collected. As my hon. Friend says, that is further evidence of the gulf between what the Labour Government did during the 13 years for which the shadow Chancellor advised them, and what we have done in the last five years.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The Chancellor described the steps taken by the civil service before the appointment of Lord Green, but will he now answer this question? Did he ever discuss this matter with Lord Green, and did the Prime Minister ever discuss it with Lord Green?

[Mr Osborne]

I said in my statement that the proper procedures had been followed for the appointment of a Minister, and that the Cabinet Secretary and the director general of ethics in the Cabinet Office had been involved. I am not privy to the tax affairs of any individual citizen, and it would be a gross abuse of our constitution if I were. Our procedures allow HMRC to talk to the House of Lords Appointments Commission, and it did so on this occasion, so those procedures were followed. Any Labour Members who ask questions about our appointment of Stephen Green to the post of Trade Minister could be asked questions about their decision to appoint him as chair of the Prime Minister’s business council, and to retain him in that post after the revelations that appeared in the Financial Times in 2009.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

Many small businesses and taxpayers in north Yorkshire will be shocked by the time line that the Chancellor has just described. Will he clarify once again what the last Government knew and when?

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

What a creep!

[Mr Osborne]

They don’t want to hear about their record in government, Mr Speaker. Every single alleged offence happened when the Labour Government were in office. The information became publicly known when the Labour Government were in office. Lord Green’s first public appointment was as chair of the Prime Minister’s business council under the Gordon Brown Administration. The information was received from the French authorities under the last Labour Government. So I think the whole House—and, indeed, my hon. Friend’s constituents, who pay their taxes—would like the shadow Chancellor to get up and express a little bit of humility and contrition for the mistakes made when he was in office.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Since 2010 the Chancellor or Treasury Ministers have met HSBC 56 times. Was tax avoidance or tax evasion ever discussed at those meetings, and what was the outcome of those discussions?

[Mr Osborne]

First of all, it is not surprising that the British Government—Conservative, coalition or Labour—would meet one of the country’s largest institutions and banks. So that it is not a matter for surprise. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about any details we have about particular meetings.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

In 2005, at the height of all of this, the then Chancellor told the CBI dinner that he supported a “light” and “limited” approach to regulation including tax administration. What does the Chancellor think the previous Chancellor meant by a “light” approach to tax administration, and can he confirm that we have cleared it up?

[Mr Osborne]

Well, we have taken a much more aggressive approach. As a result, prosecutions are up fivefold. I have the following parliamentary answer from the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), and this is what he told the House:

“Where serious tax fraud has been committed, the Board”—

the Inland Revenue board—

“may accept a money settlement instead of pursuing a criminal prosecution.

The Board will accept a money settlement and will not pursue a criminal prosecution, if the taxpayer, in response to being given a copy of this Statement by an authorised officer, makes a full and complete confession of all tax irregularities.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2002; Vol. 392, c. 784W.]

That was the approach of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath to tax policy. [Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor says it was before 2000, but the revelations were made in 2009, and the last time I checked there was a Labour Government in late 2009 and early 2010.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Will the Chancellor finally seriously consider the issue of corporate liability for the criminal actions of employees? This would mean that banks could themselves be prosecuted. Would he like a copy of Labour’s policy review on tackling serious crime and white-collar crime that I launched two years ago? I have a copy here; he can have a read of it. I suggest a change in the law.

[Mr Osborne]

Unfortunately for the hon. Lady, the Labour party had 13 years when they had a Labour Chancellor standing at this Dispatch Box able to introduce all these things she talks about. As I have said, we are looking very seriously in the Budget at what further action we can take to tackle not just those who evade their taxes, but those who facilitate that evasion.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Does this question itself show the danger of eliding tax avoidance and tax evasion? There is no obligation on anybody to pay more tax than the law requires and even the most respectable families have schemes of arrangements to minimise things like death duties, whereas tax evasion is a very serious criminal offence which should be come down on with the full force of the law.

[Mr Osborne]

rose—

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

That’s the Tory party!

[Mr Osborne]

The hon. Gentleman says that that’s the Tory party, but, as it happens, I think my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is referring to the newspaper accounts of the Labour leader. I am not going to get drawn into that. Of course there is a difference in law between tax avoidance and tax evasion, although the shadow Chancellor managed to mess it up in the question he put today, but I have said as well that aggressive tax avoidance is something we also need to clamp down on and stop, and we have taken many actions to do so.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The Chancellor said he was answering all the questions, but, as I heard him, he left out the second part of the question about the deal with the Swiss authorities, which was why was a deal signed which prevents the UK from actively obtaining similar information in the future. Will he tell our constituents why the Government decided to do that deal?

[Mr Osborne]

I can confirm that the agreement we have signed would not prevent us from receiving the so-called Lagarde list in exactly the way that we have been doing. Also, thanks to the Prime Minister’s leadership at the G8, we will now have an automatic exchange of information with Switzerland from 2017. That is one of the most important steps forward in tackling tax evasion. The answer is—[Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor is again not listening to the answers that he is getting across the Dispatch Box; the problem is that all his questions have been answered. The answer is that our agreement with Switzerland would not prevent us from receiving the Lagarde list.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Should we not design greater resilience into our tax base instead of engaging in endless games of cat and mouse with firms of tax advisers?

[Mr Osborne]

The hon. Gentleman asks a good question. There are two approaches. The first involves introducing into our domestic law things like the general anti-abuse rule, which is more of a catch-all and tries to anticipate changes by accountancy firms and others who devise aggressive avoidance schemes. The second approach, which is not to be underestimated, involves the major international agreement on the automatic exchange of people’s tax information between jurisdictions such as Switzerland and the United Kingdom. That agreement has happened only because the Prime Minister put it at the top of the G8 agenda; no previous leader of the G8 had done so. That is why we will have the automatic exchange of information, which will be a revolution in tax transparency.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

What explanation can the Chancellor give in response to comments by the former tax inspector Richard Brooks that the Treasury and HMRC

“knew that there was a mass of evidence of tax evasion at the heart of HSBC”

in 2011, but that the Government

“simply washed their hands of it”?

[Mr Osborne]

As I have explained, HMRC received in April 2010 the disc that had all the information on individual bank accounts. It then set about investigating all those individuals and bringing those prosecutions. We have known—[Interruption.] The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury says that we have known this for five years. We have known for five years that there was egregious tax evasion 10 years ago under the Labour Government. We have put the resources into pursuing that, collecting the money and passing the international agreements to ensure that it never happens again in our country.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend clarify what he believes to be the difference between tax avoidance and tax efficiency?

[Mr Osborne]

As I said earlier, tax evasion is illegal. Aggressive tax avoidance is something that we are taking enormous steps to prevent. We have passed laws and introduced the general anti-abuse rule to ensure that we are collecting a fair amount of taxation from our population.

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

The Chancellor has to realise that this will not wash with the general public and the tax-paying businesses in my constituency and elsewhere, or with the companies that paid their taxes under the arrangement in Switzerland and elsewhere when they transferred their money. The reality is that people want a law under which people will not only have money taken off them but go to jail. If he is not going to introduce such a law, he should step aside and let another Government do it for him.

[Mr Osborne]

These abuses happened when there was a Labour Government in office. That Government, and the former Chancellor, set in place the selective prosecution policy. We have increased the resources and, as a result, the number of prosecutions has gone up fivefold. There is still one particular barrier, however, to the potential prosecution of HSBC Swiss if it is found to have committed a crime. That barrier is the agreement signed by the last Government with the French Government, and we are currently in negotiations with the French Government to unravel that terrible agreement. Then, our independent prosecuting authorities will see whether there are any cases to bring.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

It has recently emerged that the Gloucestershire-based business Ecotricity lent its founder £4 million on seriously tax-advantageous terms. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be an investigation into whether the transactions between Ecotricity and Dale Vince represent aggressive tax avoidance? Does he also agree that it is possible that Labour has not carried out appropriate due diligence on what might otherwise look like a naked attempt at a thank-you for the £37 million of taxpayer subsidies given to Ecotricity’s onshore wind farm business?

[Mr Osborne]

I am not going to discuss an individual’s tax affairs, but I would say this: the hypocrisy of the Labour party on this issue is simply breathtaking. Labour Members complain about Conservative party donors and then we hear all these revelations about Labour party donors; they complain about individual accountancy firms and then it turns out that Labour collects hundreds of thousands of pounds of donations from those accountancy firms; and they complain about the alleged tax evasion at HSBC Swiss and every single one of those offences happened when Labour was in government. It is time Labour Members got up and apologised.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

No one on the Labour Benches is complaining that the Chancellor met people from HSBC 56 times—we are not surprised by that. The question is: was evasion or tax avoidance discussed at those meetings and what was the outcome of those discussions? [Interruption.]

[Mr Osborne]

I have already answered that question. [Interruption.] I have; I said it is not surprising that Ministers meet one of the largest companies in this country, which employs close to 50,000 people in Britain and, as I understand it, a quarter of a million people around the world. As I also said earlier, I am happy to write about any of the content of those meetings, which were not just with me, but across the government.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Twenty Back Benchers have contributed to this exchange. As the House knows, my normal practice is to try to facilitate everybody, on both sides of the House, who wants to take part, but I should advise the House that we are time constrained today. We now have a very important statement by the Prime Minister, on which there will doubtless be substantial questioning, and then important matters in the Serious Crime Bill, in which a lot of people are interested and for which, frankly, there is not adequate time. The inadequacy of the time is down to the business managers. It is not a matter for me, but I am doing my best to cope with the situation in the interests of Back-Bench Members.

European Council

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

16:12

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the most recent European Council, which covered Ukraine, the eurozone, terrorism and extremism.

On extremism, let me first address the case of the three British schoolgirls from east London leaving their families and attempting to travel to Syria. All of us have been horrified by the way that British teenagers appear to have been radicalised and duped by this poisonous ideology of Islamist extremism while at home on the internet in their bedrooms. They appear to have been induced to join a terrorist group that carries out the most hideous violence, and believes that girls should be married at nine and that women should not leave the home. Their families are, understandably, heartbroken and we must do all we can to help.

We should be clear that this is not just an issue for our police and border controls. Everyone has a role to play in preventing our young people from being radicalised, whether that is schools, colleges, universities, families, religious leaders or local communities. That is why we have included a duty on all public bodies to prevent people being radicalised as part of our Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. But of course stopping people travelling to join ISIL is vital. When people are known risks, whatever their age, they go on our border warnings index, and we can intervene to prevent travel and seize their passports. But what this incident has highlighted is the concerning situation where unaccompanied teenagers such as these, who are not a known risk, can board a flight to Turkey without necessarily being asked any questions by the airline. We need new arrangements with airlines to ensure that these at-risk children are properly identified and questioned, and the Home Secretary and Transport Secretary will be working with the airlines to bring this about. Whenever there are concerns, police at the border should be alerted so that they can use the new temporary passport seizure powers to stop people travelling.

Secondly, given reports that one of the girls was following as many as 70 extremists online, this case underlines the importance—this was covered at the EU, too—of the work we are doing with social media companies. We have made progress with these companies, which are working with the police and Home Office to take down extremist content online, and at the EU Council we agreed to do this across the European Union. But we also need greater co-operation over contacts between extremists and those who could be radicalised. Internet companies have a social responsibility and we expect them to live up to it.

Thirdly, we need to continue to press for our police and security services to have access to passenger name records for as many routes as possible in and out of Britain and we need that to happen right across the European Union. That was the subject of the most substantial discussion at the European Council as those records provide not just passenger names, but details about how tickets were bought, what credit cards and bank accounts were used and with whom people were travelling. That is vital information that helps us identify in advance when people are travelling on high-risk routes, and often helps us identify terrorists. I raised this matter explicitly with my Turkish counterpart in December, and will continue to press to get this vital information wherever we need it.

Until recently, in spite of British efforts to get this issue prioritised, discussions on these passenger name records in the EU had been stuck. But following the terrible attacks in Paris and Copenhagen, it was agreed at the European Council that EU legislators should urgently adopt a “strong and effective” European passenger name records directive. That was probably the most important outcome of this Council. We have to fix this matter. It would be absurd to have the exchange of this information between individual EU member states and other countries outside the EU but not among ourselves. Most people travelling to Syria do not go there directly; they often take many different routes within the EU before getting even to Turkey, so we badly need this information.

The European Council also agreed that law enforcement and judicial authorities must step up their information sharing and operational co-operation and that there should be greater co-operation in the fight against illicit trafficking of firearms.

Turning to the situation in Ukraine, I met President Poroshenko before the start of the European Council meeting. He thanked Britain for the role we have played in ensuring a robust international response at every stage of Russia’s illegal aggression. We were the first to call for Russia to be expelled from the G8. We have been the strongest proponent of sanctions and a vital ally in keeping the EU and the US united. President Poroshenko welcomed the diplomatic efforts that had been made leading up to the Minsk agreements. He agreed that it was essential to judge success not by the words people say but by the actions they take on the ground.

Let us be clear about what has happened in the 10 days since the European Council met. Far from changing course, Russia’s totally unjustifiable and illegal actions in eastern Ukraine have reached a new level, with the separatists’ blatant breach of the ceasefire to take control of Debaltseve made possible only with the supply of Russian fighters and equipment on a very large scale. It is clear what now needs to happen: the ceasefire must be respected in full by both sides; heavy weapons need to be drawn back, as promised; and people must do the things to which they have signed up. All eyes should now be on Russia and the separatists. Russia must be in no doubt that any attempts by the separatists to expand their territory—whether towards Mariupol or elsewhere—will be met with further significant EU and US sanctions. Russia must change course now or the economic pain it endures will only increase.

In the coming days, I will be speaking to fellow G7 leaders to agree on how we can ensure that the Minsk agreements do indeed bring an end to this crisis. We are also looking urgently at what further support we can provide to bolster the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe mission. The International Development Secretary is today committing an additional £15 million to support the humanitarian effort. However, at this moment the most important thing we can do is show Russia that the EU and America remain united in being ready to impose ever-increasing costs on its Government if it does not take this opportunity to change course decisively.

Turning to the eurozone, immediately before the European Council started, I met the new Greek Prime Minister, Alexis Tsipras. With him, and then again at the Council, I urged all those involved to end the stand off between Greece and the eurozone over its support programme. We welcome the provisional agreement subsequently reached last Friday evening. Britain is not in the eurozone, and we are not going to join the eurozone, but we do need it to work effectively. The problems facing Greece and the eurozone continue to pose a risk to the world economy and to our own recovery at home. That is why we have stepped up our eurozone contingency planning.

Before the Council, I held a meeting in Downing street with all the key senior officials to go through those plans and to ensure that vital work continues apace—this crisis is not over. Protecting our economy from these wider risks in the eurozone also means sticking to this Government’s long-term economic plan. It is more important than ever that we send a clear message to the world that Britain is not going to waver on dealing with its debts and that we retain the confidence of business—the creators of jobs and growth in our economy. We must continue to scrap red tape, cut taxes, build world-class skills and support exports to emerging markets. We must continue investing in infrastructure. Today’s figures show that in 2014 the UK received a record level of lending from the European Investment Bank to support the infrastructure projects in our national infrastructure plan. I hope that the shadow Chancellor will cheer when we win European money for British infrastructure—for the roads, the bridges and the railways we need.

Today we have the lowest inflation rate in our modern history and the highest number of people in work ever. We have the biggest January surplus in our public finances for seven years, putting us on track to meet our borrowing target for the year. To put it simply, we have a great opportunity to secure the prosperity of our nation for generations to come. We must not put that in jeopardy; we must seize that chance by sticking to this Government’s long-term economic plan. I commend the statement to the House.

16:20

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Let me start by expressing my deepest sympathy to the families of those killed in Copenhagen in the dreadful terrorist attack that has happened since the House last met. We stand with all of Europe against all those who seek to terrorise and attack our most cherished values and who perpetrate intolerance, anti-Semitism and all other forms of prejudice.

The European Council said that there would be action to step up information sharing and co-operation with our European partners to tackle terrorism. The Prime Minister repeated that in his statement today, but will he tell us exactly how it will happen? He will know that Labour’s Members of the European Parliament supported the speedy resolution of the question of the European passenger name record, which allows information to be shared with European countries on airline passengers. Will he update us on the timetable for agreeing and implementing the measure?

To counter the threat we face, we need co-operation abroad and vigilance at home. I echo the Prime Minister’s anxieties about the three schoolgirls travelling to the region. Does he agree that in addition to the measures that he has set out, we must also look again at the Prevent programme and strengthen it with a stronger role for local communities and more action directly to challenge the warped ideology and lies that are being spread, particularly through social media?

Turning to the fight against ISIL in the region and the Council conclusions on north Africa, we were all horrified by the barbaric murder in Libya of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians by ISIL-linked extremists. These latest brutal acts of violence simply reinforce the importance of our efforts alongside our allies to counter the threat posed by ISIL. It was right to take action to protect civilians and prevent a massacre in Benghazi in 2011. Tragically, though, Libya now looks more and more like a failed state. Is the Prime Minister satisfied by the post-conflict planning and work that has been done? Does he agree that for stability to be restored in Libya, the UN-led process towards establishing a transitional Government must be followed? If so, what further steps does he believe the UK and its allies can take to support that approach?

On Greece, we welcome the deal agreed between the Greek Government and eurozone members last week and clearly the next few hours and days are crucial in ensuring its successful implementation. However, given that the four-month extension will run out, what does the Prime Minister think are the prospects of a long-term financing deal so that we do not face this crisis once again?

Finally, on Ukraine, we welcome the joint initiative by Chancellor Merkel and President Hollande for peace in Ukraine and support fully the conclusions of the Minsk agreement. As the United States has said, Russia continues to support ongoing separatist attacks in violation of the ceasefire. It is vital that the international community stands ready to increase the pressure by extending economic sanctions if President Putin refuses to change course. I welcome what the Prime Minister said on this, but will he reassure us that if Russia fails to meet its obligations under the terms of the Minsk agreement in the coming days there is an appetite in other EU countries for a united position on further sanctions against Russia? President Putin must understand that he risks further isolating Russia on the world stage if he continues to display belligerence and aggression in the face of international laws and norms. The world will act.

Anyone looking at the events of the past few months knows that we are living in incredibly challenging times for our security, freedom and values. In the face of those challenges, the right course for Britain is to be engaged in the world and to co-operate and lead in Europe. The attacks in Paris and Copenhagen aim to spread fear and divide our communities. They will fail. They will fail because people across Europe, including in Britain, are united in rejecting extremism. We have faced down these kind of threats before and will do so again.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his response to my statement and for his questions. Let me try to answer all of them. On the steps taken at the European Council that are material to fighting terrorism, I think that the movement on passenger name records is good news. The second thing agreed was about weapons. There is a particular issue with weapons that have been decommissioned and turned into model weapons, as some of those have been reconverted to dangerous weapons and used by criminals. We need more common standards across Europe to stop that happening.

I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about the three schoolgirls. We should do everything we can to prevent that from happening in future, as I set out in my statement, and we must do what we can for those girls and their families. On the Prevent programme—he makes this point regularly—I have to say that I think the criticism that it does not do enough to help individual communities is a little out of date. We commissioned a report by Lord Carlile, who is very respected in that area, and he recommended what we are now doing, which is splitting the programme into Prevent, which is about de-radicalisation, and the work done through the Department for Communities and Local Government, which is properly funded, to ensure that we encourage integration. All the evidence shows that the approach we are taking is better than what came before, and frankly I think that we should all get behind it.

The right hon. Gentleman asked some very good questions about the situation in Libya and about the appalling murder of the Coptic Christians on the beach in Libya. He asked whether I was satisfied with the post-conflict situation, and of course I am not. What NATO and our allies did, as he knows, was stop a murderous attempt by Gaddafi to kill his own people. We gave the Libyan people a chance to build a better future, and so far it is a chance that has not been taken. We need to do more to help them in that regard. The most important thing is to put together a Government of national unity, and Jonathan Powell—someone I am sure he is familiar with—is working extremely hard, with the full backing of the British Government, and with envoys from other countries, to try to put that national unity Government together.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the prospects for a long-term funding deal for Greece. I think that is still some way away. There will have to be give and take on both sides. At the European Council I was struck not only by the gap between the parties, but by the very strong feelings in those European countries that have taken difficult decisions and how little flexibility they appear to want to give Greece, so that is something we need to watch very carefully.

On Ukraine, I very much welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about sanctions. We need to demonstrate right across Europe and America that we are in this for the long haul and that if Russia continues to destabilise an independent, sovereign country, there will be further sanctions. He asked how much enthusiasm and appetite there is in other European countries. Frankly, that is where we will have to work very hard, and I think that all of us with contacts in different political parties and Governments in Europe can help with that process. It was interesting that even at the European Council there was some attempt to prevent the next round of sanctions from going ahead. Thankfully that was stopped and the sanctions have gone ahead, along with the naming of more individuals, but that is just a sign of how hard we will have to work to keep the consensus together.

With regard to the right hon. Gentleman’s closing remarks about rejecting extremism and standing up for the values of freedom and democracy that we believe in, and believing that ultimately those values will triumph, I absolutely agree.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I remind the House that, in accordance with usual practice, Members who arrived after the Prime Minister started his statement should not expect to be called to ask a question. I want to accommodate as many Members as I can on the statement but am keen to move on to the next business at, or as close as possible to, 5 o’clock.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the increasing assertiveness of Germany in the EU, as shown in the language used by Wolfgang Schaeuble regarding the Greeks, for example? Does he accept the assertion made by Mr Prodi on the “Today” programme last week that the Germans are the leaders in Europe? Does he accept that we must step up to the mark and show that we will stand up for the interests of not only the United Kingdom, but Europe as a whole, as we have in the past?

[The Prime Minister]

When it comes to issues about trade deals, single market issues and many foreign policy issues, Britain plays a key and leading role, as we have done over sanctions on Ukraine. On the question of how the Germans behave towards Greece, that is a matter for them. I know that if I were the German Chancellor and I had lent another country a lot of money, I would want to get it back. I think my hon. Friend and I agree that this is one of the fundamental challenges at the heart of the eurozone and is a permanent reminder of why we are better off outside it.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Of course, Greece’s problems are of its own making. However, Greece provides a vital service to the rest of the EU because it polices the external borders of the EU. Every month 7,000 illegal migrants cross the border between Turkey and Greece, and if we do not support Greece, that becomes our problem in the future. On the issue of our borders, will the Prime Minister confirm that we will have 100% exit checks by the end of March?

[The Prime Minister]

On the second point first, I am confident that our border exit checks will be in place by the end of March. That will transform the situation that this Government inherited, where fewer than 40% of people were counted in and out. That will be totally transformed in the future. On what the Greeks, the Italians and others do to man the external frontiers of Europe, it is vital work and we should support them, as we do through Frontex and so on, but we need to make sure that every country lives up to its obligations when people arrive in that country. It is remarkable that when one looks at the percentage of asylum claims within Europe that are still being heard in Germany, France or Britain—not the first points of entry—compared to the numbers being heard in Italy, Greece and Spain, there is still a marked contrast.

[Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

Russia is ignoring all the rules of the international community. The Russians are unreliable and cannot be trusted. Does my right hon. Friend feel that the diplomatic process has been exhausted? If the answer to that is yes, will he confirm that financial sanctions will be not only extended and deepened, but broadened to cover not just individuals, but the country as a whole?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think one should ever say that the diplomatic process is exhausted, because it always makes sense to talk about these matters, but that has to be backed by consequences when diplomatic efforts do not work out. So yes, I agree that we need to see more sanctions if the Russian attitude continues. There is a strong case for bringing forward the renewal of the sanctions, which otherwise would happen later in the year. My right hon. Friend makes a broader point, which is that if anyone thinks that this is an aberration on the part of Russia and if only we understood a little more and listened a little bit harder it would all be fine, we can now see that what happened in Georgia and Transnistria and what is happening in Ukraine is part of a pattern, and the only language that Russia will understand is very tough sanctions and continued pressure from Europe and the US, making our economic weight felt.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

Can the Prime Minister update the House on whether progress has been made to enable OSCE observers to have access to all parts of the eastern Ukraine? Without that, we will not get an accurate picture of what is happening on the ground.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is right. Some progress has been made. As I announced in my statement, further resources will be given, but the OSCE has not been able to get to every part of Ukraine and every part of the line of control, so the reports that it is able to give us are partial, rather than complete. As part of the Minsk agreements it is important that it has full access.

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend commend the patient work done by ambassador Michael Aron and British diplomats in Libya, together with Bernadino Leon, the UN special representative, to try to make sure that Libya has the future that its people died for? Does he agree that the imminence and the extremism of the ISIL threat mean that the factions in Libya now have to unite as never before in order to form that national Government and be able to face off the threat that they face from the extremists?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is correct. What is needed in Libya is a political coming together of the different parties. We obviously have to exclude those that are engaged in terrorism or violence, but we should try to bring together the other parties into a national unity Government because otherwise the danger of fracture, a broken state and ungoverned space that we are seeing with the presence of ISIL will only get worse. So I commend the efforts of our ambassadors. We need to work at this extremely hard.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I agree with the Prime Minister’s robust position on Russia. That is why I am so mystified that he still refuses to introduce a Magnitsky Act to ban the people who were involved in the murder of Sergei Magnitsky, and the people who were engaged in the corruption that he unveiled, from coming to this country. The Prime Minister has written me a letter—five letters, in fact. The latest one says that he does not

“comment on individual cases, as groups of individuals.”

Yet he has just stood at the Dispatch Box and announced new sanctions against individuals from Russia, through the EU. Why cannot we do it for ourselves in this House by introducing a Magnitsky Act?

[The Prime Minister]

Because the hon. Gentleman has been so persistent, and because he has written me so many letters and I have written him so many letters, I have had another look at whether there is a better way of doing things. I think the truth is that what we do, if there is a group of people involved in an appalling crime like this, is put them our warnings index and stop them coming to our country. The advantage is that we can then be even more expansive. Of course we know who—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask a question, why does he not listen to the answer? I would have thought that a former man of the cloth had better manners than that; I am trying to answer his question. I am assured that we are actually able to be more expansive. There are people we ban from this country who are not on other countries’ Magnitsky lists. I will write the hon. Gentleman a sixth letter and in that way try to make him happy.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

As the euro area moves towards political transfer and banking union, is there a growing recognition by other EU member states that the United Kingdom will need a new relationship based on trade and friendship because we cannot possibly be part of that political union?

[The Prime Minister]

There is a greater understanding that as the euro deepens with the banking union and other elements—I would argue that countries will one day need greater fiscal union and burden sharing—there is an understanding, which is discussed around the EU table, that the countries that are not in the EU are going to need some guarantees of their own, because otherwise, for instance, we will have a situation where a qualified majority of EU eurozone countries are able to dictate to the rest of Europe what it can and cannot do, and that would clearly be unacceptable. There is a growing recognition that change is required. That is why it is right, after the election, to go into a proper renegotiation and then hold an in-out referendum.

[Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)]

The Prime Minister spoke of increased contingency planning to deal with the euro crisis. Is it still his view that the euro must be held together come what may, or does he have any sympathy with the argument that Greece might be better off out?

[The Prime Minister]

My view has been consistent—it is that I do not think that Britain should join the euro, and I have been prepared to say “ever” on that basis. I put that in my election address back in 1997. It is not my responsibility what the euro does. My argument is very simple: it is in Britain’s interest that we have stability and growth on the continent. That is our argument; it is for the eurozone countries themselves to work out what are the right answers for them. I am very clear, and I have said this to a number of other European countries, that I would not be in the eurozone in the first place.

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

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has spoken very eloquently about the arc of horror spreading from Libya through Ukraine, down to Yemen and South Sudan, and out to Iraq. May I encourage him to focus on the fact that in the end we do not have the solutions, because neither air strikes nor sanctions nor standard training packages are going to deal with these problems? We need to invest much more heavily in the people on the ground who have a deep cultural understanding of these places to begin to provide the options on which we can work, and so we must invest in defence engagement.

[The Prime Minister]

I would take the argument even further back and say that we are facing not simply a set of countries with broken institutions and extremism, but an extremist Islamist movement that is occurring, obviously, in Syria and Iraq most strongly, but also in Libya, in Mali, and elsewhere. The fact that young girls can be radicalised on the internet in their bedrooms here in Britain and want to travel across the world to join it demonstrates the scale of the problem we have. My hon. Friend is right that this is not simply about investing in defence capacity and the ability to take part in military action; it is about everything from de-radicalisation at home all the way through to the diplomatic and defence engagement that he speaks about.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Last week, the Defence Secretary said that he was worried about President Putin’s pressure on the Baltic states, which are in the EU and NATO, and the consequential testing of NATO that that is bringing about. Will the Prime Minister update the House on whether the NATO rapid reaction force is having the desired effect, and explain whether he thinks that Britain could do more to contribute?

[The Prime Minister]

The Defence Secretary is absolutely right to refer to the unease and insecurity that the Baltic states feel when faced with such Russian behaviour. When I talk to Prime Ministers from the Baltic states, they make that point very vigorously and talk about some of the trade embargos that Russia puts in place, but they are also incredibly grateful for the support that Britain gives, whether through the readiness action plan we helped draw up in Wales, the 4,000 UK troops who are taking part in exercises in eastern Europe this year or the air policing missions that our Typhoons fly over the skies of the Baltic states. Those things really matter, but we should show real understanding of the insecurity that the Baltic states feel.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

A lot has happened since the European Council and people in Ukraine are concerned that there is a real possibility that the unrest may spread beyond the territory currently held by the pro-Russian separatists. I welcome the stand taken by the Prime Minister, together with other European leaders, on sanctions, but could he give a realistic estimate of how rapidly he thinks future sanctions could be introduced, and when does he think Russia will finally get the message?

[The Prime Minister]

I think the best way to answer my right hon. Friend’s question is to say that that will, of course, depend on what happens next in terms of the Russian-backed separatists and Russia itself. What happened in Debaltseve—after the Minsk agreement was signed—should teach a lesson to anybody who thinks that this is going to be easily solved and that Russia will walk away. Frankly, if we see more behaviour like that, I think the argument at the European Council should be about how quickly can we renew the sanctions that we renewed later in the year anyway, and how quickly can we add to them. Certainly, that is the argument that Britain will make, and many others will make it with us. At the end of the day, as I have said from this Dispatch Box many times, Europe and America have to make the weight of our economic relationship pay against Russia. In the end, Russia needs us more than we need Russia. We need to make that relationship pay and then we can get it to change its approach.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is reported that the Government have been privately discussing the implications of a Greek exit from the euro. Greek exit will happen sooner or later, and it is inevitable, in my view, that other countries will follow. Has the Prime Minister discussed with his European counterparts the implications of such a wider collapse of the euro and, if so, what has emerged from those discussions?

[The Prime Minister]

I will be very frank about the discussions I have been having. I thought it was important to chair some discussions here in the UK about what the consequences of Greek exit from the eurozone would be, because there is a chance that it could happen. If it does happen, we would need to make sure that our banks were secure—which they are—that our businesses understood what the consequences of Greek exit would be and that we could support tourists, dual nationals and British people who live in Greece. Those are all important questions that we should consider. Some criticised me for holding those meetings, but, to be frank, I would argue that any responsible Prime Minister in any responsible European country should do exactly that.

There are mixed opinions about the question whether a Greek exit from the eurozone would be followed by other countries exiting, because the spread of bond yields between Spanish, Portuguese and other bonds and Greek bonds has been very different in recent months compared with 2011. I am clear about what my responsibility is: to encourage the eurozone countries to come to agreements that can get their economies to grow and the continent to stabilise, and, back at home, to be very clear that we are ready for any eventuality, including a Greek exit from the eurozone.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

On tackling international terrorism, calling this evil organisation ISIL or Islamic State—no such state exists— only gives it legitimacy by linking it to Islam. Why not call it what Prince Turki al-Faisal of Saudi Arabia calls it, namely Faesh, meaning an obscene organisation committing obscenities?

[The Prime Minister]

I think there is a case for that, but there has not been a tradition of calling it Daesh in Britain and I think people would find it difficult to know exactly what we were referring to. Some media organisations refer to it as either “ISIL” or “so-called Islamic State” and I think that is better than “Islamic State”, because, frankly, it is not a picture of what millions of people who follow the religion of Islam see as Islam. It is also very arguable whether it is a functioning state, so I think that “so-called” or “self-styled Islamic State” is better. I do not think that “Daesh” would be widely understood, although people in the middle east, France and elsewhere use it as a term.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree that every day we should all give thanks for the fact that Britain did not join the euro? Does he agree that the eurozone and the EU seem to be much tougher on Greece than they are on Russia, and is that simply because Greece is small and Russia is large?

[The Prime Minister]

This issue is not really for Britain, but between Greece and her creditors. I am happy to say that, because this Government got us out of the bail-out zones, we are not one of Greece’s creditors. All I can say is that I understand the passions on both sides. I can understand why German and Dutch Prime Ministers feel so strongly that they must get back the money they have lent and should not take a massive loss, but I can also understand the desire of the Greek people to see some economic growth after having seen their GDP decline 25%, so one can understand the arguments. Fundamentally, this is part of the problem of the design of the eurozone, which is why we are not in it.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I overheard two constituents talking about the EU. They were discussing why the country should come out of this terrible superstate. One of them said, “In this country, we have created more jobs than the rest of the EU added together”, and the other one said, “Well, it’s happening in north Northamptonshire: in Kettering, unemployment has fallen by more than 50%; in Wellingborough, it has fallen by more than 55%; and in Corby, it has fallen by more than 60%.” The thing that Mrs Bone and Tom Pursglove, the excellent Conservative candidate for Corby, agreed on was that the long-term economic plan is working. Are they right?

[The Prime Minister]

It is obviously good to bring those characters together in one good story. The point I would make is that it is true we have created more jobs in Britain than the rest of the EU put together over the past four and three-quarter years, which is 1,000 jobs a day. I would argue that the best way to go on creating jobs is to reform the European Union, have the renegotiation and then have a referendum, where the best outcome would be Britain remaining part of a reformed European Union. I think we can get the best of both worlds.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

One of the schoolgirls was lured over Twitter by another girl from the same school who had gone to Syria just before Christmas. Surely, that demonstrates to the Prime Minister the weakness of his relying on a voluntary approach with social media firms. Will he explain why the authorities did not keep track of the girl who had already gone to Syria?

[The Prime Minister]

That is a very difficult question. We do not have an entirely voluntary approach with social media companies. We passed a law through this House, the so-called DRIPA legislation—the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014—so that we can enforce the extraterritoriality of our desire to see the data and content of communications between potential terrorists. We have that legal power because of the work we have done during this Parliament. The point I made in my statement, and which I will continue to make, is that getting organisations such as Twitter, Facebook and Google to help us, where possible, to combat terrorist extremism voluntarily—by taking down pages with extremist content, and revealing to us people whom they think might be at risk of radicalisation, extremism or worse—is all to the good, but when it comes to combating terrorism, we have legal remedies as well.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

The Government have made real progress in this Parliament in raising awareness and preventing the online sexual exploitation of young British people. Will my right hon. Friend commit to putting just as much effort into preventing the radicalisation and recruitment of young British people into these hateful terrorist organisations?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is interesting that when we started down the path of saying to internet companies that they must help us to get child pornography and disgusting child sex pictures off the internet, the response was, “We’re not responsible for what people look for; we’re not responsible for doing anything other than supporting free speech.” To be fair to those organisations, they have moved miles from that position. They have now banned something like 40,000 repulsive search terms: if people plug them into their computer, they will get a nil return on them. They have done that not just in Britain, but all over the world. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we now need to get them to apply the same thinking to the problems of extremist violence and terrorism. There are some differences, but I am quite clear that if we ask companies to employ some social responsibility, they can work with us to take down even more pages than they do today.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister says that he understands the arguments on both sides of the Greece-euro divide, but does he understand the implications for the United Kingdom of the instability of a four-month negotiation? The difficulties that are being created for our economy and our ability to export make it critical that we do everything we can to resolve the situation. He mentioned the word “encourage”. Will he tell us how he can encourage a successful negotiation between the parties?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, not being in the euro and not being a creditor of Greece, we do not have as much say as countries that have lent vast amounts of money to Greece and that see that money at risk. There are areas where we can and do help. For instance, Treasury officials have helped the Greek authorities to modernise their tax system, so that they actually collect tax from people who live in Greece, and those officials should do so again.

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

We appear to have emerged at a near consensus, albeit born of hindsight, that it is a very good thing that the United Kingdom is not in the eurozone. Has the Prime Minister taken the time to reflect that many of those who are issuing dire warnings about the consequences of renegotiation and trusting the British people in an in/out referendum are the very same people who advocated our immediate membership of the single currency? Will he undertake not to listen to them, as there is a chance that they are as mistaken today as they proved to be then?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It was noticeable that the British Chambers of Commerce, which is one of the biggest business organisations in Britain, far from being against a renegotiation and a referendum, came out in favour of a renegotiation and a referendum. Since we announced the renegotiation and the referendum, investment from the rest of the world into Britain has not dried up and there has not been uncertainty; we have seen record amounts of investment from China, India and America into Britain—often more than into other European countries.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Returning to the serious situation in Ukraine, the deadline of Thursday for the withdrawal of heavy artillery from the front line is fast approaching. I would be grateful if the Prime Minister gave his analysis of what progress is being made, told us whether he thinks the deadline will be met and said what plan of action he has if the deadline is not met.

[The Prime Minister]

Frankly, since the signing of the Minsk accords—so-called Minsk II—the progress has been very disappointing. The first thing that happened was the encircling, shelling and destruction of Debaltseve by massive numbers of Russian rockets, tanks and guns. That tells us all we need to know about the bona fides of the people we are dealing with. Having said that, I commend Angela Merkel for the great diplomatic efforts, and we should still, even now, be trying to get the parties to the Minsk agreement to deliver what they said they would, including the withdrawal of the heavy weaponry. We should use this moment to say to those in Europe who have been less certain about Russian action and sanctions, “Look what we are dealing with.” They must recognise that it is in all our interests to stick together and take a very tough approach.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that local communities and all public bodies need to work together and make a concerted effort to identify vulnerable young people to prevent another situation like that of the three girls who recently went to Syria, which is surely every parent’s worst nightmare?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Anyone who watched the mother of one of the young girls on television last night, saying that all she wanted was for her to come home, could not help but be moved by her testimony. Of course we need our police and border security to do everything they can to prevent people from travelling in such circumstances, but we also need schools, universities and colleges to put aside concerns about cultural sensitivities and such like, and ensure that they are doing everything they can to tackle people who are at risk of radicalisation. This problem is quite similar in some ways to that of forced marriage, where people have disappeared from schools in parts of the country where there has not been proper advertising and protection in the schools, and to the problem of female genital mutilation. It is happening on an enormous scale and that is why we need to take such action.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Many people are working in our communities to try to prevent young people from becoming radicalised. I recently met a youth worker from my local Islamic centre who is concerned that the Prevent work he is doing may come to an end at the end of March, and he has not heard about any future funding. I support what the Prime Minister has said today, but when he next meets the Home Secretary will he ensure that organisations in our communities that are doing excellent work are given some security about future funding, so that they can continue doing it?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly look at what the hon. Gentleman has said, but from what I have seen, particularly after announcements made in the light of Woolwich, Prevent funding has increased and the money is there. As I said, we have tried to divide that money between the Prevent work, which includes a programme of channelling people who have been radicalised away from radicalisation, and a lot of community work that is about integration and supporting things such as the Big Iftar, and encouraging mosques and community centres to open themselves up and for others to come in. That has been a great success.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

Following the criticism over the weekend, does the Prime Minister agree that our intelligence and security services are doing the most amazing job in incredibly difficult times, and that we should pay tribute to every woman and man working in those services?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the chance to say thank you to those people, because they are working round the clock to try to prevent plots against this country. They are having to prioritise whom they should be keeping the closest eye on—they have to make those judgments all the time and we cannot expect them to get it right every single time. What is so remarkable is how they do get it right, and even in the last three or four months they have prevented as many as three different plots, for instance to behead a police officer on British streets. We should pay tribute to those people and thank them for the amazing work they do.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Patience has its own reward. Mr Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I have many friends and contacts in Libya who tell me that it is awash with firearms that are fuelling ISIL. What discussions has the Prime Minister had with the Libyan Government to prevent access to the weapon warehouse that is Libya at the moment?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is right, and the preponderance of weapons in Libya, where there are more weapons than there are people, is part of the problem. This goes to the problem of there being so many different armed militias, which in turn goes to the problem of how to create a national Government of unity where the militias are disarmed, and either disband or effectively become part of the armed forces or the police and security of that country. Britain has put in a lot of effort, including trying to train some of the armed forces of that country to give them a central force and central state to start to enforce some order. The state of Libya is in such chaos at the moment that it is very difficult to do that work, and the first step must be a national unity Government.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

We have all seen the terrible difficulties in Libya over many years, and there seems to be consensus that work on the national unity Government is a priority. What discussions did the Prime Minister have with fellow European leaders about Egyptian requests that there ought to be limited strikes against ISIS in Libya?

[The Prime Minister]

One can understand the need to tackle ISIL directly in Libya, but with the Egyptian Government we must ensure that we do not try to solve the problems of Libya by backing simply one faction that could form part of a national unity Government against other factions. If we do that, we are likely to create even more of a civil war in Libya. One of the keys is to work with the Egyptians and others in the middle east, and with the Americans, to try to bring everyone together—apart from, of course, those organisations involved in terrorism—into a national unity Government.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I commend this Government for initiating the feasibility study into the resettlement of the Chagos islands. While we are still net contributors to the EU, at the next European Council will my right hon. Friend seek European development funding to realise that resettlement of the British Indian Ocean Territory?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question—I think I am right in saying that a substantial number of Chagos islanders live in Crawley. This is the first Government to really sit down and think about what we could do to help, which is why we commissioned the resettlement studies. Those studies have been drawn up and the National Security Council will consider whether further steps could be taken. My hon. Friend’s idea of looking at European funding is intriguing, and I will consider it and get back to him.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

There have been disturbing reports in the past 48 hours of threats to shopping centres in London, the United States and Canada. At the European Council, did my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discuss working with local community leaders to help to prevent such attacks from happening in this country?

[The Prime Minister]

We discussed at the European Council the appalling attacks in Copenhagen and Paris. They had some similarities with the sorts of attacks put forward in the video by al-Shabaab, which again have some similarities with things that happened in Mumbai and elsewhere, where there were a number of attackers marauding with firearms and other weapons. Obviously, we take every such threat very seriously. The police are analysing that video.

What I would say has already happened in Britain is that, after Mumbai and intelligence linked to Mumbai, we held a series of meetings and other exercises to try to make sure that we are prepared to deal with those sorts of events. It is very difficult to plan, but in Britain, the counter-terrorism policing, the strength of our police services, the number of armed police officers, the ability of our special forces and others to come to assistance, and the work that the ambulance, the fire service and others can do in so-called “hot zones” where there are still weapons being fired all show that we have prepared, as much as we can, for the threats we undoubtedly face.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

As a former airline manager, I totally support the Prime Minister’s determination to get full access to airline passenger name records, which would be to the advantage of Governments in both preventing terrorist movements and protecting young and vulnerable UK nationals. Will my right hon. Friend say how long it will take to have an EU directive that is endorsed by all member Governments? Would it not be faster to have something domestically that we could implement at our own airports fairly soon?

[The Prime Minister]

There are quite a lot of steps we can take already with other countries, non-EU countries, where we can agree to the exchange of passenger name records. As I said, this is not just the names of people, but details of bank accounts and how they booked the ticket, in order to find potential signals of terrorist activity. It would be very frustrating if we could not agree it within the EU, but I am sure we will. What has happened in Copenhagen and Paris has, I think, made people realise just how important it is, but a lot of it will depend on the work being done by the European Parliament.

Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Committee.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am saving up the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone); it would be a pity to waste him at this early stage of our proceedings. We will come to him for his point of order, he can be assured of that. Before that, however, I have the following to say.

As the Government have not moved the programme motion, proceedings will be taken in the customary order on consideration: Government new clauses first, then other new clauses, and then amendments in the order they occur in the Bill. We will start as originally envisaged, with the group on child exploitation and so on. We will then take the group on other issues, and then there is, for consideration, the group on abortion. The selection list has been reissued, and the amendment paper has been reissued with the revised order. Proceedings on Report may continue until 9 pm, and Third Reading until 10 pm, under the earlier programme motion.

That is what I have got to say for now, but let us hear the point of order from Mr David Burrowes first.

[Mr Burrowes]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As the programme motion is not being moved, of which there was good notice, new clauses 1 and clause 25, which deal with the important issue of gender-selective abortion, have effectively been shunted to the end of proceedings. I understand fully, and the House understands fully, the importance of addressing child exploitation and protection, and how they are integral to this very important Bill. That needs proper debate and scrutiny. However, gender-selective abortion is also a matter of public interest. Concerns have been raised across the country, not least by the more than 100 Members of Parliament who have put their name to new clause 1. There is a concern that, unless there is great restraint from parliamentarians in the debate, we may not even get to the point of being able to move those new clauses.

Mr Speaker, you have championed the role of the Back Bencher. New clause 1 was tabled in the scintilla of time available between Committee and Report, and now we run the risk of not getting to this business before the end of our consideration. With respect, I wish to suggest a way out and to ask for your guidance, Mr Speaker. According to the selection paper, after we have considered child exploitation and protection, we will move on to “other issues”, including investigative powers, the publication of names, firearms offences, new psychoactive substances and money laundering measures. Could you also include under “other issues” the important other issue of gender-selective abortion? Otherwise, we will be left to rely on your customary guidance and urging of restraint across the House to ensure we get to the matter.

In conclusion, we are all concerned about the esteem in which Parliament is held. I put Parliament on notice that if we do not get to the issue of gender-selective abortion, the public will hold us in disrepute, and it will be a grave day for Parliament.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Bone]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

We shall come to the hon. Gentleman shortly—I have been saving him up, and I hope he is not going to disappoint me. I call Helen Goodman.

[Helen Goodman]

Mr Speaker, do you agree that had the House agreed with the Procedure Committee report on this problem of Report, this problem would not have arisen this afternoon?

[Mr Speaker]

That might well be so. I do not have the details of that report with me, but I think it only courteous and perhaps charitable to observe that the hon. Lady was for a period a distinguished ornament of that Committee, and it might well be that it was her own intellectual stimulation that led to the report in question. She is too modest and self-effacing to claim the credit directly, but she might appreciate my proffering it in her direction instead.

I will come back to Mr Burrowes’ point of order, but not before I have heard from Mr Peter Bone.

[Mr Bone]

I am interested to hear your response to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), because I am also concerned about the amount of time being allowed for debate, so I will leave it like that.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the self-denying ordinance that he has exercised. I say two things to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). First, I had understood that he was going to ask me whether it would be in order, in the absence of a Minister moving the programme motion, for him to move it, and I had intended to say that no it would not be in order for him to do so, because he is not a Minister and had not signed the motion. However, as he did not raise the point, I will not make the point that I would have made if he had.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman inquires into the possibility of eliding—if I can put it that way—consideration of the abortion new clauses into the “other issues” group. He has raised an extremely important point, but there is merit first in seeing what progress we make on the first group. I shall reflect on his point, which I take extremely seriously, over the next hour or so and then advise the House of my conclusion. I make him no promise, but I shall consider his suggestion very seriously. I hope that that is helpful.

New Clause 8

Child sexual exploitation

‘(1) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (6).

(2) For the heading before section 47 substitute “Sexual exploitation of children”.

(3) In section 48 (headed “Causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography”)—

(a) in the heading, for “child prostitution or pornography” substitute “sexual exploitation of a child”;

(b) in subsection (1)(a), for “to become a prostitute, or to be involved in pornography,” substitute “to be sexually exploited”.

(4) In section 49 (headed “Controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography”)—

(a) in the heading, for “prostitute or a child involved in pornography” substitute “in relation to sexual exploitation”;

(b) in subsection (1)(a), for “prostitution or involvement in pornography” substitute “sexual exploitation”.

(5) In section 50 (headed “Arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography”)—

(a) in the heading, for “child prostitution or pornography” substitute “sexual exploitation of a child”;

(b) in subsection (1)(a), for “prostitution or involvement in pornography” substitute “sexual exploitation”.

(6) In section 51 (interpretation of sections 48 to 50)—

(a) omit subsection (1);

(b) for subsection (2) substitute—

“(2) For the purposes of sections 48 to 50, a person (B) is sexually exploited if—

(a) on at least one occasion and whether or not compelled to do so, B offers or provides sexual services to another person in return for payment or a promise of payment to B or a third person, or

(b) an indecent image of B is recorded;

and “sexual exploitation” is to be interpreted accordingly.”

(7) In section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959 (loitering or soliciting for purposes of prostitution), in subsection (1), after “person” insert “aged 18 or over”.” —(Mr Buckland.)

This New Clause replaces the references to child prostitution and pornography in sections 48 to 51 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 with references to the sexual exploitation of children (without altering the substance of the relevant offences), and also restricts to adults the offence of loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution.

Brought up, and read the First time.

17:09

[The Solicitor-General (Mr Robert Buckland)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment (a) to new clause 8, leave out

“offers or provides sexual services to”

and insert

“prepares to engage in, or engages in, sexual activity with”.

Government new clause 9—Duty to notify police of female genital mutilation.

Government new clause 10—Guidance about female genital mutilation.

New clause 2—Official Secrets Act 1989 (additional defence)—

‘(1) The Official Secrets Act 1989 is amended as follows—

(2) After section 8, insert—

“(8A) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under any provision of this Act to prove that he knew, or had reasonable cause to believe, that the information, document or article disclosed was—

(a) germane to an official investigation of, or inquiry into, historic child abuse, and

(b) provided only to an officer of such an investigation or inquiry.”’

New clause 3—Child sexual exploitation—

‘(1) In section 1(1) of the Street Offences Act 1059 (Loitering or soliciting for purposes of prostitution), after “female)”, insert “, aged 18 or over,”.

(2) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended as follows.

(3) In section 48 (Causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography)—

(a) in the title of the section, for “prostitution” substitute “sexual exploitation”; and

(b) in subsection (1)(a), for “become a prostitute” substitute “be sexually exploited”.

(4) In section 49 (Controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography)—

(a) in the title of the section, for “child prostitute” substitute “sexually exploited child”; and

(b) in subsection (1)(a), for “prostitution” substitute “sexual exploitation”.

(5) In section 50 (Arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography)—

(a) in the title of the section, for “child prostitution or pornography” substitute “the sexual exploitation of a child or sexual images of children”; and

(b) in subsection (1)(a), for “prostitution” substitute “sexual exploitation”.

(6) In section 51 (Sections 48 to 50: interpretation), in subsection (2), for “prostitute” substitute “sexually exploited child”; for “prostitution” substitute “sexual exploitation”.

(7) References in any Act, Regulation, Order or other legislative instrument to the sections and titles mentioned in this section shall be interpreted as referring to the sections and titles as amended by this section.”

New clause 11—Child protection: 16 and 17 year olds living with their families—

‘(1) The Children’s Act 1933 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 1 insert—

“1A Cruelty to a person aged sixteen or seventeen

(1) If any person A, who has attained the age of eighteen years and is personally connected to a child B aged sixteen or seventeen, wilfully assaults, ill-treats (whether physically or psychologically), neglects, abandons, or exposes him, or causes or procures for him to be assaulted, ill-treated (whether physically or psychologically), neglected, abandoned, or exposed, in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or injury to health (including injury to or loss of sight, or hearing, or limb, or organ of the body and whether the injury is of physical or psychological nature), that person shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable—

(a) on conviction or indictment, to a fine or alternatively, or in addition thereto, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding 10 years;

(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £400 pounds, or alternatively, or in addition thereto, to imprisonment not exceeding six months.

(2) For the purposes of this section—

(a) A and B are considered to be personally connected if at the time of the offence they live together, and

(i) A has parental responsibility for B

(ii) A is a relative of B

(iii) A is or has been married or civil partner to B’s parent.

(b) A shall be deemed to have neglected B in a manner likely to cause injury to his health if he has failed to provide adequate food, clothing, medical aid or lodging for him or if, having been unable otherwise to provide such food, clothing, medical aid or lodging, he has failed to take steps to procure it to be provided to B.

(3) A person may be convicted of an offence under this section—

(a) notwithstanding that actual suffering or injury to health, or the likelihood of actual suffering or injury to health, was obviated by the action of another person;

(b) notwithstanding the death of B.

(4) In subsection (2)—

“parental responsibility” has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989;

“relative” has the meaning given by section 63(1) of the Family Law Act 1996”.

New clause 15—Encouragement of Female Genital Mutilation Warning Notices and Orders (EWNs and EWOs)—

In the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, after section 2A (offence of Encouragement of Female Genital Mutilation) insert—

“2B Power to issue an Encouragement of Female Genital Mutilation warning notice

(1) A member of a police force not below the rank of superintendent (“the authorising officer”) may issue an Encouragement of Female Genital Mutilation warning notice (an “EWN”) under this section.

(2) An EWN may be issued to a person (“A”) who is aged 18 or over if the authorising officer has reasonable grounds for believing that A has been encouraging the genital mutilation of women and girls as defined in section 1.

(3) Before issuing an EWN, the authorising officer must, in particular, consider any representations made by A as to the issuing of the EWN.

(4) The authorising officer must take reasonable steps to obtain the representations mentioned in subsection (3).

(5) An EWN must prohibit A from encouraging the genital mutilation of women and girls.

2C Contents and service of an Encouragement of Female Genital Mutilation warning notice

‘(1) An EWN must state—

(a) the grounds on which it has been issued;

(b) that a constable may arrest A without warrant if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that A is in breach of the EWN;

(c) that an application for an Encouragement of Female Genital Mutilation warning order (an “EWO”) under section (application for an EWO) shall be heard within 48 hours of the time of service of the EWN and notice time and place of the hearing will be given to A, and shall state that the EWN continues in effect until that application has been determined.

(2) An EWN must be in writing and must be served on A personally by a constable.

(3) On serving A with an EWN, the constable must ask A for an address for the purposes of being given notice of the hearing of the application for the Encouragement of Female Genital Mutilation warning order.

2D Breach of an Encouragement of Female Genital Mutilation warning notice

‘(1) A person arrested by virtue of section (contents and service of an EWN) for a breach of an EWN shall be held in custody and brought before the magistrates’ court which will hear the application for the EWO under (application for an EWO)—

(a) before the end of the period of 24 hours beginning with the time of the arrest; or

(b) if earlier, at the hearing of that application.

(2) If the person is brought before the court by virtue of subsection (1)(a), the court may remand the person.

(3) If the court adjourns the hearing of the application by virtue of subsection 6(8), the court may remand the person.

(4) In calculating when the period of 24 hours mentioned in subsection (1)(a) ends, Christmas Day, Good Friday, any Sunday and any day which is a bank holiday in England and Wales under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 are to be disregarded.

2E Application for an Encouragement of Female Genital Mutilation warning order

‘(1) If an EWN has been issued, a constable must apply for an Encouragement of Female Genital mutilation warning order (an “EWO”).

(2) The application must be made by complaint to a magistrates’ court.

(3) The application must be heard by the magistrates’ court no later than 48 hours after the EWN was served pursuant to section (contents and service of an EWN).

(4) In calculating when the period of 48 hours mentioned in subsection (3) ends, Christmas Day, Good Friday, any Sunday and any day which is a bank holiday in England and Wales under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 are to be disregarded.

(5) Notice of the time and place of the hearing of the application must be given to A.

(6) The notice is deemed given if it has been left at the address given by A under section 4(3).

(7) If the notice has not been given because no address was given by A under section 4(3), the court may hear the application for the EWO if the court is satisfied that the constable applying for the EWO has made reasonable efforts to give A the notice.

(8) The magistrates’ court may adjourn the hearing of the application.

(9) If the court adjourns the hearing, the EWN continues in effect until the application has been determined.

(10) On the hearing of an application for an EWO, section 97 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 (summons to witness and warrant for his arrest) does not apply in relation to a person for whose protection the EWO would be made, except where the person has given oral or written evidence at the hearing.

2F Conditions for and contents of an Encouragement of Female Genital Mutilation warning order (EWO)

‘(1) The court may make an EWO if two conditions are met.

(2) The first condition is that the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the conditions set out in section 3(2) are met.

(3) The second condition is that the court is satisfied that making the EWO is necessary to protect women and girls from harm as a result of the encouragement of FGM by A.

(4) An EWO must state that a constable may arrest A without warrant if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that A is in breach of the EWO.

(5) An EWO may be in force for—

(a) no fewer than 14 days beginning with the day on which it is made; and

(b) up to a maximum of seven years from that date.

(6) An EWO must state the period for which it is to be in force.

2G Breach of an Encouragement of Female Genital Mutilation warning order

‘(1) A person arrested by virtue of section (conditions for and contents of an EWO) for a breach of an EWO must be held in custody and brought before a magistrates’ court within the period of 24 hours beginning with the time of the arrest.

(2) If the matter is not disposed of when the person is brought before the court, the court may remand the person.

(3) In calculating when the period of 24 hours mentioned in subsection (1) ends, Christmas Day, Good Friday, any Sunday and any day which is a bank holiday in England and Wales under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 are to be disregarded.

2H Further provision about remand

‘(1) This section applies for the purposes of the remand of a person by a magistrates’ court under section (Breach of an EWN) or (Breach of an EWO).

(2) In the application of section 128(6) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 for those purposes, the reference to the “other party” is to be read—

(a) in the case of a remand prior to the hearing of an application for an EWO, as a reference to the authorising officer; and

(b) in any other case, as a reference to the constable who applied for the EWO.

(3) If the court has reason to suspect that a medical report will be required, the power to remand a person may be exercised for the purpose of enabling a medical examination to take place and a report to be made.

(4) If the person is remanded in custody for that purpose, the adjournment may not be for more than three weeks at a time.

(5) If the person is remanded on bail for that purpose, the adjournment may not be for more than four weeks at a time.

(6) If the court has reason to suspect that the person is suffering from a mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983, the court has the same power to make an order under section 35 of that Act (remand to hospital for medical report) as it has under that section in the case of an accused person (within the meaning of that section).

(7) The court may, when remanding the person on bail, require the person to comply before release on bail or later, with such requirements as appear to the court to be necessary to secure that the person does not interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.

2I Guidance

‘(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance relating to the exercise by a constable of functions under section (Power to issue an EWN).

(2) A constable must have regard to any guidance issued under subsection (1) when exercising a function to which the guidance relates.

(3) Before issuing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Association of Chief Police Officers;

(b) the National Crime Agency; and

(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks fit.”

New clause 16—Offence of encouragement of female genital mutilation—

‘(1) The Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 is amended as follows:

(2) After section 2 (offence of assisting a girl to mutilate her own genitalia) insert—

“(2A) Offence of encouragement of female genital mutilation—

(a) a person is guilty of an offence of encouragement of female genital mutilation if he makes a statement that is likely to be understood by some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to mutilate the genitalia of a girl;

(b) A person commits an offence if—

(i) he publishes a statement to which this section applies or causes another to publish such a statement; and

(ii) at the time he publishes it or causes it to be published, he—

(a) intends members of the public to be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to mutilate the genitalia of a girl; or

(b) is reckless as to whether members of the public will be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to mutilate the genitalia of a girl.””

New clause 17—Mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse—

‘(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) he is involved in the provision of regulated activity as defined by section 5 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 for which he is paid;

(b) he is a provider of regulated activity as defined by section 6 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006;

(c) he becomes aware that a child has been harmed in connection to the regulated activity; and

(d) he does not inform a relevant authority of this harm.

(2) A person does not commit an offence under this section if—

(a) he can demonstrate he acted in the best interests of the child, or

(b) he complied with relevant professional guidelines or institutional guidelines for the reporting of abuse as he believed them to be, complying with institutional guidelines for the reporting of abuse can include informing another individual with relevant safeguarding responsibilities.

(3) In this section “harm” means conduct which amounts to one of the following offences—

(a) cruelty to and neglect of children;

(b) cruelty to children/young persons;

(c) child abduction;

(d) rape of a female child under 16;

(e) rape of a female child under 13;

(f) rape of a male child under 16;

(g) rape of a male child under 13;

(h) sexual assault on a male child under 13;

(i) sexual assault on a female child under 13;

(j) sexual activity involving a child under 13;

(k) sexual activity involving a child under 16;

(l) sexual exploitation of children;

(m) abuse of position of trust of a sexual nature; and

(n) sexual grooming.

(4) The Secretary of State may, by way of regulation, make guidance as to the interpretation of subsection (2) or amend subsection (3).

(5) Any regulations made under subsection (4) must be subject to an affirmative procedure of both Houses of Parliament.

(6) In this section “relevant authority” means—

(a) the local authority with safeguarding authorities;

(b) the local police force; and

(c) the Disclosure and Barring Service.

(7) A person guilty of an offence under this Part of this Act shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both such imprisonment and fine;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years.”

New clause 19—Child abduction warning notice—

In the Child Abduction Act 1984, after section 2 (offence of abduction of child by other person) insert—

“2A Power to issue a child abduction warning notice

(1) A member of a police force not below the rank of superintendent (“the authorising officer”) may issue a child abduction warning notice (“a CAWN”) under this section.

(2) A CAWN may be issued to a person (“A”) aged 18 years or over if the authorising officer has reasonable grounds for believing that—

(a) A has without lawful authority or reasonable excuse been found in the company of a child (“C”); and

(b) C is reported missing and is found on two or more occasions to be in the company of A; or

(c) there is reason to suspect that C‘s behaviour is, by reason of association with the defendant, giving significant cause for concern.

(3) Before issuing a CAWN, the authorising officer must, in particular, take reasonable steps to gather and consider—

(a) representations made by the person with lawful authority for C; and

(b) representations made by A as to the issuing of the CAWN.

(4) A CAWN must prohibit A from being in the company of C.

2B Contents and service of a child abduction warning notice

‘(1) A CAWN must state—

(a) the grounds on which it has been issued;

(b) that a constable may arrest A without warrant if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that A is in breach of the CAWN;

(c) that an application for a child abduction warning order under section 2D will be heard within 48 hours of the time of service of the CAWN and a notice of the hearing will be given to A;

(d) that the CAWN continues in effect until that application has been determined; and

(e) the provisions that a magistrates’ court may include in a child abduction warning order (CAWO) under sections 2D and 2E.

(2) A CAWN must be in writing and must be served on A personally by a constable.

(3) On serving A with a CAWN, the constable must ask A for an address for the purposes of being given the notice of the hearing of the application for the child abduction warning order.

2C Breach of a child abduction warning notice

‘(1) A person arrested by virtue of section 2B(1)(b) for a breach of a CAWN must be held in custody and brought before the magistrates’ court which will hear the application for a child abduction warning order (CAWO) under sections 2D and 2E—

(a) before the end of the period of 24 hours beginning with the time of the arrest; or

(b) if earlier, at the hearing of that application.

(2) If the person is brought before the court by virtue of subsection (1)(a), the court may remand the person.

(3) If the court adjourns the hearing of the application by virtue of subsection 2D(8), the court may remand the person.

(4) In calculating when the period of 24 hours mentioned in subsection (1)(a) of this section ends, Christmas Day, Good Friday, any Sunday and any day which is a bank holiday in England and Wales under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 are to be disregarded.

2D Application for a child abduction warning order

‘(1) If a CAWN has been issued, a constable must apply for a child abduction warning order (“a CAWO”).

(2) The application must be made by complaint to a magistrates’ court.

(3) The application must be heard by the magistrates’ court no later than 48 hours after the CAWN was served pursuant to section 2B(2).

(4) In calculating when the period of 48 hours mentioned in subsection (3) of this section ends, Christmas Day, Good Friday, any Sunday and any day which is a bank holiday in England and Wales under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 are to be disregarded.

(5) A notice of the hearing of the application must be given to A.

(6) The notice is deemed given if it has been left at the address given by A under section 2B(3).

(7) But if the notice has not been given because no address was given by A under section 2B(3), the court may hear the application for the CAWO if the court is satisfied that the constable applying for the CAWO has made reasonable efforts to give A the notice.

(8) The magistrates’ court may adjourn the hearing of the application.

(9) If the court adjourns the hearing, the CAWN continues in effect until the application has been determined.

(10) On the hearing of an application for a CAWO, section 97 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 (summons to witness and warrant for his arrest) does not apply in relation to a person for whose protection the CAWO would be made, except where the person has given oral or written evidence at the hearing.

2E Conditions for and contents of a child abduction warning order

‘(1) The court may make a CAWO if two conditions are met.

(2) The first condition is that the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that one or more of the criteria in section 2A(2)(a)-(c) are satisfied.

(3) The second condition is that the court thinks that making the CAWO is necessary to protect C from harm as a result of association with A.

(4) A CAWO must state that a constable may arrest A without warrant if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing A is in breach of the CAWO.

(5) A CAWO may be in force for—

(a) no fewer than 14 days beginning with the day on which it is made; and

(b) until the date of the 16th birthday of C.

(6) A CAWO must state the period for which it is to be in force.

2F Breach of a child abduction warning order

‘(1) A person arrested by virtue of section 2E(4) for a breach of a CAWO must be held in custody and brought before a magistrates’ court within the period of 24 hours beginning with the time of the arrest.

(2) If the matter is not disposed of when the person is brought before the court, the court may remand the person.

(3) In calculating when the period of 24 hours mentioned in subsection (1) ends, Christmas Day, Good Friday, any Sunday and any day which is a bank holiday in England and Wales under the Banking and Financial. Dealings Act 1971 are to be disregarded.

2G Further provision about remand

‘(1) This section applies for the purposes of the remand of a person by a magistrates’ court under section 2C(2) or (3) or 2F(2).

(2) In the application of section 128(6) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 for those purposes, the reference to the “other party” is to be read—

(a) in the case of a remand prior to the hearing of an application for a CAWO, as a reference to the authorising officer; and

(b) in any other case, as a reference to the constable who applied for the CAWO.

(3) If the court has reason to suspect that a medical report will be required, the power to remand a person may be exercised for the purpose of enabling a medical examination to take place and a report to be made.

(4) If the person is remanded in custody for that purpose, the adjournment may not be for more than three weeks at a time.

(5) If the person is remanded on bail for that purpose, the adjournment may not be for more than four weeks at a time.

(6) If the court has reason to suspect that the person is suffering from a mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983, the court has the same power to make an order under section 35 of that Act (remand to hospital for medical report) as it has under that section in the case of an accused person (within the meaning of that section).

(7) The court may, when remanding the person on bail, require the person to comply before release on bail or later, with such requirements as appear to the court to be necessary to secure that the person does not interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.

2H Guidance

‘(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance relating to the exercise by a constable of functions under sections 2A to 2F.

(2) The guidance must set out the behaviours associated with “giving significant cause for concern”, including, in particular, behaviours associated with giving cause for concern of sexual exploitation or grooming.

(3) A constable must have regard to any guidance issued under subsection (1) when exercising a function to which the guidance relates.

(4) Before issuing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Association of Chief Police Officers;

(b) the National Crime Agency; and

(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks fit.””

This amendment establishes child abduction warning notices (CAWNs) on a statutory basis, addressing concerns raised in the House of Lords on the issue, by introducing a two-stage process providing judicial oversight, without compromising the ability of the police to issue a CAWN without delay. The proposed process is similar to that in place for Domestic Violence Prevention Notices/Domestic Violence Prevention Orders (DVPN/DVPO).

New clause 22—Offence of child exploitation—

‘(1) A person commits an offence if they exploit a child.

(2) 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.

(3) The consent or apparent consent of the child to the exploitation is irrelevant.

(4) “Child Exploitation” includes but is not limited to, the exploitation of the prostitute of others or other forms of sexual exploitation; the exploitation of labour or services including begging or practices similar to slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour; the exploitation of or for criminal activities including benefit fraud; the removal of organs; forced or servile marriage or enforced surrogacy; exploitation for unlawful adoption; and exploitation by enforced drugs smuggling, manufacture, production or distribution.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.”

New clause 26—Automatic Special Measures: controlling or coercive behaviour cases—

The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is amended as follows—

In section 17, after “offence” insert “an offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family setting contrary to section 73 of the Serious Crime Act 2015.””

New clause 27—Offence of abduction of child by other person—

‘(1) In section 2 of the Child Abduction Act 1984, after subsection (1), insert—

“(1A) Subject to subsection (3)(a)-(c), a person, other than one mentioned in subsection (2), commits an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, he takes or detains a child between the ages of sixteen and eighteen—

(a) so as to remove him from the lawful control of any person having lawful control of the child; or

(b) so as to keep him out of the lawful control of any person entitled to lawful control of the child.”

(2) In section 2(3) of the Child Abduction Act 1984, for paragraph (b) substitute—

“(b) that, at the time of the alleged offence under subsection 2(1), he believed that the child had attained the age of sixteen,

(bA) that, at the time of the alleged offence under subsection 2(2), he believed the child had attained the age of eighteen,””

Amendment 20, in clause 72, page 63, line 27, leave out “the” and insert “a risk of”.

Amendment 21, in clause 73, page 78, line 22, leave out

“he or she was acting”

and insert

“their behaviour was necessary in order to act, and”.

Amendment 22, page 78, line 23, in clause 73, at end insert—

“(aa) a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think that A’s behaviour was necessary in order to act in B’s best interests.”

Government amendments 2 to 10.

Amendment 33, in schedule 4, page 117, line 15, at end insert—

“59A In Schedule 2 of that Act (sexual offences to which provisions about extra territoriality application apply) in paragraph 1(d), insert—

“(iii) section 68 (possession of paedophile manual) of the Serious Crime Act 2015.””

Provisions in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 enable certain child abuse offences committed outside the UK to be prosecuted in England and Wales in some circumstances. This amendment enables these extra-territorial provisions to apply to the new offence of possession of any item that contains advice or guidance about abusing children sexually contained in Clause 68 of this Bill.

Government amendments 11 to 19.

[The Solicitor-General]

I am conscious that a number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak, so I will keep my opening remarks as brief as possible. I am doubly conscious of the need to ensure that, as has been mentioned, we have meaningful debates on other groups of amendments.

New clause 8 responds to the compelling case made in Committee by the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), to whom I am grateful, that we should remove from the statute book references to the phrase “child prostitution” and limit the scope of the offence of loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution, so that it applies only to adults. As I made clear in Committee, children who are sexually exploited, whether for financial gain or other reasons, should not be referred to as prostitutes. They should be regarded as victims.

New clause 8 will have substantially the same effect as the hon. Lady’s new clause 3, and in one important respect it goes even further. As well as replacing the anachronistic references to “child prostitute” and “child prostitution” in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the new clause will remove references to “child pornography”, to which similar considerations apply.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

I thank the Solicitor-General and the Government for tabling new clause 8. It will make a big difference to the language we use when talking about children who are sexually exploited. I know that victims of child exploitation are pleased that the new clause has been introduced, so I thank the Government on their behalf as well.

[The Solicitor-General]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady, and I pay tribute to her for the work that she has done, most recently in the report that she prepared about child sexual exploitation in Greater Manchester.

New clause 9 will require persons working in regulated professions to notify the police if they discover in the course of their work that an act of female genital mutilation appears to have been carried out on a girl under the age of 18. The new duty will help to ensure that professionals are clear about their responsibilities when they encounter cases of FGM in under-18s, and that those cases are reported to the police, thereby supporting investigations.

The consultation on what a mandatory reporting duty should look like closed on 12 January, and we received nearly 150 responses, including from health care professionals, education professionals, the police, charities and members of the public. We have considered those responses carefully, which is reflected in our approach to the new clause.

The new duty will require regulated health and social care professionals and teachers in England and Wales to report known cases of FGM to the police. Depending on the specifics of the case, a report to the police will not necessarily trigger a criminal investigation immediately. When a report is made, the police will work with the relevant agencies to determine the most appropriate course of action, which may include referral to medical experts for diagnosis of whether FGM has taken place. That is important, because we want to reassure those involved in the detection and exposure of this appalling child abuse that although prosecution and criminal investigation are important, they are not the only means that we have to deal with this scourge.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My hon. and learned Friend will understand that new clause 9 deals only with circumstances in which FGM appears to have been carried out, not with those in which there is a risk of it being carried out, to which I shall refer later.

[The Solicitor-General]

I look forward to my hon. Friend’s contribution and will respond appropriately when I have heard his full argument.

We recognise that some individuals captured by the new duty may be less likely than others to encounter cases of FGM. The duty will apply only to cases identified in the course of an individual’s professional duties. There will be no new requirement for professionals to look for visual evidence, and we do not expect them to do so.

Where professionals fail to comply with the duty, it will be dealt with in accordance with existing disciplinary procedures. That is in line with the approach favoured by the vast majority of respondents to the consultation and will ensure that appropriate sanctions are imposed in accordance with the circumstances of an individual case. The Government expect employers and the professional regulators to pay due regard to the seriousness of breaches of the new duty.

New clause 10 will confer on the Secretary of State a power to issue guidance on FGM to relevant individuals in England and Wales, and will require them to have regard to it. That guidance will take the form of updated multi-agency guidelines, which will explicitly capture good safeguarding practice, including for non-regulated practitioners. In addition, the existing frameworks for the purpose of dealing with child abuse will, of course, continue to support appropriate safeguarding responses.

17:15

We know that, in the past, some professionals feared that addressing certain harmful cultural practices would result in their being labelled politically insensitive. We also want to increase the number of referrals to the police to support investigations of FGM, in order to deter perpetrators and thus prevent this appalling crime from being committed in the first place. We believe that, together with the Government’s wider work to tackle FGM and alongside the introduction of statutory multi-agency guidelines on FGM, the new mandatory reporting duty will allow those changes to happen.

[Sir William Cash]

I wish only to repeat, in a sense, what I have already said, namely that this measure will not, in itself, deal with the problem of girls who are at risk.

[The Solicitor-General]

My hon. Friend has made his point again. We may well have to differ on the issue of the threshold with which his amendment deals, but I will outline my arguments when I have heard all that he has to say.

Amendment 10 relates to the new offence of sexual communication with a child, which was added to the Bill in Committee. While there was cross-party support for the new offence in Committee, there was some debate about whether it should be possible for a prosecution to be mounted in England and Wales in respect of conduct engaged in abroad—that is, whether such conduct should be subject to extraterritorial jurisdiction.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

Below amendment 10—which, obviously, I support—on the amendment paper is my amendment 33. My hon. and learned Friend will recall the discussion that we had in Committee. My amendment contains essentially the same wording as before, applying extraterritorial jurisdiction to the paedophile manual. Will he comment on that now?

[The Solicitor-General]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he has done in ensuring that extraterritorial jurisdiction has been applied to a range of sexual offences. In a nutshell, our view is that the case for applying extraterritorial jurisdiction to the possession of paedophile manuals has not been made out. We do not expect it to be generally applicable to that type of offence. We think it far more relevant to an offence of communication, given that communications no longer respect national borders, but can take place throughout the world through the internet and social media.

I was explaining the context in which we considered the issue of extraterritorial jurisdiction. It was in the light of speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) and the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) that we reconsidered the issue, and concluded that it should be extended to the offence of sexual communication. Amendment 10 gives effect to that.

I hope that the House will welcome these important amendments. I look forward to hearing from other Members who have tabled amendments in this group, and I will respond to them as best I can when I wind up the debate.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

During our debates on the Bill, I have been drawing to Ministers’ attention the exploitation of adults—not elderly adults who cannot help themselves through old age, but young adults—by quacks and bogus counsellors. I rather hoped that the Solicitor-General and other members of the Government would address that issue. I see that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), is present. She has experienced the distinct displeasure of having to listen to me going on about this, but I will continue to go on about it until a decision is made. Will the Solicitor-General update me on the Government’s thinking about the exploitation of vulnerable adults who are brainwashed by those quacks and bogus counsellors, to their emotional, psychological and financial disadvantage?

[The Solicitor-General]

I understand that the Government are still considering that issue. The definition of “vulnerable” may, of course, be something of a vexed question. It has tended to apply to adults with learning difficulties, but I understand my hon. and learned Friend to be referring to it in the wider context in which people are brainwashed or duped by cults and other organisations. It is not a straightforward issue, as I know he understands, but the Government are giving consideration to it, so I am grateful to him for raising it.

With those remarks, I will draw my speech to a close.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I will not say the occurrence was unprecedented, but a lawyer finishing his speech earlier than expected is certainly a rarity.

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

I am very well aware of the pressure in respect of today’s business, and I know that many right hon. and hon. Members have signed amendments that they want to debate later. I will of course attempt to keep my remarks as succinct as possible, but we are dealing with a very wide-ranging group of amendments on child protection issues, ranging from FGM to mandatory reporting to a new offence of child exploitation, so I do not think I will be able to match the Minister’s brevity in setting out the Government amendments. I will do my best, but it is important to recognise that this is an important grouping that needs to be fully debated.

I shall deal first with Government new clause 8 and Labour amendment (a), new clause 3 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), and new clause 22, dealing with a new offence of child exploitation and tabled by the Labour Front Bench. I certainly welcome what the Government are trying to do with new clause 8, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work on this issue which has led to it going high up the agenda. Her report on child sexual exploitation highlighted the particular issue that children and young adults were being ignored or seen as the problem or even the instigator, when the truth was that they were being abused. One of the recommendations of the report was that our legislation needed to reflect the vulnerabilities of children and the fact that children cannot consent to being abused. A proposed step towards achieving this was to remove the terms “child prostitute” or “child pornography” from legislation to demonstrate that any children taking part in these sexual acts were not instigators and consenting participants, but were being abused. I am very pleased that my hon. Friend is in her place, and she has already paid tribute to the Minister for tabling the new clause. It is very helpful, but I want to highlight some issues relating to it, which is why I have tabled amendment (a).

In particular, I have concerns about the definition of child sexual exploitation, which is defined by new clause 8 as a situation where a child

“offers or provides sexual services”

to an adult. Let us be clear: this is about abused children. It is about a child being abused. They are not providing sexual services to adults; they are being abused and exploited, and our legislation should reflect the real nature of that relationship. Indeed, the purpose of the new clause is to ensure that the legislation reflects the fact that those subject to exploitation are victims, not instigators. I do not think moving from the term “child prostitute” to children as providers of sexual services is correct, and amendment (a) would correct that by moving to a definition of child sexual exploitation where a child engages in sexual activity with an adult. We would move away from the concept of the child as the provider or instigator of sexual activity. The term “sexual activity” is used extensively in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, so adopting amendment (a) would mean we have consistent and well-established terminology which will make legislation easier to apply. I hope the Minister will reflect on that and consider this amendment.

I would also like to raise with the Minister the wider consequences of new clause 8 in improving our understanding of child sexual exploitation and our response to it.

We will now have an offence of child sexual exploitation that will cover situations of child exploitation involving payment or photography, but those are just some of the examples of exploitation. I also have real concerns about the ancillary offences under sections 48 to 50 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. We will now have offences of arranging or facilitating sexual exploitation of a child, of controlling a child in relation to sexual exploitation and of causing or inciting sexual exploitation of a child, but none of those offences covers all child sexual exploitation. They provide only for child sexual exploitation involving payment or photography.

I want to put to the Minister the example of a scenario in which control is exerted through threats, intimidation or coercion, or in which a child is plied with drugs or alcohol. We should recognise that those are all forms of child sexual exploitation. However, the Government’s approach is to have an offence of child sexual exploitation involving payment or photography. Other forms of exploitation not covered by that specific offence would therefore need to be prosecuted under section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act for the general offence of arranging or facilitating commission of a child sex offence. That is a complicated offence to establish, however, because it relies on proving the commission of another sexual offence under the terms of the Act. In 2012, the latest year for which I have managed to find figures, there were just 32 convictions for that particular offence, and there have been only 130 convictions in five years. There is therefore a problem with the legislation: it is not working as effectively as we would all like it to.

That is why the Opposition have tabled new clause 22, which would create a specific offence of child exploitation for the first time. There has been a lot of comment about such an offence being put on the statute book. I have heard people saying that it could criminalise a parent for getting their teenage son or daughter to do the washing up, for example, because that could count as child exploitation. However, the country’s leading expert in this area, Peter Carter QC, says that to use that kind of argument is to

“miss the significance of the word ‘exploitation’”.

The exploitation of children is, in and of itself, a serious matter that should be recognised in legislation. New clause 22 covers all forms of exploitation, from children being forced into begging or into working on cannabis farms to young girls being controlled by men and forced to submit to their sexual advances and abuse. It recognises that exploitation involves a wide spectrum, and the sentencing guidelines would reflect the fact that some forms of exploitation are more serious than others. Crucially, it would recognise that the exploitation of children is an offence in and of itself.

The new clause is about asserting the right of the child to a life free from exploitation. It is about saying that we will not accept the exploitation of children, just as we will not accept their abuse or their neglect. It would address some of the many problems that are preventing prosecutions under the Sexual Offences Act by moving from a situation in which we look at the commission of individual offences to one in which we look at people who control, manipulate and coerce children for their own ends. It would allow the police to step in where they could see an adult using controlling and coercive behaviour towards a vulnerable child, forcing them into situations involving sexual abuse, drugs, crime or forced labour.

Many prosecutions focus on particular criminal incidents, such as rape or sexual assault, but for victims of sexual exploitation, such incidents might be difficult to separate from the multiple assaults that they have endured. Such prosecutions might not give a true representation of the abuse that had been suffered. One young person has said:

“I was pressurised to go to court. There needs to be a sexual exploitation law. My charge was for rape, this was the wrong charge. So many times it happened.”

Cases often do not get prosecuted because the young person is considered an unreliable witness. That could be because she was returning to perpetrators and found it difficult to break the contact with them. So practitioners say that the effects of exploitation as a result of duration of relationships, coercion and controlling behaviour are like the Stockholm syndrome, with which we are all familiar, but that is not being recognised in the current drafting of offences, because they all focus on separate counts of rape or sexual assault.

Separate exploitation offences with a focus on children will also enable the prosecution of cases where current legislation does not offer equal protection to all children under the age of 18. For example, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 establishes the age of consent as 16, and children aged 16 and 17 are afforded the additional protection of the Act only if the person who commits the sexual offence is a person in a position of trust in relation to them. Yet those in that age group are likely to be victims of sexual exploitation. The Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England report on sexual exploitation by groups and gangs estimated that out of 16,500 children and young people who are experiencing or are at risk of child sexual exploitation 28% were aged 16 and 16% were aged 17.

17:30

Our approach would also enable prosecutions in respect of those children exploited in the course of human trafficking. Over the past two years, the police have identified more than 1,000 child victims of human trafficking, but when I asked the Government how many prosecutions there have been they could not identify a single case where the victim was a child. The total number of prosecutions for all the human trafficking offences collated together was just 41 last year, so it should not have been hard to see whether any involved children. Children often do not understand what is happening to them when they are trafficked. They might not be able to identify who their traffickers were or the links between the trafficker and the exploitation. That is why a huge coalition of charities and eminent lawyers support a specific child exploitation offence.

Let me now deal with the amendments relating to female genital mutilation. New clauses 16 and 15 propose a new offence of encouragement of FGM, and encouragement warning notices and orders. The Labour Front-Bench team proposed these new clauses in Committee, ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra). I am proposing them again on Report because of the importance of this offence. Clearly, all Members want to end the practice of FGM, and we want to do so within a generation. The measures already in the Bill, although important, are largely reactive—the new offence of encouraging FGM is a preventive measure in the strongest sense.

On 6 February, we had the international day for zero tolerance of FGM and there were renewed calls for nations to do all they can to end FGM. Like colleagues on both sides of the House, we have been meeting and working with amazing young women in Britain who are leading the calls for change in the UK. We have not only a moral duty, but a legal duty to end FGM under international law. The practice can have devastating health impacts for girls, leading to a range of problems, including urinary infections, a lifetime of pain and even infertility. It is not enough simply to react to FGM—to take action after the fact; we need to focus our efforts on prevention, which is why we need to work to tackle some of the long-standing cultural context within which FGM takes place.

[Sir William Cash]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is essential to ensure that girls at risk are also protected?

[Diana Johnson]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. Research undertaken by Dexter Dias QC with survivors of FGM from around the country highlighted the need for measures to tackle the encouragement of FGM, whereby parents can be put under extreme pressure to cut their girls. Not only are parents told that their daughters will never get married, but whole families can be ostracised and isolated as unclean. We need to support those seeking to change the culture in affected communities that they are part of and send out the message that this practice is against the law. That is why Labour has proposed adding a new offence of the encouragement of FGM to this Bill. As I say, it was tabled in Committee and we feel it is important that we have brought it back today.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

I agree with what the hon. Lady is saying. Does she agree that, over the long term, one problem we have had is that we have spent too much time listening to the self-appointed “leaders” of minority groups and not listening to the women within those groups, who are often treated very unfairly by their so-called “leaders”?

[Diana Johnson]

I entirely agree that we need to listen to young women, mothers and families, which is why it has been so important that, over the past few years, young women have felt strong enough to come forward and champion the cause for themselves.

The Bill includes a number of vital measures, such as the FGM protection orders, a new offence of failing to protect a girl from FGM and anonymity of survivors for life. We welcome those measures and give them our full support. However, although they address the matter of ways to respond when a girl is at immediate risk of being cut or has been cut, they do not go far enough in helping to prevent the crime of FGM in the first place.

The new offence would, for the first time, give parents and girls the opportunity in law to challenge the public encouragement of FGM. It has a stronger preventive effect than any other measure in the Bill, and it seeks to change the culture and break the cycle.

The measures currently on the statute book are not working. Thousands of girls in the UK are at risk, yet, since FGM was made a crime 30 years ago, there have only ever been two prosecutions and no convictions. Our proposals will criminalise every published statement or speech encouraging FGM, and will allow the police to issue encouragement warning notices and to follow up with encouragement warning orders, the breach of which would be a criminal offence. This would be a proportionate response and would send out a message of zero tolerance of such violence against girls. It is precisely the message that we need to send, as it makes a clear statement that there is no cultural excuse for violence against women and girls. I hope the Minister will feel able to respond positively to those amendments.

New clause 2 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) along with many other right hon. and hon. Members. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work, for pursuing child abuse cases and for ensuring that the perpetrators are brought to justice. Labour Front Benchers are entirely sympathetic to his approach, and we think that it is absolutely the right thing to do. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that new clause in his closing remarks, and I hope that the Government will feel able to support my hon. Friend. If they feel that the wording needs to be tidied up so that it flows a little better, there is an opportunity to do that when the Bill returns to the other place.

New clause 11, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), relates to the protection that should be offered to 16 and 17-year-olds. The Children’s Society has provided an informative brief about why 16 and 17-year-olds need that additional protection. Briefly, it recognises that 16 and 17-year-olds in other parts of the world have protections that we do not have in this country, which is why we support the measure.

New clause 17 relates to mandatory reporting. We will be moving to a vote on this matter. An amendment was moved in Committee, which dealt with a consultation on mandatory reporting. We listened very carefully to what was said and feel that our new clause deals with some of the issues that the Government were concerned about, and we hope that they will support it today.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

The hon. Lady may know that I have, in the past, spoken up on behalf of Mandate Now and my constituent Mr Tom Perry. I am very keen on mandatory reporting, but having looked carefully at the proposed new clause, I have found that under subsection (2)(a), she is permitting undefined circumstances as a reason not to refer an incident for independent assessment. In the view of Mandate Now, and in my opinion, that completely undermines the concept of mandatory reporting. She may be pressing the new clause to a vote, but those of us who believe in mandatory reporting will not be able support it because it is badly flawed, and looks, I am afraid, like a rehash of some old wording.

[Diana Johnson]

I am sorry that the right hon. Lady feels that. Mandatory reporting is clearly complicated and this is quite a technical area. We have proposed the new clause on the basis of the best advice we have received about how to do this, alongside advice and guidance from some of the children’s charities, and we recognise that this is a difficult area. I am sorry that the right hon. Lady does not feel able to support us, but I hope that those on the Government Front Bench will reconsider their view on mandatory reporting. We feel that it is a positive step that should be taken forward.

[Mrs Gillan]

It is important that we take this seriously, and having dealt with my constituent and these issues for some time I agree with the hon. Lady that mandatory reporting is essential. As I understand it, the Government will have a consultation on the process so that we get it absolutely right. It is therefore a shame to force a vote tonight on something that is flawed and that does not do the job. I ask the hon. Lady and her colleagues on the Front Bench to think again. Obviously, we cannot start the consultation during the period of purdah, but it will start immediately after the general election, as I understand it.

[Diana Johnson]

It is disappointing that we have not been able to have that period of consultation, because the question of mandatory reporting has been around for considerably longer than the Serious Crime Bill. It has been raised by the shadow Home Secretary a number of times over the past couple of years. It is a shame that we are in the position we are in today, because we could have moved on the issue earlier.

Let me move on to new clause 19, for which I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). Those on the Labour Front Bench are supporting her amendment, which will introduce child abduction warning orders, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will speak with great knowledge and passion about the subject. I know that her experiences as a constituency MP have shaped her view of the changes she wants to see in the Bill. I will not go into the details of the new clause, but I hope that we will have an opportunity to test the opinion of the House on this as it would give law enforcement an important tool for tackling some of the exploitative actions of certain members of our communities towards young people.

New clause 26 sets out special measures for victims of sexual offences in recognition of the fact that they will almost certainly be afraid and distressed at the prospect of giving evidence in court. In particular, someone who has been subjected to domestic coercive control intended to reduce their self-esteem and make them a virtual prisoner of the defendant will inevitably suffer fear and distress at the prospect of giving evidence about it and coming face to face with the defendant in a public court. There can be no doubt that had the offences of coercive control existed at the time of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which the new clause would amend, the authors would have included this provision.

The new clause is practical. Unless a complainant can be given a guarantee from the start that they will not have to give evidence face to face with the perpetrator, they might not have the confidence to proceed. If the best that can be said by others is that at some future stage they will ask a judge to grant special measures, that might not reassure a vulnerable victim enough, which might be the difference between supporting a prosecution and getting a conviction and not doing so. There is a public interest in prosecutions for this type of offence as perpetrators of domestic abuse are often serial offenders and other potential victims need to be protected, but a victim should automatically be entitled to protection in their own right.

Finally, Government amendment 10 builds on the work done by the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) over a number of years. The extraterritorial nature of the offence was mentioned in Committee and I am pleased that the Government have moved on this. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work he has carried out over many years in the House to improve protection for children.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is much interest in these important matters and some sensitivity about subsequent groupings. Therefore, if colleagues while of course expounding with characteristic eloquence can do so with exemplary brevity, that will be received heartily in the House.

17:45

[Sir William Cash]

I am extremely glad that we have this opportunity to discuss FGM and wish to thank those who have made the discussion happen. I have corresponded with the Home Secretary, the Secretaries of State for Justice and for International Development and the Leader of the House and met them to discuss all the matters to which I am about to refer. We have also had advice from some very capable and senior barristers. Sir Keir Starmer, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, completely supports what I am about to say, as does Aileen McColgan of chambers. These matters have been pushed forward by the not-for-profit organisation Justice for FGM Victims, and I would like to pay tribute to Sarita Bingeman for her work on this over many months.

Amendment 20, which stands in my name, is simple and incredibly short—all it would do is leave out “the” and insert “a risk of”. As I have said repeatedly in interventions, it is not good enough simply to rely on the fact that the act of female genital mutilation has been carried out, for example when notifying the police or dealing with guidance, which is quite vague and is not specific enough to deal with the problem of girls being at risk.

I will briefly give the House some figures. About a decade ago the number of girls and women in England and Wales who had undergone FGM was approximately 66,000. Shockingly, that figure is now estimated to be 137,000. Equally worrying is the number of girls in England and Wales under the age of 15 who are at risk of FGM, which over the same period has increased from about 20,000 to an estimated 60,000. I am talking about 60,000 girls under the age of 15 who are at risk. That rise is further demonstrated by official figures recorded since the new reporting system was introduced by hospitals in the UK last year. They show that 2,269 girls and women who had undergone FGM were treated in hospitals in November 2014 alone, and of those 466 were newly identified cases. That is very alarming and unacceptable, and there is an urgent need to prevent the number growing further. This is an unforgiveable crime. It is beyond imagination that it is going on, and indeed that it is increasing exponentially at the rate I have described.

I am glad that the Government have brought forward a power to make an FGM protection order. All I am asking for, on the best legal advice, is that the words “a risk of” be included in paragraph 1(1)(a) of schedule 2, which is set out in clause 72. Sub-paragraph (1) would therefore read:

“The court in England and Wales may make an order (an “FGM protection order”) for the purposes of —

(a) protecting a girl against a risk of commission of a genital mutilation offence”,

rather than simply

“(a) protecting a girl against the commission of a genital mutilation offence”.

The Bill currently does not state explicitly, despite the intention that it should do so, that the order may be applied for and/or granted in the event of a risk that a genital mutilation offence may be committed. Although some are arguing that there could be some difficulty interpreting the words in relation to forced marriage orders, the fact is that it is apples and pears.

When we are dealing with forced marriage, we are dealing with people who are much older and with different circumstances. We are not dealing with five and six-year-old children who do not know what is being done to them. The horror and brutality of FGM must be dealt with. We cannot simply deal with the circumstances by analogy, as has been suggested to me by some technical advisers and lawyers. I am a lawyer myself; I was shadow Attorney-General. I do not misunderstand the nature of questions of interpretation. We have to tailor the circumstances to the problem that we are faced with. We are faced with a massive problem so it is essential that we deal with it.

Some have said that guidance would be sufficient. The guidance, which everybody in the House can look at, does not deal with the specific problem of those at risk. As I said, on the issue of notifying the police, that would apply only where the mutilation had already taken place. These are small girls. The practice cannot be allowed to carry on. We must do something about it. If I may suggest it, everybody should vote with me on this issue, including the Government. I ask the Opposition to be good enough to vote with me as well.

Let me give an example. On 3 April 2014 the Department for Education published updated statutory guidance on safeguarding. It was called “Keeping children safe in education”. The guidance tells teachers how to identify girls who are at risk or who have suffered FGM. It was e-mailed to every school in the country and on the same day a letter from the Secretary of State was e-mailed to all head teachers, drawing their attention to the guidance. The letter was e-mailed to 31,660 addressees in 25,000 schools. As at 30 April only 43% of recipients had opened the e-mail, and only 30% of recipients had clicked through to the guidance on safeguarding. That is why the legislation is needed.

Further statistics for each London borough show that the response rate was significantly worse in some areas, including some where large numbers of girls were from communities that had traditionally practised FGM. In Hackney, for example, only 25% of the 91 heads had read the guidance, and in Lambeth and Southwark the proportion who did so was only 34%, yet those girls are at risk. Other front-line workers have said that faced with the confusing number and breadth of guidelines, protocols and regulations that often appear conflicting, they have turned to the legislation—the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003—to provide clarity for themselves. But as the shadow Minister said, only two prosecutions have taken place and neither was successful. What are we doing in this country? How are we allowing FGM to happen? I appeal to Members to vote for my amendment.

A number of front-line professionals from the health, education and social services, including the child protection sector, were interviewed by Justice for FGM Victims. All of them stated that they would welcome the guidance that would be provided if the amendment were accepted, but not otherwise. They believe that the explicit mention of the requirement to apply successfully for a protection order would support front-line staff and empower them to take action where they thought there was a risk of FGM being committed against a young girl or woman.

FGM is practised in secret. It is extremely difficult for care professionals to know whether a person is at risk. Therefore as a deterrent and in order to catch the perpetrators, it is essential that the words “a risk of” are included. This is not a small matter. It is a small amendment about a very, very big matter. Girls are being victimised, abused and terrorised by FGM, and it is happening on our watch. It must be stopped.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I welcome various sensible and positive suggestions. I shall speak to new clause 2, which I trust the Government will accept. If not, we will give the House the opportunity to decide whether it should be accepted. I am sure, Mr Speaker, that in today’s rather confused timetable you will indicate the appropriate time at which to do so.

I wish to make three substantive points in relation to the new clause. I thank those in every part of the House who have added their name to it. The abuse in Rotherham has been described as the tip of the iceberg. It is a rather easy phrase to use. I do not think that the majority of people out in the country, if they have thought about the language used, believe that that is true. They think they have seen the bad side and that there may be a bit more of it, but that it cannot get worse than that. My experience is that Rotherham is no different from anywhere else, except that it has had a detailed inquiry which has quantified the problem better than in other places. There are some specific and uncomfortable elements to the problem there that certainly differentiate it from my area, but I know that my area is no worse than anywhere else.

When I have used the opportunities I have in my weekly newspaper columns to suggest to victims, current or past, that they should come forward, I expected a few people to come forward. What I did not expect is somebody new to come forward every week. I did not expect people to fly back to my constituency from across the world, as they have done and as more wish to do, to give me precise evidence that they have given to nobody in 30 years. They know that that will never lead to a prosecution, but when they spoke out before they were not believed. They speak of individual, specific, single incidents of sexual violence, on different scales, of differing natures, yet every week new people—my constituents—are coming forward.

It is almost as if the process began with the easier cases—easier in the sense that the people were more prepared, and the cases were more specific, more identifiable and more prosecutable—and, as the weeks go by, the bigger ones come. I have a brand-new case now. People do not make up such allegations. One cannot make up what I was told by somebody younger than me. The sexual violence and other violence is not even the most horrific part of it. At the age of 11, that person was put into slavery in a workplace and location that I can identify. I am not going to name it as that is the prerogative of the person involved. I think he will name it, then everybody in my area will be able to identify it. He mentioned witnesses whom he could identify and names that I know.

That went on year after year, and what did my constituent and other kids of 11 or 12 do? They ran away. What happened when they ran away? They were returned time and again to the same perpetrators by the police and the social workers, until one heroic social worker rescued my constituent, unlike the other kids living in that foster home, who were not rescued. He has got on with his life and had spoken to nobody until he came to me. The report is being prepared in great detail and will go to the police. I do not know whether those who covered up for the school by falsifying its records in saying he was there when he was not—the employer and those working there alongside an 11-year-old, then a 12, 13, 14 and 15-year-old, during those years—are all still alive; presumably some of them will be. There will be a major investigation.

That is just a single example; I have not mentioned the other victims. If it happened in my constituent’s time, what about the kids before or the kids after? I make a few discreet inquiries and vast amounts of things immediately come out that people know about—a huge web. This was just one foster family among many. It was horrendous, systemised abuse. The system was at fault, and everyone within it, because these kids were regarded as commodities. They were to be sold, and they were sold—in this case, into actual, technical slavery. It was a money-making activity.

18:00

It is vital that we get on top of the responses needed for the future, for now—because of course this kind of thing, in different ways, still goes on—and for the past. What is absolutely clear to me is the volume of people directly affected and the number of lives blighted. Many of these people cannot come to me, or anybody else, because they are dead, or beyond being able to explain anything even though they are still technically alive. Some of those who come to see me can say nothing at all because what has happened has so traumatised and affected their lives.

That is a microcosm, but it goes deeper. Rampton special hospital is the only secure psychiatric unit for women in this country. Let us look at the conclusions of the research about every single woman in there—they have all committed the most horrendous of crimes; that is why they are in there—and see what happened to them in their young lives. There is a causation—a direct link. We talk about early interventions in dealing with some of the most horrific, terrible things that we hear about and sometimes have to deal with. Those things do not just come from nowhere. That is why it is so vital that there are no no-go areas in what is looked at.

The new clause is about only one small aspect. Prominent people are not the majority in these cases. Only one of the many people in my constituency who have come forward—a Savile victim—has named so-called prominent people, so that is not the problem in my area. However, there is a problem about how a number of investigations have been curtailed. In 1988, I gave evidence to the police on corruption in relation to buildings in Lambeth. A blockage was put on that investigation for no good reason. I now find from a police officer who served in later years that seven years later the wine bars I had identified for all sorts of malpractice were referred to the police again for similar activities. Yet there was no police investigation; each time, it was blocked. I have my suspicions regarding that case.

It would be tempting to name the prominent people—one would get plenty of headlines—but it would be highly inappropriate. Some of the names floating around were undoubtedly blackmailed as opposed to being perpetrators. One of the problems is deciding who was the perpetrator and who was the victim. One of the ways of covering tracks is to try to spread things around, and that is a danger. That is all the more reason why one kind of evidence that has not been made available should be made available. I have spoken to someone in an appropriate position who saw the Dickens dossier. I have a good idea of what is in it, but they will not tell me because of the restrictions of the Official Secrets Act. It would be helpful to the inquiry and to the police for that information to come out. In 1980, special branch closed down investigations into Coronation buildings in south Lambeth, again with no explanation, although plenty of people were involved. Knowing why these things happen would be important to the inquiry and to ongoing police investigations.

The Don Hale files are a set of minutes from the Home Office—I think they are its detailed investigations into the Dickens dossier—that were seized by special branch. I am not interested in Mr Hale’s recollection of the names—he did not take a copy—but I am interested in the fact that a lot of people saw those files. The Dickens dossier was copied 20 times. The person who told me that they had seen it was at a meeting when it was there, and the copies were then collected in. Lots of people have seen these things. Lots of police officers—special branch and others—have information about them.

Individuals have said to me, and some have informed me anonymously, that the restrictions of the Official Secrets Act are holding them back. Some fear prosecution. More, I think, fear that they will lose their pension because of the technicalities of breaching the Act. The new clause would create a defence against prosecution. Its wording is drawn up not by me but by people who know how to draw up such things—the experts in this building. Creating such a defence would allow those people to give information, not to me or my friends in the media, but to the relevant investigating authorities. Indeed, they would have an obligation to give it, because they would have the protection and the guarantee given by us in statute. That would have a huge and significant impact in sorting out who did what, who of those still alive should be prosecuted, and which of those whose names are circulating are entirely innocent and may well be victims themselves. From what I have seen and heard over the years, I believe that some of the prominent names that circulate are victims as opposed to perpetrators. The perpetrators who are still alive could then be more easily prosecuted with additional and significant evidence.

My final point is about Cyril Smith. There is no problem in naming Cyril Smith; he has been named many times before. Police officer after police officer, and special branch officer after special branch officer, has said to me and to others that they were stopped from arresting and prosecuting Cyril Smith, and no one has answered the question why. Why was Cyril Smith, for a significant period, given immunity from prosecution given that a significant number of people, including many police officers, have come forward about it, to me never mind anybody else? Why would they come forward to me, in particular, for no particular reason? That tells me that there are many more people out there who know what was going on and why he was given protection. This question has to be answered. Passing the new clause will mean that these people will come forward, as some say they will. That will help to provide some justice for the victims, help with some prosecutions, and, crucially, help the truth to come out.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

All of a sudden, a sprouting. I call Nicola Blackwood.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

There is much to debate in this group of amendments and I particularly welcome new clauses 8 and 9, but for the sake of brevity I will stick to my new clause 27 and the associated clauses, which seek to resolve the much debated problem of child abduction warning notices applying unequally to children in care and those out of care.

New clause 27 is a probing amendment, so I shall not press it to a vote, but I would like to emphasise my disappointment that the Government have not found a way to resolve the problem. There has been plenty of time to do so and the issue has been debated extensively at all stages. It is a relatively contained problem. The fact that police can only use CAWNs to protect victims up to the age of 16 if they are living at home, and not those up to the age of 18 if they are in care, is a real-world problem created by the fact that these administrative orders are reliant on two separate pieces of legislation. It should be perfectly possible to resolve the situation if we put our minds to it.

A number of solutions have been proposed to the Government during the Bill’s progress, including putting CAWNs on a statutory basis, which would also create a penalty on breach, as suggested by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion); amending the offence of child abduction so that it applies to children up to the age of 18; and my new clause 27, which would create a secondary offence, under the Child Abduction Act 1984, of abducting a child aged 16 to 18. All of those proposals have been rejected by the Government because they say that they are unnecessary, that they would create additional bureaucracy and that they would risk creating unintended consequences for prosecutors in relation to consent.

The first point has no merit. The reforms have been requested directly by serving police officers, social workers and parents who are battling child sexual exploitation on the front line and who have found that the inability to use CAWNs to protect children aged 16 to 18 living at home is a gap in their armoury as they wage an already incredibly challenging battle against abusers.

Ministers have said that the new risk of sexual harm orders will address that gap, but they will not. As the MP who led the campaign to reform the old civil prevention orders and replace them with the current orders under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, I welcome them wholeheartedly, but for police to obtain a ROSHO they must prove the sexual element of risk to a criminal standard of evidence in court. As administrative orders, CAWNs do not require either that evidential threshold or the proving of the sexual element. Police officers and others have told me that that is precisely why CAWNs are so successful in disrupting child sexual exploitation where the sexual abuser may not be the individual who is transporting or controlling the victim and therefore sexual risk may be indirect.

It is unquestionably true that ROSHOs, gang injunctions and trafficking orders have significant roles to play in disrupting grooming, but, as statutory orders that require judicial oversight, none of those can replace the CAWN in the architecture of powers available to police for disrupting CSE. They simply do not have the immediacy or the simplicity I have described.

For that reason, I am not convinced that putting the orders on a statutory footing is the best solution. The Government have said that that would create additional bureaucracy, which is not the best turn of phrase, because it sounds like there would just be a bit more paperwork. That is not the concern that has been raised with me by senior police officers. If CAWNs were put on a statutory footing, they would become a civil order, like the ROSHO, which, rightly, has an evidentiary threshold and judicial oversight. That very process of having to apply through the courts and gather increased evidence risks creating an inappropriate situation not only of fewer CAWNs being sought, but of the CAWN losing its unique place in the policing toolbox as a quick response tool that can be applied as a deterrent and disruption device that is also valuable in establishing association and bad character in prosecution.

Although I understand that the value of introducing a statutory basis would be to bring in a penalty on breach, that aspect is already covered by the statutory civil prevention orders—from ROSHOs to trafficking orders—which all involve penalties on breach. Of course, most of those orders, in their current form, are new and I urge the Government and the College of Policing to develop guidance on how they should operate as a progressive and interrelated set of powers now available to police to deter, disrupt and prevent serious organised crime against children in particular. However, if filling in the gap in CAWNs is necessary but making CAWNs statutory is not the answer, then what is?

As we have heard, CAWNs for children living at home have their legislative basis in section 2(1) of the Child Abduction Act 1984. The Government object to changing the age limit for that offence of abduction from the legal age of consent of 16 to 18 on the grounds that it would risk the victims, even those under the age of 16, being challenged by defence barristers on questions of consent. I accept that we have fought too many battles to improve protections for vulnerable witnesses against aggressive cross-examination in court to want to do anything to weaken a prosecutor’s arm, especially on questions of consent, and that is why I tabled new clause 27, proposing a secondary offence, with a higher threshold, of abduction of 16 to 18-year-olds.

I do not believe that would compromise the integrity of the current child abduction offence for under 16-year-olds, but it would offer a legislative basis to close the current gap in CAWNs and give the police the power to intervene quickly and effectively to protect 16 to 18-year-olds who we know remain at high risk of child sexual exploitation where grooming gangs are operating, whether they happen to be living at home or not.

18:15

I do not for a moment believe, however, that that is the only way to solve the problem and I really do not care whether my proposal is accepted or a non-legislative solution is found, provided that the Minister makes two clear commitments. The first is to work with Members from across the House, children’s charities and practitioners to find a way to close the gap in CAWNs so that they apply equally to children in care and those out of care up to the age of 18, preferably by the time this Bill reaches the other House. The second commitment is to commission, as a matter of urgency, guidance on the new architecture of civil prevention and administrative orders, specifically the way in which they relate to the protection of children from serious organised crime.

These are despicable crimes committed against the most vulnerable of victims and no stone should be left unturned in equipping the police and other agencies to protect victims and prevent abuse all the way up to the age of 18, no matter where those people happen to live.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Thank you for removing the time limit, Mr Speaker, not only because the voices of victims and survivors do not get enough air time in this place, but because, as those who have spoken before me have shown, there is a lot of passion about this topic and an awful lot of commitment to it.

I welcome new clauses 8 and 3 and Government amendments 13 to 17, which aim to remove the term “child prostitution” from legislation. Victims and survivors I have met say that the term makes them feel incredibly dirty and as though they colluded in the crime in some way. However, the amendments remove the term from only three of the 16 relevant pieces of legislation. If I pass the list to the Solicitor-General, will the Government make a serious, long-term commitment to remove the term from each of those pieces of legislation? I would be very grateful for that.

I want principally to speak to new clause 19 and follow on from the contribution of the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), who spoke eloquently and has done most of the preparatory work. I have met the Solicitor-General, spoken at Committee stage and exchanged letters with him. He has expressed the view that, if child abduction warning notices were to become statutory, that would cause an unnecessary replication of sexual risk orders, which are being introduced by the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. However, given that the legislation has not yet been enacted and guidance not yet published, I cannot be entirely satisfied that SROs will close the gap that has been identified in child protection.

One concern is that the application of SROs to low-level grooming activities seems to depend on an officer taking a very wide interpretation of an

“act of a sexual nature”.

Unless the guidance is very specific and the training given to police very thorough, I am not convinced that officers will feel confident to use SROs on, for instance, a 20-year-old who is hanging around with a 14-year-old.

My cross-party inquiry with Barnardo’s last year found that police officers were clearly familiar with the use of child abduction warning notices, and everyone we interviewed asked that they be made statutory. My fear is that, rather than reducing bureaucracy, the Solicitor-General will create more by having another power, as opposed to strengthening the existing one.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her extreme succinctness.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

What a delicious choice. I call Mrs Cheryl Gillan.

[Mrs Gillan]

I want to continue my challenge to new clause 17, specifically on behalf of Mandate Now, which was set up by my constituent Tom Perry and seeks to introduce a new law making it mandatory for people working in regulated activities to report their suspicions to the local authority.

I am delighted that the Opposition support mandatory reporting, but I am disappointed with the flaws in their new clause. I believe that mandatory reporting is inevitable, but its design will be critical. It is not a law that, as MandateNow says,

“can be lifted from a shelf, applied and switched on.”

It is a complicated and nuanced subject and such a law needs very careful construction, as I am sure the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) appreciates, particularly having adopted the position that Opposition Front Benchers have taken up recently.

The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) struck a chord with me when he said that there should be no no-go areas, which is absolutely right. I am worried that new clause 17 would create such no-go areas, and protect and enshrine them in a flawed law.

It appears from new clause 17(1)(c) that the duty to report would apply only when harm is caused in the setting of a regulated activity. As I understand it, children who are abused at home would remain outside its scope. Multiple concerns, or even any concern about any child, brought to the attention of staff—for example, at their school—would not necessarily be caught by the provision as currently drafted.

[Diana Johnson]

The right hon. Lady and I have already had an exchange on this issue. What happens in a school is obviously a regulated activity, so my understanding is that if teachers working in the school become aware of the issue, that would be covered by the new clause.

[Mrs Gillan]

Mandate Now’s understanding is that such a situation would not be covered. If abuse occurs outside one of the regulated activities, but is brought to the attention of someone involved in a regulated activity, there appears from the drafting of subsection (1)(c) to be a possibility that the abuse would not be a mandatorily reportable incident.

Subsection (1)(c) would require that a person

“becomes aware that a child has been harmed”.

That requirement is problematic. So often with sexual abuse, it is very difficult to suspect it, let alone to know about it. Mandate Now’s challenge to the proposal from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children is absolutely right. A law that depends on somebody being “aware” is drafted in a dangerously vague way. It will not catch most cases. The hon. Lady should therefore consider using the phrase that a person must act on “reasonable grounds of suspicion”. Such a change would improve the drafting of her new clause 17.

Similarly, the exemption in subsection (2)(a) permitting undefined circumstances as a reason not to refer an incident for independent assessment totally undermines the concept of mandatory reporting. When might it be in the interests of a child to be harmed and for those who know or suspect to do nothing about it? Such a situation needs to be made explicit.

Subsection (2)(b) is almost a facsimile of the current and porous position. In complying with current non-mandatory reporting clauses in institutional child protection procedures, personal liability seems to be avoided. The proposal continues a failed narrative in which reporting to the local authority for independent assessment is reliant on what the person responsible for reporting believes. For example, if a member of staff refers a case to the head teacher as the designated person and nothing happens, because the head believes it is not in the child’s interests to refer it or follows the inadequate professional guidelines—as it happens, they are discretionary—then the new clause will produce no change. As Mandate Now has stated, the exceptions in subsection (2) undermine the already underpowered provisions in subsection (1).

As the hon. Lady will know, an earlier amendment on mandatory reporting was moved in the other place, but was withdrawn on an assurance from the Government that they would start a consultation on mandatory reporting. She and I know, as does the Solicitor-General, that the terms of reference for the consultation have not yet been drawn up.

We are approaching something called the general election, so there is purdah. I have a proposition to make to both Front Benchers: it would be good to work on this matter on a cross-party basis. It should not be a political subject, but something on which we agree. Rather than putting new clause 17 to a vote, it would be good if they met behind the Chair and agreed to the Government drawing up the terms of reference with the Opposition and publishing them as soon as possible during the period of purdah before the general election. In that way, all the victims and people relying on this place to improve the situation for our all future children, and to learn from the history faced by many of our constituents, would have a lot more confidence that we are doing our job correctly.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

In dealing with subsection (2) of new clause 17, my right hon. Friend alights on one of the problems. An awful lot of well-motivated proposals are brought forward in relation to such Bills, but her point demonstrates that we must be careful not to legislate without thinking very carefully about what is intended. It is not clear to me that having

“acted in the best interests of the child”

is demonstrated on the subjective basis of the person who believes they have so acted, or is to be tested against what a reasonable person believes from looking at how that person has acted. If we agree to the subsection without analysing that, we will get into trouble. I urge her to ask the two Front Benchers to talk about that if they meet behind the Speaker’s Chair.

[Mrs Gillan]

My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. He reinforces the position spotted by the commentators at Mandate Now about the drafting of new clause 17. As I say, I want the matter to be non-party political—it should be irrespective of politics—so it would be good if we showed the House doing its best by coming together, with the Government and the Opposition working together on the guidelines for the consultation and getting them out as soon as possible.

Mandate Now’s membership base is 114 survivor charities in England, eight in Scotland and 10 in Wales, so there is a substantial body of opinion behind its views. I very much hope that both Front Benchers will take them seriously and not force us through the Lobby against new clause 17. I believe in the concept, but I cannot vote for the new clause because of its quite obvious flaws.

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

About an hour ago, Mr Speaker, you expressed your pleasant surprise at the Solicitor-General’s brevity, and I hope that I do not revert to type. I, too, shall keep my remarks short.

I welcome new clauses 8 to 10, which relate to the language applied to young children who are victims of sexual exploitation in the FGM provisions and so on. I am fully in sympathy with the very powerful speech made by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). I support new clause 2, and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) also made a powerful speech.

The provisions in part 5 relating to the new offence of child cruelty are of fundamental importance and should be welcomed. The new offence balances both physical and psychological harm, because psychological abuse can have such a debilitating impact on children. However, my new clause 11 reflects my concern, and that of organisations such as the Children’s Society, that the Government have not taken the opportunity presented by the Bill to offer protection to 16 and 17-year-olds at risk of cruelty and neglect. After all, the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and the Children Act 1989 both define a child as a person under 18. In Committee, I sought to amend the Bill by redefining a child as a person under 18, and I made the case for extending the legislation on child abduction to 16 and 17-year-olds. Unfortunately, I was unable to persuade the Committee of the merits of my amendments, so I withdrew them. My intention in retabling them today is to highlight the issue once more.

New clause 11 would amend the Children’s Act 1933 by inserting a new section on cruelty to a person aged 16 or 17. The new section would ensure that anyone aged 18 or over who wilfully assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned or injured a 16 or 17-year-old would be guilty of an offence. Crucially, the new clause acknowledges that ill treatment can be both physical and psychological.

18:30

When I first made the point in Committee that the definition of a child in this provision should include 16 and 17-year-olds, concerns were raised about the implication for young people of those ages who live independently. For that reason, an adult may be found guilty of an offence under new clause 11 only if they are proven to be “personally connected” to the victim—that is, if the victim and perpetrator were living together at the time of the offence, if the perpetrator had parental responsibility over the victim, if the perpetrator was a relative of the victim, or if the perpetrator was or had been married to or been the civil partner of a parent of the victim. If found guilty under the new clause, a perpetrator could face up to 10 years in prison on conviction or indictment, or six months in prison on summary conviction.

I believe that this change would send the important message that 16 and 17-year-olds can be every bit as vulnerable as their younger counterparts and that they deserve our protection or, rather, the protection of the law. As the existing law disregards them, I would argue that 16 and 17-year-olds are in some ways more vulnerable to neglect than younger children, since there is the perception that they can make it on their own.

According to the Children’s Society, approximately 16,000 16 and 17-year-olds were at risk of homelessness last year as a result of a breakdown in their relationship with their family. It is therefore no surprise to learn that 35% of all those who are reported missing are aged between 15 and 17. Last year in England, 42,000-plus 16 and 17-year-olds became children in need, 24,000-plus of whom were identified as being at risk of abuse or neglect. Distressingly, the Office of the Children’s Commissioner has estimated that 7,260 16 and 17-year-olds are at risk of child sexual exploitation.

I hope that the House will recognise the severity of this issue. I am sure that those who oppose this change will argue that the laws of common assault, kidnapping and sexual exploitation already apply to this age group. However, the fundamental point is that child cruelty laws are different, in that they acknowledge the breach of trust between the parent or guardian and the child. The guardian has a responsibility to protect and care for the children who live with him or her. I see no reason why 16 and 17-year-olds should be denied the legal protections that are afforded to those younger than them. We should keep it in mind that 90% of 16 and 17-year-olds live with their families—a number that is unlikely to decrease in the current fiscal climate. I urge the House to support new clause 11.

I also support new clause 27, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood). It seeks to create an offence of child abduction that pertains to 16 and 17-year-olds. It is important to note that 16 and 17-year-olds who are taken into care by their local authority are already protected by child abduction warning notices under section 31 of the 1989 Act. However, that represents only a tiny proportion of the children who are looked after by local authorities. Last year, for example, 190 children in that age bracket were taken into care, but 4,510 young people in that age bracket had become looked after. Equally, 4,000-plus 16 and 17-year-olds left care last year, many of whom will have gone on to live in supported accommodation, leaving them still very vulnerable, I am afraid.

People in this age group who approach their local authorities for help with housing as a result of homelessness are usually given housing support, rather than being taken into care. According to the Children’s Society, at least 12,000 16 and 17-year-olds seek such help with homelessness every year. At present, the authorities cannot protect them with a child abduction warning notice. As I have said, 42,260 16 and 17-year-olds became children in need last year. Under the current provisions, the police are unable to use a child abduction warning notice to protect them by taking them away from an exploitative adult who could abduct them from their parents.

New clause 27 would extend the protections that are afforded to those who are under 16 to the 2,330 16 and 17-year-olds who are registered as in need in Wales, the 1,000 16 and 17-year-olds who are looked after by local authorities in Wales and many more young people who are housed by their local authority under homelessness legislation.

In 2012, the all-party parliamentary groups for runaway and missing children and adults and for looked-after children and care leavers held an important inquiry on children who go missing from care. The report drew attention to how frequently children’s homes are targeted by exploitative individuals, yet the law protects only a tiny minority of the 16 and 17-year-olds who are vulnerable to such exploitation and abduction.

I urge the House, if there is a Division, to vote for new clause 27, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 greatly strengthened the legislation that deals with paedophiles. Year by year, some of us have used various Home Office Bills to put little baubles and bangles on it and there has been a huge number of changes. One result has been that persistent predatory paedophiles in this country have often moved overseas. Many of them moved to south-east Asia until the south-east Asian nations tightened up and now many of them are moving to Brazil. I have a particular interest in the situation in Brazil.

Some of the ammunition has come from the fact that much of our paedophile legislation is extraterritorial, so when individuals from this country go to other countries, do their dastardly deeds and come back, we are able to deal with them under our legislation when we have the evidence, perhaps provided directly by the security or police forces in the other countries. The effect of that has been a move away from south-east Asia, mainly to places such as Brazil. People are picking on Brazil because of the big sports events. We saw that recently with the World cup. A group in my constituency has been fighting for street children and it had a big campaign called “It’s a penalty”. It explained to people from this country who were flying to Brazil that if they had sex with children out there, they could be prosecuted here.

In Committee, Members on both sides were congratulating ourselves on getting two new offences on contact with a child and on predatory paedophile manuals. In the middle of all that, one of us suddenly noticed that we were taking away the extraterritorial aspect of both offences. Not too surprisingly, there was a faint squawk.

We have had a decent response on one issue. Amendment 10 will bring back the extraterritorial aspect for contact with a child, but not for predatory paedophile manuals, as I brought to the attention of Front Benchers. If we are going to prosecute individuals in this country because they have predatory paedophile manuals, why should we not penetrate overseas to catch them doing exactly the same thing? Logic tells me that if it is good enough to do it here, it is good enough to apply it to predatory paedophiles in other countries. That has been very successful with other bits of legislation. However, it was indicated clearly in the opening speech that it will not apply to this provision.

It is probably pointless to push the Solicitor-General on that issue at this point. [Interruption.] He is nodding with a smile on his face, which is not particularly helpful. I would love to push the issue, but I will not. However, I will reflect on where I have made mistakes between Committee stage and this stage, gather my ammunition and knock on his door as I move on to ten-minute rule Bills and the next Home Office Bill to try to add it. For tonight, I am sitting tight, but the warning is there: I will be back.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I will concentrate on new clause 17. I assume that the Solicitor-General will not accept the proposal, but I hope he will tell the House where he is with the 12-week consultation. I join the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) in asking that we try to hammer out a sensible agreement on the issue—preferably between all parties and before the election—so that we get something done in the interests of children.

I assume that most of us here want children to be protected and that the vast majority of decent people who choose to work with children want to protect them. However, I do not want people to be driven into some kind of defensive posture whereby they are more concerned about protecting themselves than using their professional judgment because of a badly framed mandatory reporting rule. No one who has looked at Rotherham or at any of the other scandals can fail to have a sense of revulsion at those senior staff who turned a blind eye, those who did not want to know when they should have been asking serious questions of the more junior staff, and those who blamed the victims whom they should have been protecting.

We need a measure of mandatory reporting that prevents people from evading their responsibilities, and ensures that there is no, “I didn’t know; they didn’t tell me” get-out clause, and no opportunity for institutions or individuals to view reputational damage as an excuse to sweep things under the carpet. That kind of mandatory reporting could be useful in helping the rest of us to protect children. I therefore hope that the Minister will tell the House what his intentions are and where he is with the consultation and that, in the spirit of cross-party support, he will consider the offer from me and the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman finished just before I expected him to and the Minister will now wind up this group of amendments. There has been considerable demand to contribute to the separate groupings, so perhaps I can say publicly what I would otherwise have said privately, namely that if the Minister is able to wind up on behalf of the Government so that it is possible for us to move on by 7 o’clock—perhaps even earlier—we will dance round the mulberry bush in joyous appreciation of his efforts.

[The Solicitor-General]

Best endeavours, Mr Speaker, best endeavours.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for taking part in this wide-ranging debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for a thoughtful contribution. The Government have committed to a full 12-week consultation within 18 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. We are coming to the end of this Parliament and into purdah, and practical issues arise, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) said. However, the Government are committed to moving on a consultation as soon as practical obstacles are removed—we cannot be clearer than that. I am somewhat puzzled about Labour Members’ undue haste to move their new clause. My right hon. Friend has already mentioned some deficiencies that she has found in the provision, and I will not reiterate her points. I say simply that we need a proper consultation on the issue and for all voices to be heard. For FGM and mandatory reporting provisions we held a consultation that gave us clear evidence to act, and to create and change the law on mandatory reporting. We must do exactly the same for child abuse.

We all agree that these issues are sensitive, important, and involve new obligations on professionals who work in this difficult field, and we must approach them carefully and with evidence. I therefore strongly urge Opposition Members to consider the matter carefully before dividing the House or supporting the new clause. With great respect the provision is premature, bearing in mind that a consultation will occur as soon as possible.

[Mrs Gillan]

Will my hon. and learned Friend comment on my suggestion that those on the two Front Benches should work together on drawing up the terms of reference for the consultation, because I am sure that would help speed up the procedure? It may not be possible to bring something out before the election, but at least working together would show that it is a cross-party effort and give great comfort to those watching this debate.

18:45

[The Solicitor-General]

I am interested in suggestions from any quarter about the terms of reference for a consultation. I want it to be meaningful and comprehensive, which is why there will be a full 12 weeks to allow many people to make submissions. I am open to all constructive suggestions, wherever they come from. As my right hon. Friend said, this issue is about much more than mere party politics, and I hope that that gives her the assurance she seeks.

[Diana Johnson]

I am listening carefully to the Minister, and of course we all want to get this issue right. I am struck by the fact that the Government managed to have a consultation on the reporting of FGM, and the Bill now contains amendments to take that forward. It seems to me a missed opportunity that we are not able to do that with mandatory reporting at the same time.

[The Solicitor-General]

I hear what the hon. Lady says and take her remarks in the spirit that I know she intends. We are moving on these issues, and much has been achieved in the past few years in acknowledging that we are dealing with children and can no longer have a sort of double standard when it comes to their protection. In Committee we debated so-called “ostensible consent”, which at one time was in sentencing guidelines. That has gone from the law—indeed, a case I conducted in the Court of Appeal last week made it absolutely clear that for young children the concept of consent in sexual activity has no place in the law of England and Wales. Let me reiterate my point: we are making progress and there will be a consultation as soon as possible. I therefore urge the hon. Lady and Opposition Members not to divide the House on the new clause.

On new clause 2, I listened carefully to the impassioned speech of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). It was the sort of speech that we need to hear in this House because it reiterated not only his determination to uncover child abuse—whether historical or current—but the determination that we should all have to follow evidence wherever it may lead without fear or favour.

As we know, the Official Secrets Act is intended to protect certain classes of particularly sensitive information such as security and intelligence matters, and it provides for a number of offences that prevent current or former Crown servants or Government contractors from disclosing certain information without lawful authority. It does not prevent protected information from being disclosed to an officer of an official investigation or inquiry into historical child abuse. In particular, information may be disclosed where the disclosure is made in accordance with that person’s official duty or is otherwise authorised. Departments and Ministers can permit current and former civil servants and Government contractors to share knowledge and documentation with an inquiry. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear in her statement to this House on 4 February, official authorisation would be given for the Goddard inquiry.

On the historical institutional abuse inquiry in Northern Island, the Attorney-General has already made a public undertaking that no evidence given by a person to the inquiry will be used as evidence against them in any criminal proceeding, including any offence under the Official Secrets Act. Indeed, the Attorney-General would be ready to consider any similar request from Justice Goddard if one were made. I assure the hon. Member for Bassetlaw that the Government are committed to assisting Justice Goddard’s inquiry and all other inquiries into child abuse. We are satisfied that the Official Secrets Act is not, will not, and should not be a bar to evidence being provided, but I am grateful to him for raising that important issue.

Let me turn to new clause 11, in the name of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd). As he said, this has been covered in Committee. I reiterate that anomalies will inevitably exist when it comes to how we classify children and young people in law. I am afraid there is no one age division to fit all circumstances. Despite the fact that, with his usual cunning, he has come up with a slightly different way of dealing with some of the mischiefs I mentioned in Committee, I am still concerned that, in genuinely attempting to correct one anomaly, we might end up creating another. We still believe that in this area of the law we need to focus on the protection of children and young persons under the age of 16.

In that spirit, I will come on to new clause 27, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood). Her tenacity knows no bounds. She has done a lot of work to expose the scourge of child sexual exploitation in both her local area and nationally. I am grateful to her for once again raising this issue. We need to have the correct balance between additional protection, and recognition of the relevant rights and responsibilities of young people in this age group. We have given much thought to this matter. The key question for the Government is whether we think the police have sufficient powers to replace restrictions and prohibitions on people who pose a risk to vulnerable young adults aged 16 and 17. We think that the new sexual risk orders—I will come on to them in a moment—will provide the police with the powers to tackle predators. Breach of such an order will carry a sentence of up to five years’ imprisonment. We think the right balance is being struck with the combination of child abduction warning notices and sexual risk orders. We therefore do not think that we need to change the law on child abduction at this stage. That allows me neatly, I hope, to deal with new clause 19, tabled by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion).

[Nicola Blackwood]

Will the Minister give way?

[The Solicitor-General]

I will give way very briefly.

[Nicola Blackwood]

The Solicitor-General is aware that the combination of child abduction warning notices and risk of sexual harm orders leaves a gap for 16 to 17-year-olds where it is impossible to prove sexual risk and where there is a need for immediate action without going to court.

[The Solicitor-General]

I remind my hon. Friend that other mechanisms and other types of order exist, and ask her to bear it in mind that the law was reformed by the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which is just coming into force. There are other tools available to the police and enforcement authorities. We have to be careful not to seek to be over-reliant on one particular type of order. Reading carefully the recommendations and observations made by Louise Casey in the Rotherham report published only two weeks ago, there are certain concerns about an over-reliance on child abduction warning notices, as opposed to taking more direct action that has the force of statutory breach and criminal sanction on breach.

New clause 19 was tabled by the hon. Member for Rotherham. I am grateful to her for providing information she wished me to consider. I confirm that we plan to implement the new sexual risk orders before the end of this Parliament. As we all know, that is a very short space of time indeed. I reassure her that we will publish guidance on their use and we will work with the police to review their effectiveness, including in the context of how child abduction warning notices are used. As a result of our productive meeting, Barnardo’s will be consulted as a part of that process.

The hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) made a point about references to the phrase “child prostitution” in a number of other Acts and regulations. The Government’s amendments to schedule 4 pick up the references to child prostitution in primary legislation, and we have a power in clause 79(2) to amend secondary legislation. That should help to clean up and clear up references to child prostitution in a number of regulations.

[Ann Coffey]

indicated assent.

[The Solicitor-General]

I will put on the record the assent of the hon. Lady. I am grateful to her for all her work on this matter.

I will move on briefly to the proposals in new clauses 15 and 16 to tackle the encouragement or promotion of FGM. In Committee, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) rightly said:

“encouragement to commit an offence is not an issue of free speech.”––[Official Report, Serious Crime [Lords] Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2015; c. 157.]

However, we need to distinguish between actual active encouragement and the expression of a distasteful opinion. As the law stands, there must be some direct connection between the encouragement or assistance and the principal offence. We believe that that is the right approach. It is settled law that applies to a whole range of criminal offences. We are not convinced of the need to go beyond that and create an offence or introduce civil measures that prohibit any or all encouragement, regardless of the intention behind it. It is too general, in our view, and there will be evidential difficulties. Members of this House and practitioners in the field are familiar with the term FGM, but it is not, of course, a term that would necessarily or colloquially be used by those who support, or have sympathy with, that form of abuse. We therefore need to think about the practicalities and the realities of seeking to prove such a general offence in the field. I am not convinced, with respect to those who moved the new clauses, that they would achieve their aim.

Amendment 20 was tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Sir William Cash) and for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham). We heard a characteristically impassioned speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. I remind him that it is a passion we all share. A large number of Members—including the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), who will be speaking to a later group of amendments, myself and others—all share his passion to see an end to FGM. With respect, the test that would be applied in his amendment would not help. The phrasing and terminology of FGM protection orders replicates provisions we already have in law in relation to forced marriage protection orders. It is clear that we are talking about prevention and the protection of young women and girls from FGM. Therefore, and with respect to him, references to risk are wholly otiose.

[Sir William Cash]

Will the Minister give way?

[The Solicitor-General]

I would like to give way, but I am afraid I am going to stick to the Speaker’s exhortation and stick to time.

It is not only the proposed legislation, but as a result of a significant public awareness programme being—

[Sir William Cash]

Will the Minister give way?

[The Solicitor-General]

I am afraid I cannot give way to my hon. Friend.

Coupled with a widespread public awareness programme, the provision will deal with the mischief my hon. Friend rightly talks about without unnecessarily complicating the Bill by otiose references to risk. It is simply not necessary.

The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), tabled amendment (a) to Government new clause 8. I entirely understand the spirit with which she wishes to move her amendment. The Government’s aim is to replicate the offence in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in a way that removes the offending phrase “child prostitution”. What we do not seek to do is widen or create a new offence. The danger of her amendment is that it would involve a substantive change in the law. For that reason, we do not support it.

Briefly, on new clause 22 with regard to child exploitation, the Modern Slavery Bill will deal in large measure with the abuse identified by all corners of the House. We do not think—this is supported by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the National Crime Agency, the National Policing Lead for Modern Slavery and the independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner—that the new offence would add anything other than confusion to the existing legislative position.

I hope I have already answered my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) with regard to amendment 33. I listened to him carefully. We have made progress. We think the most likely scenario involving paedophilic manuals and individuals who travel abroad is that they will come into possession of such a manual either in this country by downloading it or by bringing it in to this country. We therefore think that some of the problems he rightly talks about will be covered.

19:00

In the light of the explanations I have given, I hope Members will not press their amendments and new clauses. I commend the Government’s amendments to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 8 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9

Duty to notify police of female genital mutilation

‘After section 5A of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 (inserted by section 72 above) insert—

“5B Duty to notify police of female genital mutilation

(1) A person who works in a regulated profession in England and Wales must make a notification under this section (an “FGM notification”) if, in the course of his or her work in the profession, the person discovers that an act of female genital mutilation appears to have been carried out on a girl who is aged under 18.

(2) For the purposes of this section—

(a) a person works in a “regulated profession” if the person is—

(i) a healthcare professional,

(ii) a teacher, or

(iii) a social care worker in Wales;

(b) a person “discovers” that an act of female genital mutilation appears to have been carried out on a girl in either of the following two cases.

(3) The first case is where the girl informs the person that an act of female genital mutilation (however described) has been carried out on her.

(4) The second case is where—

(a) the person observes physical signs on the girl appearing to show that an act of female genital mutilation has been carried out on her, and

(b) the person has no reason to believe that the act was, or was part of, a surgical operation within section 1(2)(a) or (b).

(5) An FGM notification—

(a) is to be made to the chief officer of police for the area in which the girl resides;

(b) must identify the girl and explain why the notification is made;

(c) must be made before the end of one month from the time when the person making the notification first discovers that an act of female genital mutilation appears to have been carried out on the girl;

(d) may be made orally or in writing.

(6) The duty of a person working in a particular regulated profession to make an FGM notification does not apply if the person has reason to believe that another person working in that profession has previously made an FGM notification in connection with the same act of female genital mutilation.

For this purpose, all persons falling within subsection (2)(a)(i) are to be treated as working in the same regulated profession.

(7) A disclosure made in an FGM notification does not breach—

(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure, or

(b) any other restriction on the disclosure of information.

(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section for the purpose of adding, removing or otherwise altering the descriptions of persons regarded as working in a “regulated profession” for the purposes of this section.

(9) The power to make regulations under this section—

(a) is exercisable by statutory instrument;

(b) includes power to make consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision.

(10) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(11) In this section—

“act of female genital mutilation” means an act of a kind mentioned in section 1(1);

“healthcare professional” means a person registered with any of the regulatory bodies mentioned in section 25(3) of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002 (bodies within remit of the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care);

“registered”, in relation to a regulatory body, means registered in a register that the body maintains by virtue of any enactment;

“social care worker” means a person registered in a register maintained by the Care Council for Wales under section 56 of the Care Standards Act 2000;

“teacher” means—

(a) in relation to England, a person within section 141A(1) of the Education Act 2002 (persons employed or engaged to carry out teaching work at schools and other institutions in England);

(b) in relation to Wales, a person who falls within a category listed in the table in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Education (Wales) Act 2014 (anaw 5) (categories of registration for purposes of Part 2 of that Act) or any other person employed or engaged as a teacher at a school (within the meaning of the Education Act 1996) in Wales.

(12) For the purposes of the definition of “healthcare professional”, the following provisions of section 25 of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002 are to be ignored—

(a) paragraph (g) of subsection (3);

(b) subsection (3A).”’ —(The Solicitor-General.)

This New Clause requires persons working in a “regulated profession” (healthcare professionals, teachers and social care workers) to notify the police if they discover in the course of their work that an act of female genital mutilation appears to have been carried out on a girl under 18.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10

Guidance about female genital mutilation

‘(1) After section 5B of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 (inserted by section (Duty to notify police of female genital mutilation) above) insert—

“5C Guidance

(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to whatever persons in England and Wales the Secretary of State considers appropriate about—

(a) the effect of any provision of this Act, or

(b) other matters relating to female genital mutilation.

(2) A person exercising public functions to whom guidance is given under this section must have regard to it in the exercise of those functions.

(3) Nothing in this section permits the Secretary of State to give guidance to any court or tribunal.

(4) Before issuing guidance under this section the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Welsh Ministers so far as the guidance is to a body exercising devolved Welsh functions;

(b) any person whom the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(5) A body is exercising “devolved Welsh functions” if its functions are exercisable only in or as regards Wales and are wholly or mainly functions relating to—

(a) a matter in respect of which functions are exercisable by the Welsh Ministers, the First Minister for Wales or the Counsel General to the Welsh Government, or

(b) a matter within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales.

(6) The Secretary of State may from time to time revise any guidance issued under this section.

(7) Subsections (2) and (3) have effect in relation to any revised guidance.

(8) Subsection (4) has effect in relation to any revised guidance unless the Secretary of State considers the proposed revisions of the guidance are insubstantial.

(9) The Secretary of State must publish the current version of any guidance issued under this section.”

(2) Consultation for the purposes of subsection (4) of section 5C of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 (inserted by subsection (1) above) may be, or include, consultation before the coming into force of this section.’—(The Solicitor-General.)

This New Clause confers a power on the Secretary of State to issue guidance about the effect of any provision of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 or about other matters relating to female genital mutilation.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

[Mr Speaker]

Before we move to the second group, it might be for the convenience of the House to know my response to the point of order raised earlier by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), upon which I undertook to reflect. In seeking to ensure an opportunity to speak and possibly vote on matters appertaining to abortion, he asked whether I would consider conflating groups 2 and 3, or eliding group 3 into group 2, for that purpose. As I hope he will understand, it would be a very unusual thing to do, so rather than elide one group into the other, as he suggested, I think there might be good will across the House to ensure that both groups are spoken to and, as appropriate, voted upon. I am hoping, therefore, that we can keep the groupings as they are and that the debate on the second group will run for no more than approximately an hour—preferably not later than 8 o’clock—so that there is an opportunity to address the third group. It is what is ordinarily known as an old-fashioned British compromise. However, it is not in my hands—it is my will, but it is not in my hands—and it depends upon the co-operation of the House. I hope the hon. Gentleman is satisfied. I am afraid it is all I can offer him tonight.

[Sir William Cash]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to confirm that my amendment 20 will be pressed to a vote.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Given that the point has been raised, I should say that separate Divisions on any non-Government new clauses will come at 9 pm. I have shortly to leave the Chair, but I shall return at, or shortly after, 9 o’clock, and it is my very strong wish that the many discrete issues should be tested through the division of the House. If Members want to test the will of the House, within reason there should be that opportunity. He can therefore rest content for the next couple of hours that the opportunity of a Division upon his important matter will come erelong. I hope he is now happy.

New Clause 23

Throwing articles into prisons

After section 40CA of the Prison Act 1952 (inserted by section 75 above) insert—

“40CB Throwing articles into prison

(1) A person who, without authorisation, throws any article or substance into a prison is guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)—

(a) the reference to an article or substance does not include a reference to a List A article, a List B article or a List C article (as defined by section 40A);

(b) the reference to “throwing” an article or substance into a prison includes a reference to doing anything from outside the prison that results in the article or substance being projected or conveyed over or through a boundary of the prison so as to land inside the prison.

(3) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to show that—

(a) he reasonably believed that he had authorisation to do the act in respect of which the proceedings are brought, or

(b) in all the circumstances there was an overriding public interest which justified the doing of that act.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine (or both);

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine (or both).

(5) In this section “authorisation” means authorisation given for the purposes of this section; and subsections (1) to (3) of section 40E apply in relation to authorisations so given as they apply to authorisations given for the purposes of section 40D.”” —(Karen Bradley.)

This New Clause creates a new offence of throwing any article or substance into a prison without authorisation (so far as not already prohibited under the Prison Act 1952). The offence would be triable either way with a maximum penalty (on conviction on indictment) of two years’ imprisonment.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 24—Codes of practice about investigatory powers: journalistic sources.

New clause 4—Investigation of crime: journalistic and privileged material—

‘(1) After section 22(5B) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (obtaining and disclosing communications data) insert—

“(5C) An authorisation granted or notice given under subsection (3), (3B) or (4) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime may not authorise or require any activity which is likely to result in journalistic source information or privileged information being obtained or disclosed, unless a judge has permitted the grant of the authorisation or the giving of the notice in accordance with section 22A.

(5D) For the purposes of this section “journalistic source information” means information which identifies, or might reasonably be expected to lead to the identification of, the source of confidential journalistic material, within the meaning given by section 100 of the Police Act 1997.

(5E) For the purposes of this section “privileged information” means—

(a) information amounting to or contained in matters subject to legal privilege within the meaning given by section 98 of the Police Act 1997; and

(b) confidential personal information, within the meaning given by section 99 of that Act, acquired or created in the course of, or otherwise obtained in connection with, a person‘s acting as a minister of religion, as a healthcare professional or as a Member of the House of Commons.”

(2) After section 22 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 insert—

“22A Judicial protection of journalistic and privileged material

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a person wishes to grant an authorisation or give a notice under section 22(3), (3B) or (4) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime; and

(b) the authorisation or notice is likely to result in journalistic source information or privileged information (as defined in section 22(5D) and (5E)) being obtained or disclosed.

(2) The person may apply to a Circuit Judge for permission to grant the authorisation or to give the notice.

(3) The application must—

(a) be in writing;

(b) set out the grounds on which it is made;

(c) be made on notice to any person to whom the authorisation or notice would be granted or given or who might reasonably be expected to be required to comply with it, unless the applicant certifies that there is reason to believe that giving notice under this paragraph might seriously prejudice a criminal investigation; and

(d) comply with any other provision, including as to timing, made by rules of court.

(4) A judge may give permission under this section only if satisfied that—

(a) the grant of the authorisation or the giving of the notice is necessary for the purposes of the prevention or detection of serious crime;

(b) obtaining the data in question by the conduct authorised or required by the authorisation or notice is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by so obtaining the data; and

(c) it is right to give permission, having regard to the importance of the public interest in—

(i) protecting the confidentiality of journalists’ sources;

(ii) maintaining legal professional privilege; or

(iii) protecting the confidentiality of personal information in the circumstances specified in section 22(5E)(b).

(5) It is an offence for a person who is given notice of an application under this section to conceal, destroy, alter or dispose of the material to which the application relates except with the permission of a Circuit Judge; and

(a) this subsection ceases to apply if the application is dismissed or withdrawn or if an authorisation or notice granted or given in reliance on this section has been complied with; and

(b) a person who is guilty of an offence under this subsection is liable—

(i) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, to a fine or both; or

(ii) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.”’

This Clause would provide for judicial oversight for police and other authorities’ access to communications data which might involve the identification of journalist sources, as recommended by the Interception of Communications Commissioner. It provides the same level of protection for legally privileged and medically privileged communications and for communications between people and their ministers of religion or their MP.

New clause 5—Code of practice on investigatory powers: journalistic and privileged material—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that any code of practice under section 71 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 that deals (expressly or otherwise) with the use of powers under that Act in relation to the prevention or detection of serious crime, includes provisions designed to protect the public interest in—

(a) the confidentiality of journalists’ sources;

(b) legal professional privilege; and

(c) the confidentiality of personal information obtained in connection with a person’s acting as a minister of religion, as a healthcare professional or as a Member of the House of Commons.

(2) In complying with subsection (1) the Secretary of State must—

(a) consult the Interception of Communications Commissioner appointed under section 57(1) of that Act; and

(b) have regard to any relevant report of an inquiry submitted by that Commissioner to the Prime Minister.’

This new Clause provides that the RIPA Code of Practice includes provisions which protect the public interest in the confidentiality of journalists’ sources and the other privileged communications.

New clause 18—Excluded persons (involvement in serious crime): publication of names—

‘(1) Where the Secretary of State has exercised prerogative powers to exclude from, or deny entry into, the United Kingdom any foreign national on grounds of a reasonable belief that the named person has benefited from, or has a material connection to or involvement in, one or more serious crimes, including but not limited, to the commission of—

(a) an act or acts deliberately undertaken to foster extremism or hatred;

(b) an act or acts deliberately undertaken to facilitate, contribute to, support, encourage or promote terrorism;

(c) an act or acts of torture or any other international crime or serious violation of international human rights law; or

(d) a money-laundering offence or any other offence relating to serious or organised crime or more than one such offence,

the Secretary of State shall, subject to subsection (2), publish the name of each such person, and the ground or grounds for exclusion, within one month of the exclusion coming into effect.

(2) The publication of the name of an excluded person under subsection (1) may be deferred by the Secretary of State, where there are reasonable grounds for believing that such publication would present a risk to—

(a) national security or public safety;

(b) enable suspects in a United Kingdom criminal investigation to avoid arrest, or

(c) materially reduce the prospects of a conviction in an existing criminal prosecution in the United Kingdom,

for no longer than is required to materially mitigate the risk or risks identified in this subsection and, in any case for no longer than up to a maximum of six months.

(3) In the case of a deferred publication of the name of an excluded person, the Secretary of State shall, on publication of such a deferred name, also publish a statement identifying which risk, or which of the risks, identified in subsection (2) applied in making the decision to defer publication.

(4) This section shall apply to persons already excluded from, or denied entry into, the United Kingdom, on grounds included in subsection (1), from the date on which it comes into force.’

New clause 20—Prevention of firearms offences—

‘In the Firearms Act 1968 insert—

“28B Assessing public safety

(1) When assessing the threat to public safety under sections 27, 28, 30A, 30B or 30C the Chief Police Officer must ensure that a range of background checks are performed.

(2) Where these checks uncover substantiated evidence of violent conduct or domestic violence, the Chief Police Officer should refuse the licence application unless exceptional evidence can be brought forward by the applicant as to their suitability to possess a weapon.

(3) When assessing public safety within this section the Chief Police Officer must follow any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

(4) The Secretary of State must ensure adequate resourcing of licence applications and consult with Chief Police Officers to ensure the level of fees collected by the Police under sections 32 and 35 are sufficient for the Police to recoup the costs they incur through the administration and assessment of firearms licences issued or applied for under this Act.”’

New clause 21—New psychoactive substances—

‘(1) It is an offence for a person to supply, or offer to supply, a synthetic psychoactive substance, including but not restricted to—

(a) a powder;

(b) a pill;

(c) a liquid; or

(d) a herbal substance with the appearance of cannabis,

which he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, to be so acting, that the substance is likely to be consumed by a person for the purpose of causing intoxication.

(2) This section does not apply to alcohol, tobacco, or any drug currently scheduled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 or the Medicines Act 1968 or any substance, product or foodstuff specified by the Secretary of State following consultation with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this Part of this Act shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both such imprisonment and fine;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years.’

New clause 28—Proceeds of Crime: detection and prevention of money-laundering measures—

‘The Proceeds of Crime Act is amended as follows—

“(6A) Where the National Crime Agency has reasonable grounds to believe that—

(a) activity that gave rise to a Suspicious Activity Report is related to money-laundering; and

(b) there is a realistic prospect of investigating the case effectively,

the Agency may seek an order from the court for an extension, for a period of up to a further 31 days, of the moratorium period under section (6).

(6B) An order under subsection (6A) may be granted where the court is satisfied that that criteria in that subsection have been met.”’

Government amendments 1 and 23 to 31.

[Karen Bradley]

In the interests of brevity, I will concentrate on new clause 24 and the related amendments, and I will look forward to hearing from right hon. and hon. Members during the debate.

New clause 24 relates to the use of powers under part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—RIPA—to identify journalists’ sources. New clauses 4 and 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), cover the same ground. I do not believe there is any issue of substance between him and his supporters and the Government on this topic. Indeed, I venture to suggest that the whole House is united on the underlying issue: a free press is fundamental to our democracy, and nothing should be done that might endanger that.

For that reason, when the independent interception of communications commissioner issued a report earlier this month recommending judicial authorisation of requests for communications data intended to establish the source of journalistic material, the Government immediately accepted the recommendation in full. In conducting his inquiry into access to journalistic material, the commissioner did not find widespread or systemic abuse. In fact, the inquiry found very few cases in which police forces had sought to obtain communications data for the purposes of determining journalists’ sources. The commissioner stated that

“police forces are not randomly trawling communications data relating to journalists in order to identify their sources”.

Nevertheless, the commissioner found some cases where insufficient care and attention had been given in applications and where there was not due consideration of the implications for freedom of expression.

Primary legislation is required to give effect to the commissioner’s recommendation relating to judicial authorisation. The issue for the House is how best to give effect to that recommendation. It is an issue that many right hon. and hon. Members feel strongly about, and I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who has been tenacious on behalf of the parliamentary branch of the National Union of Journalists.

We have to accept, however, that we are coming to the end of this Parliament and that the legislative options are limited. The Bill is concerned with serious crime, and amendments are therefore necessarily restricted to that subject. For that reason, I cannot accept new clause 4. Under RIPA, the police and others can acquire communications data in relation to the prevention and detection of all crime, as well as for other purposes, such as in the interests of public safety. Were we to accept the new clause, the police would be permitted to identify a journalist’s source only in a serious crime case. As such, it would not be possible to provide in the Bill for judicial authorisation of the acquisition of communications data for the purposes of determining the source of journalistic information in a non-serious crime case.

Under RIPA, a serious crime is one for which an adult with no previous convictions could expect to receive a custodial sentence of three years or more. This rules out legislating in the Bill on applications for communications data to identify a journalist’s source relating to investigations for relevant offences under, for example, the Official Secrets Act 1989, the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Computer Misuse Act 1990. The commissioner referred specifically to investigations under the Computer Misuse Act in paragraph 7.3. It would not be satisfactory to create such a situation, and nor would we be acting on the commissioner’s recommendation were we to do so.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karen Bradley]

I hope my hon. Friend will understand if I do not, given the limited time frame and because I know he will make a contribution later. I hope I will cover his concerns in my remarks, and I look forward to hearing his comments.

Our solution is new clause 24, which I freely confess is modelled on my hon. Friend’s new clause 5. It provides that any code of practice issued under RIPA dealing with the use of RIPA investigatory powers in relation to the prevention or detection of serious crime should include provisions protecting the public interest and the confidentiality of journalists’ sources. It also requires the Secretary of State to consult the commissioner and to have regard to any relevant reports that he has made.

As hon. Members might know, we launched a consultation last November on a draft RIPA acquisition of communications data code. We received more than 300 responses, and I am grateful to everyone who took the trouble to submit a response. The draft code included new wording about the requirement for extra consideration to be given in cases involving the communications data of journalists and those in other sensitive professions. However, we were clear that we would not finalise the code until we had had time to consider the consultation responses fully and, equally importantly, had been able to consider the commissioner’s recommendation. I can assure the House that we are keen to finalise and bring forward the revised code as soon as possible. It will require the approval of both Houses of Parliament before it comes into effect.

I recognise, however, that we should do more to give rapid effect to the commissioner’s recommendation. Accordingly, we will require law enforcement agencies to use production orders, which are judicially authorised under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—or the equivalents in Scotland and Northern Ireland—for applications for communications data to determine journalistic sources. I hope that this will provide welcome reassurance.

Nevertheless, this is not a long-term solution. PACE applies only to indictable offences, is for evidential, rather than intelligence purposes, and has specific access considerations. The ultimate solution, therefore, is legislation that will give full effect to the commissioner’s recommendation. Regrettably, that will have to wait until after the election, but the Government have today published a draft clause for that purpose so that there can be no doubt about how we intend to proceed as soon as the opportunity arises. I hope that the combination of the requirements imposed by new clause 24, the interim use of production orders and a firm commitment to future legislation will reassure those who are concerned, and that on the basis of what I have said my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) will not press new clauses 4 and 5.

[Dr Huppert]

Will the Minister say something about the time scale? As of when will production orders be required, and will the secondary legislation on the code of practice be in place before the election, so that we can pass it in time?

[Karen Bradley]

If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will come back to those points when I have heard all his comments. I will respond to all his concerns together, if that is acceptable to him.

New clause 23 would create a new offence of throwing an article or substance into a prison without authorisation. It is designed to address the significant and increasing problem of the presence of new psychoactive substances in our prisons. In applying to any article or substance, the new offence will also capture wider threats to prison security and good order. It will add to the existing criminal offences in the Prison Act 1952, which make it an offence for a person to convey into a prison certain specified items, including controlled drugs, alcohol or mobile phones without authorisation. The maximum penalty for the new offence will be two years’ imprisonment, sending a clear message to would-be traffickers.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

What will the new clause add to what is already in law?

[Karen Bradley]

We feel that it is important to have the ability to deal with the problem in criminal law. We have identified it as a problem, and we want to ensure that we can deal with it.

Government amendment 1 does not require much explanation. It is a technical amendment to the provisions in part 4 of the Bill relating to the seizure and forfeiture of substances used as drug-cutting agents. It simply provides that in Scotland, applications to a sheriff under clauses 60, 61, 63 and 64 must be made by summary application, as distinct from other forms of application such as an initial writ or small claim.

I commend the Government amendments and new clauses to the House. I look forward to hearing what right hon. and hon. Members throughout the House have to say about their new clauses, and to responding to them.

[Diana Johnson]

The Opposition support Government new clause 23. I want to make some brief comments about Government new clause 24 and new clauses 4 and 5, which, as the Minister said, all relate to how the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is being used to access journalists’ source material or materials subject to legal privilege.

The issue has been around for a while, and Labour called for, and got agreement from the Government on, a broader review of RIPA by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. In the meantime, the interception of communications commissioner has published a report containing two recommendations: first, that access to journalistic source material should require prior approval from a court, and, secondly, that when communications data are sought, they should not relate to an investigation to determine a source of journalistic information when, for example, the journalist is a victim of crime or is suspected of committing a crime unrelated to their occupation. It was recommended that chapter II of part I of RIPA may be used, so long as the designated person gives adequate consideration to necessity, proportionality and collateral intrusion, including the possible unintended consequences of the conduct. The revised code contains very little guidance about what those considerations should be, and that absence needs to be addressed. As I said, Labour called for the fundamental review of RIPA by David Anderson QC, and it has consistently called for the intelligence commissioners to be given a more prominent role. We therefore welcome the interception of communications commissioner’s report and accept his recommendations. That is an example of the role that the commissioners should be playing.

New clauses 4 and 5 are intended to implement the commissioner’s recommendations. New clause 5 demands that a new code of conduct be written, in consultation with the interception of communications commissioner. The Government have essentially accepted that point in tabling new clause 24. New clause 4 would amend RIPA to introduce judicial oversight. However, as I understand it, and as the Minister indicated, it has been limited by what can be included under the scope of the Bill. It would therefore apply only when data were sought for the purposes of preventing or detecting a crime, which is only one of eight justifications for accessing data. Essentially, the limitations of the Bill mean that we cannot fully implement the commissioner’s recommendations. I would be grateful if the Minister explained why the Government did not seek the leave of the House to extend the scope of the Bill—as I understand it, they could have done so by tabling a motion of instruction.

New clause 21 is about new psychoactive substances. We have tabled it to enable effective action to be taken against the sellers of legal highs. It would mean that legal highs could be controlled in the same way as solvents, making it much easier to prosecute and close down sellers and prevent them from using the excuse that a substance is not for human consumption. A similar approach has been adopted in Ireland, and the number of head shops there has fallen from 100 to six. The new clause was drafted in conjunction with the Angelus Foundation, and we also took advice from the UK Drug Policy Commission.

19:15

I know that there have been some attempts to close down sellers through trading standards legislation, but most attempted prosecutions have failed because sellers use a loophole in the law to avoid prosecution by labelling their products as plant food or bath salts, or by saying that they are not fit for human consumption. We believe that new clause 21 could deal with that.

New clause 20 deals with firearms and would strengthen police decision making about the issuing of a firearms licence. The Government have said that they are committed to the general principle of full cost recovery across the public sector, including for passports and driving licences. However, a fishing licence application, which involves no background check at all and is required by nearly half a million anglers each year, costs at least £27, whereas a shotgun licence costs £50 for five years. The Government’s attempt to introduce full cost recovery should be extended to gun licences, which should not be subsidised by funds allocated to policing.

Finally, I wish to comment on new clauses 18 and 28. New clause 18 is intended to facilitate the publication of the names of those who have been excluded from the UK, and is motivated by the legitimate concerns that the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) holds about what we are doing to ensure that those connected to torture and undesirable regimes are kept out of the country. New clause 28 would introduce new powers to tackle illegal money flows connected to a range of crimes and terrorism. We know only too well that ISIL is estimated to be making £3 million a day through flows of money.

As the time available is limited, and because I do not want to pre-empt the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the new clauses, I will be brief. We have concerns that there may be unintended consequences of how they are drafted. We will want to listen to what he has to say about them.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

It was widely trailed in the media, when the leader of the Labour party had dinner with the Clooneys, that the Labour party would get behind a UK Magnitsky Act. New clause 18 is the most modest step in that direction. Is it the Labour party’s position to say one thing after a glitzy Hollywood dinner, and then do something entirely different when it comes to having the courage of its convictions?

[Diana Johnson]

I will be interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say about new clause 18, because it will be helpful to have the details. What I am saying to him is that we have concerns about the drafting of it. We support the principle of it.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I find the shadow Minister’s response to my hon. Friend quite staggering. She made the same point about new clause 28, which I have tabled. Is it seriously the Opposition’s case that 31 days is sufficient time to investigate multimillion-pound suspicious activity reports such as that in the case of OPL 245?

[Diana Johnson]

I want to hear the comments that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Esher and Walton will make about their new clauses. Time is limited, and on the instructions of Mr Speaker I am trying to keep my comments short. I am pointing out that there may be unintended consequences of how the clauses are currently drafted.

[Dr Huppert]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I shall confine my comments to the proposal for journalists to be protected under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, because I think that is very important.

I know that we have to proceed fairly quickly, but it is worth my setting out the facts. There was a great deal of public concern when it became clear that Met police had been using RIPA to look into journalists’ sources during Operation Alice. For instance, they examined the phone records of Tom Newton Dunn, political editor of The Sun. Kent police also obtained records during Operation Solar. According to a report by the interception of communications commissioner, 19 forces made more than 600 requests for information about journalists’ phone records to try to identify their sources., and that has had a very large-scale and worrying effect.

I pay tribute to, in particular, the Press Gazette and the National Union of Journalists, which launched the Save Our Sources campaign. They were right to do so, because this is a fundamental issue. If police and other authorities can gain access to journalists’ records, how can anyone feel safe when contacting a journalist to blow the whistle, in the knowledge that their information may simply be passed on? People would have to feel an immense amount of trust to do that.

I am pleased that we are making some progress on this important matter, but the extent of the progress that has been necessary has been frustrating. My party has had policies to ensure that we get this right since last year, when my Liberal Democrat colleague Lord Strasburger tabled amendments that were rejected by the Conservative Minister Baroness Williams—not Shirley, but Susan. We made a number of other attempts, and Conservative Ministers said that they wanted to act, but unfortunately it was not until we tabled new clause 5 that we forced something to happen. Not until the Deputy Prime Minister spoke out in favour of the new clause and we managed to persuade three Select Committee Chairs to support it—the Chairs of the Home Affairs, Justice and Culture, Media and Sport Committees—did we secure some partial agreement. Nevertheless, I am pleased that the Government have given way on the new clause, although, as is their wont, they have slightly rewritten it.

I welcome what the Minister said about the code of practice, but will she tell us when it will be introduced? Can she give a clear assurance—I did not hear her give one earlier, although there is such an assurance in the letter that has just been passed around—that it will definitely be in place before the end of this Parliament, having been approved by both Houses? I should be grateful if she made it absolutely clear that the code of practice will not be delayed, because we need to act.

[Karen Bradley]

We hope that the code will be in place before the general election, but that will obviously be subject to parliamentary approval.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Minister, and I will hold her to at least seeking parliamentary approval in time. I accept that she cannot guarantee that both Houses will vote for the code, but I should be very alarmed if Parliament were not keen to ensure that journalists were included.

The Minister also spoke about the requirement for production orders to be used in the meantime. That is welcome, because the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 currently protects journalists so that their sources cannot be sought without judicial authorisation, but may I ask the Minister whether the use of such orders is a policy requirement as of today, whether it will require legislative change, and what time scale will be involved? I hope she will confirm that she has made a policy announcement that will take immediate effect. She does not seem to wish to intervene at the moment, but I hope that she will give answers to those questions by the end of the debate, so that I can decide whether any amendments or new clauses need to be put to a vote.

The Minister said that legislation would not be possible until the next Parliament. She was right to identify a technical drafting issue. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) was also right to say that the Government could have fixed that had they really wanted to, but we are where we are, and I accept that, as things are, we will be leaving serious crime to be treated differently from other issues. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the draft clause—of which I have been handed a copy—will be published so that the whole House has a chance to look at it. It is a welcome step, but it does not seem to be clear about article 10 rights, and I think that it will need to be improved in that regard.

I hope that the Minister will make the time scale clear, so that the House can make the right decision. It is important for us to protect journalists, and I pay tribute to those who worked so hard to ensure that that could happen. I hope that we can take a full step now, rather than a slightly small, grudging step.

[Mr Raab]

New clause 18 was tabled by me and by 21 other members of the three main parties, including—I am not sure whether this is a first—seven Select Committee Chairmen. It would inject some transparency into the Government’s exercise of powers to impose visa bans or deny entry, all of which are non-statutory, in relation to people involved in serious international crimes such as torture, terrorism and other kinds of organised crime. It would give the public the right to know whom we are banning from setting foot on British soil, and, by implication, whom we are not.

The new clause was inspired by the House’s unanimous resolution in March 2012—nearly three years ago—following a debate that I sponsored, along with the former right hon. Member for South Shields. We called on the Government to introduce a British Sergei Magnitsky law. There is one in the United States, and other models are being touted around the world. Such a law would impose mandatory visa bans and asset freezes on any individual linked to the torture and murder of Sergei Magnitsky, or similar such international crimes, in Russia and beyond.

As the House will recall, Sergei Magnitsky was the lawyer for a British businessman, Bill Browder, and was brutally killed on orders from the Kremlin for disclosing the $230 million tax fraud—the biggest in Russian history—that had been committed by President Putin and his associates. To my regret, the Government have not produced legislation, but I should add, in fairness, that they did affirm a policy of refusing visas to individuals who were suspected of such links. Unfortunately, owing to a long-standing policy in successive Administrations, we are not told who is banned from coming to the United Kingdom when such decisions are made, so we have no way of confirming the extent to which those important powers, and the new policy that was announced by the Government in about 2012, have been exercised in practice. There are legitimate fears—which I have raised with Ministers, and with different arms of Government, on a number of occasions—that such heinous people may be making visits to Britain.

What has been the aftermath of the House’s call for a UK Magnitsky Act in 2012? Sergei Magnitsky was posthumously prosecuted by the Putin regime, and Bill Browder himself has been the subject of various legal attacks by the Russian Government. There are reports, which were documented in the BBC’s “Panorama” in 2013, that UK companies are being used to launder money related to the Magnitsky murder and other mafia-related crimes. Meanwhile, Putin has annexed a slice of Crimea and established himself as a regional menace, and is now directing his gaze to the Baltic states.

Here in the UK, we have seen the mysterious and unexplained deaths of two Russian businessmen, Alexander Perepilichny and Boris Berezovsky, who had fallen out of favour with Putin—not to mention the public inquiry into the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, which Ben Emmerson QC told the inquiry was an “act of nuclear terrorism” on British soil.

I do not know for sure, but I fear that some of those linked to President Putin's nefarious activities—the persecution of Sergei Magnitsky and other dissidents, or his wider bankrolling by the mafia—may be slipping through the net and using London as a comfortable haven, a place free of the perils of living in Russia where they can enjoy their illicit profits in quiet, in peace and in secret. I also believe that, in the 21st century, the British public have a right to know whether the henchmen of despots like Putin—or, indeed, any other international dictator or outlaw—are being granted a free pass to come to this country. The Home Office has stuck to its long-standing line that it does not routinely disclose who is denied entry, but I do not think that that line withstands the slightest scrutiny. Why should the public not be told, as a matter of basic principle, how such important powers are being exercised? During the three years for which I have campaigned on the issue, no one has given me a serious, substantive explanation. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) talked about drafting. It seems to me that Home Office officials are burying their heads in a comfortable secrecy and lack of transparency. Why should the public not be told?

In any case, the policy is routinely flouted by those in the Home Office itself. When they want to make a show of banning characters who have been deemed offensive—for instance, the American radio host Michael Savage, and rappers such as Snoop Dogg—it is trailed liberally in the media. Incidentally, both those cases occurred under the last Home Secretary. At the moment the public may be told if someone who is offensive gets banned from coming here, but not those linked to crimes such as torture or terrorism. There is absolutely no explanation or justification for that double-standard. Equally there is evidently no legal or principled reason not to introduce transparency for those linked to such serious crimes. That would explain why the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has recommended that the identity of those denied entry on human rights grounds should be made public.

19:30

I understand the shadow Minister made some points about drafting. This amendment has been checked by external counsel. It has also been cleared with the Public Bill Office and the Clerks to make sure it is in shape and that it is workable. So if the shadow Minister wants to fall back on the easy and, frankly, if I may say so, slightly lazy “We agree with you in principle but not in practice” position, I urge her to explain precisely what is wrong with it, because we looked at this drafting very carefully. Again, I would make the point to her that the leader of her party has made a big song and dance in the media about being behind a UK Sergei Magnitsky Act, and yet when it comes to this very small piece of the jigsaw puzzle, and when push comes to shove, the Labour party is hiding behind drafting technicalities without giving any detail on it.

[Diana Johnson]

rose—

[Mr Raab]

I will gladly take an intervention from the shadow Minister.

[Diana Johnson]

I am very flattered to be the focus of such attention from the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps it would be wiser at this stage if he were to direct his comments more to his own Front-Bench colleagues as they are in government and can bring forward legislation, which clearly we as shadow Ministers in the Opposition cannot.

[Mr Raab]

I welcome the shadow Minister’s intervention and she has got half a point, but the thing is that I have been nailing those on my Front Bench on this for three years and the difference is that they have stuck to their line fairly consistently whereas literally in the last month the leader of the Labour party has gone on record—his advisers have been trailing it liberally after the glitzy Hollywood dinner with the Clooneys—saying that actually he would go for a UK Magnitsky Act, but when push comes to shove it is nowhere to be seen. This raises a whole question about the Labour party having the courage of its convictions. So I have made this point to Members on my own Front Bench, but I also think the shadow Minister needs to be responsible for her own position and her own party’s position—and, indeed, answer for what the leader of the Labour party has trailed widely in the media.

Coming back to the substance of this, it is also worth remembering that in cases of extradition or deportation there is already a huge amount of transparency over both the policy and who is being removed. As a result, there is intense and legitimate scrutiny of Government policy. So if the public have the right to know whether the Government intend to remove the likes of Abu Qatada, why should they not equally be told whether we are banning such people from coming here in the first place? If we are serious about trying to alter Putin’s behaviour, should we not start by making sure that those who bankroll him cannot enjoy the fruits of their labour here, clandestinely in luxurious comfort? Those individuals who bankroll Putin and his like should know that when they cross the line and engage in serious international crimes, their association with him and support for him will bar their ability to enjoy the luxurious Knightsbridge lifestyle that so many of them crave. To ensure that message hits home consistently and publicly, we need transparency over such visa bans.

This new clause does not single out Russia. It would apply to any individuals linked to terrorism, violent extremism, gross violations of human rights law, money laundering and other serious organised crime, whatever their nationality and wherever they take place.

[Stephen Barclay]

Is a further reason why we need transparency that there is very little transparency around the beneficial ownership of multimillion pound property in London? For example, a respected non-governmental organisation estimates that 45% of London property valued at above £2 million is owned offshore where the beneficial owner is opaque. If those who have profited through torture and corruption are able to own London property, it is even more important to be transparent about whether they are travelling here.

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to shine a light on the murky mafia-related activities that are infecting our country through the acquisition of property and also by the physical entry of individuals into this country.

This amendment would also make an important statement about British foreign policy, particularly as inevitably in the 21st century we have to rub along with, deal with and engage with Governments who do not respect the same standards of liberal democracy as we do here in Britain. I am a realist and I recognise that we will have to engage with regimes with a dubious commitment to human rights or the rule of law, but there ought to be some moral red lines here. People carrying dirty money and individuals with blood on their hands should not be welcome on the streets of Britain. This is not just a question of moral principle. Sooner or later, if we keep allowing such unsavoury characters into the UK, bringing all their baggage and vendettas with them, we risk finding that it is British citizens who are caught in the crossfire or worse. After all, the Litvinenko inquiry has already heard that Putin’s thugs were willing to engage in nuclear terrorism here in public, so the threat to the British public is real and serious.

I remain convinced that Britain should enact a Sergei Magnitsky law, like the Americans, with mandatory visa bans and asset freezes imposed on people linked to the worst international crimes. In the meantime, at the very least we need to shine a light on the exercise of existing UK powers to deny entry or visas to the shady characters who prop up Putin, or indeed any other despot around the world.

This new clause does that. It would allow a temporary delay in disclosure of the identity of anyone banned if necessary for national security or law enforcement, and it would not alter the substantive scope of any existing powers, but it would ensure that they are exercised consistently, and it would ensure that the public are told whom we ban from Britain. I commend new clause 18 to the House.

[Stephen Barclay]

I rise to speak to new clause 28, tabled in my name, which is much more modest than the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab). It is simply about giving law enforcement more time in respect of multimillion pound money laundering cases.

At present around 316,000 suspicious activity reports are filed each year with law enforcement agencies. Those are cases where the banks, the lawyers or the accountants have serious concerns around money laundering. According to the Home Office’s own figures, between £23 billion and £57 billion are being channelled through the UK economy each year, so we know the scale of money laundering is significant. At present, when a suspicious activity report is filed the law enforcement agencies—the National Crime Agency has now taken on this responsibility —have just seven days to say whether they give consent to those multimillion pound transfers going ahead. That is just seven days on a case that might well have been built over many years, often involving jurisdictions where information is difficult to obtain, and if law enforcement decides it does not wish to give consent to these transactions, which the financial institutions themselves have said look suspicious, they have just 31 days to build the case to the satisfaction of the courts. If they fail to do so, they risk the penalty of costs against them, which sets a strong disincentive to law enforcement to take those cases forward. To put that in context, the proceeds of crime unit investigated only 110 cases from the 316,000 suspicious activity reports filed with it, so clearly the system is not working.

I thought I would give just one case to bring this to life. The Nigerian case OPL 245 has a bit of a jargony name, but it involves $1 billion paid by a British oil company for some offshore land in Nigeria with oil assets. To put this in context, $1 billion was paid for this land for drilling—they do drill offshore, I should point out for the benefit of any Members who might be confused as to how they obtain the oil—yet 14 years earlier this land was granted to a company owned by the then Nigerian oil Minister. In essence the land was granted by the Nigerian oil Minister to a company that he owned and for which $1 billion was then paid 14 years later. In investigating that case that had developed over many years involving complex financial arrangements over different jurisdictions, law enforcement has just 31 days to build a case that would block the transfer of $1 billion that is going to a corrupt official and his henchmen.

New clause 28 simply seeks to give law enforcement agencies more time to build their case. I shall not press it to a vote, but I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the Government believe that the current arrangements provide sufficient time, or whether they accept the substance of the new clause, which is that the current arrangements are insufficient and that they load the dice against law enforcement, meaning that corrupt assets can be transferred from the UK to criminals. If the Government accept my proposal, I hope that they will change the law at the earliest opportunity to create a more level playing field by giving more time for these complex, multi-jurisdictional cases to be investigated.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I am in a state of confusion, so am here as a humble searcher for the truth on these matters. I know that the programme motion was not moved, but I am interested in discussing Government new clause 24 and new clauses 4 and 5. As secretary of the National Union of Journalists group in Parliament, I have been trying for the past year to get some clarity on the protection of journalistic sources. We have dealt with this matter under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, and now we are dealing with it under this Bill. I apologise for having bored the House on the matter at times. Sometimes I have been in the Chamber talking about it almost all on my own. We are now coming to the conclusion of this legislation, at least before the general election. I appreciate that the Government have said they will return to the matter after the election.

I am unhappy with all the amendments that have been tabled, from all sides. There are three principles on which the NUJ has been campaigning—in relation to RIPA, DRIPA and this Bill—in regard to applications for access to information on journalistic sources by the police, the intelligence services or anybody else. We have discovered that a large proportion of applications have come from people in that last category—“anybody else”—in recent years, including even local authorities. The first of the three principles that the NUJ has been trying to establish is that there should be an independent process with judicial authorisation to protect professional communications. The second is that there should be automatic and mandatory prior notification of requests. The third is that there should be mechanisms in place to challenge an application, along with the right of appeal.

As I said, I am here as an honest searcher for the truth. As far as I can see, none of the amendments tabled by the Government and others satisfies all three conditions. The first is satisfied, in that there will be at least a form of the judicial authorisation for which we have been arguing for at least 12 months. However, I can see no mention in the amendments of automatic and mandatory prior notification of the requests to the parties involved. With regard to data communication and collection, I see that there has been mention of notifying the company that has collected or retained the data, but there does not seem to be a proposal for a process by which the individual journalist would be notified. Journalists do not seem to be party to these proposals at all. As a result, there seems to be no mechanism for their views to be represented when the judicial authorisation is being sought, or for them to challenge the proposal or the court’s decision on the protection of their sources.

At the moment, none of the amendments satisfies those three criteria. I would welcome the Government’s response, because I know that they are proposing to introduce detailed amendments in future legislation. I would welcome information on whether such amendments would deal with the two other criteria. I can see that judicial authorisation is being addressed, but would the questions of prior notification and the right of appeal also be covered?

The Government have argued that amendments tabled by others related solely to serious crime and not to other matters, and that they do not encapsulate all the recommendations in the recent report. I understand that argument, but the Government are still not putting forward any proposals about the use of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—PACE—in relation to the way in which production orders are applied for. This was how the whole argument started. At the moment, if a production order is applied for under PACE, the journalist is informed in advance about the order. They are then able to put their case in court and, if necessary, appeal it and have it judicially reviewed. That does not seem to be the process that is being suggested here.

19:46

The reason that there has been controversy, in relation to Metropolitan police actions in particular, is that the police sought to avoid abiding by PACE by using RIPA, thus avoiding openness, transparency and the ability of an individual journalist to contest a decision. Unless the Government introduce amendments that enable prior notification and a mechanism by which an application can be challenged, they will certainly not satisfy the journalists of the NUJ who have been working on this issue for so long, and neither will they satisfy European legislation. I would welcome information on the process from here on in, and on whether and how those issues will be addressed.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I am sorry that he has been misdescribed as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) on the Annunciator. I do not think that either he or my hon. Friend has any doubt about who they are, and, having listened to the hon. Gentleman speak in the House for the past 20 or so years, I certainly have no doubt as to who he is. Had he been able to be here on time today, his ears would have been burning as the Minister and others praised him for his campaign on this matter. However, it is a pleasure to see him here now, even if he has been described as Stephen Barclay on the Annunciator.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Members do not need to get excited. One of the Annunciators is correct; the other is not working. However, I know what is going on, so we can proceed.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

As my father used to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, “There is no point in having two clocks if they both tell the same time.”

I want briefly to respond to what my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire said about his new clause 28. Having spent quite a lot of my time as a Government Law Officer and having subsequently taken an interest in financial crime, I was much taken by what he had to say. My only suggestion would be that, rather than limiting himself to a further 31 days, he should propose—

[Stephen Barclay]

It was proposed more to make a point.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

My hon. Friend is unnecessarily modest in his ambitions. Instead of proposing 31 days, he might have proposed any such other period as the court might think just in all the circumstances. The thrust of his argument is, however, unassailable and I wish him well with his discussions with the Government. New clause 28 makes a good deal of sense.

I am honoured to be a co-signatory to new clause 18, particularly having just heard the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab). He has experience not only as an international lawyer but as someone who has prosecuted in some pretty terrible cases dealing with crimes in the former Yugoslavia. When he speaks, we should listen, pay attention and follow what he has to say, and what he had to say tonight was unimpeachable. I stress, as he did, that if we are to exclude people—be they foreign nationals or, under the current legislation, our own nationals—we should know who they are. Secret justice is not justice.

The new clause contains a proposed new subsection that would allow the Secretary of State to defer publication of the name of the excluded person on particular grounds. I suggest that that proposal would deal with any problems that anyone might suggest the new clause could create. The reason he has never received a cogent answer to his questions to Ministers and officials is that there is not one, and he has highlighted that. The Government should therefore have a little think about what he had to say and what is contained in his new clause.

I would say only one thing about new clause 24, and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington probably will not agree with me on it, albeit that we are both pretty keen on the freedom of the press. The code of practice would be an altogether more attractive concept if I could actually read it and see what it said before this thing came into legislation. The Minister properly spoke about the time limits surrounding us as we move towards the general election in May, but I used to complain in opposition, I complained in government and I complain now that secondary legislation, statutory instruments and codes of practice are subsidiary rules that hang in locked boxes from legislative trees and are not a good thing. If we are to persuade people that this measure is a good thing, we should have sight of the code of practice as soon as possible. I know that Ministers never want to commit themselves to time schedules, but this is an example of where, before the general election and before this Bill becomes an Act, we should see the fruits of the consultation process and what the code of practice should look like.

Finally, and with a degree of diffidence, I wish to discuss new clause 23. When I intervened on the Minister to ask what offences the new clause would add to, I was not given an answer—well, I was given an answer, but not to the question I asked. I was not surprised by that, because I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton, suspect that there is not an answer. This is what I call an early-day motion new clause. It is what is called, “Government sending out a message.” Governments can send out messages, but they do that on television, on the radio and in the newspapers, and they get their spin doctors to do it; legislation is supposed to be clear, non-repetitive and able to be clearly understood by the prosecuting authorities, the police, the courts and those who might be tempted to commit the offence that the clause hopes to describe.

I assume that an offence of “Throwing articles into prisons” is intended to prevent or persuade people not to throw caches of drugs, razor blades, mobile telephones and other contraband over prison walls or into prison property—so far, so good. We all know that that is already a crime, not just under the Prison Act 1952, but under various other pieces of criminal legislation. To take a ludicrous example, if I were to throw a copy of the Prison Act 1952, as amended, over the walls of Gartree prison in my constituency, would I be caught by this? On the face of it I would and I would be liable, on indictment, to a term of imprisonment

“not exceeding two years or to a fine (or both)”.

Sadly, the magistrates court does not exist in Market Harborough any more and I would have to be carted all the way to Leicester to be, on summary conviction, imprisoned for up to 12 months or given a fine.

It appears from the new clause that if I were to throw not “The complete works of William Shakespeare”, because that is a heavy volume, but a Shakespeare play over the prison wall, I would be committing an offence. I went to 65 of the prisons in England and Wales when I was a shadow spokesman responsible for prisons in the period leading up to the 2010 election, but I never went into or came out of a prison, young offenders institution or secure training unit without being wholly aware of the notices on the gates setting out what it was unlawful to bring into those places. Even though it might be suggested that lobbing a benign article such as “The complete works of William Shakespeare” over the prison wall was something done with an overriding public interest or with some other legitimate excuse, I do wish we could stop passing legislation that already exists just because it feels like a good thing to do. If we are going to take up the time of Ministers and officials in drafting this sort of stuff, why do we not draft something useful like new clause 18, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton, and get that into legislation, rather than this sort of guff?

[Karen Bradley]

Given the time and the debates that I know are to follow, I shall endeavour to answer as many points as I can, but it is highly likely that I will be brief in my comments. I will, however, commit to write to right hon. and hon. Members should I fail to address specific points in this quick winding-up speech.

I did refer to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and I hope he will have a look at that. He talked about the notification of journalists whose communications data are sought. It has never been the practice in this country for those whose communications data are sought to be notified, and we do not intend to depart from that. However, as he recognised, this matter will need to be dealt with in the next Parliament. We have today published a draft clause which provides for judicial authorisation in cases where communications data are sought for the purpose of determining a journalistic source. No doubt he will take the opportunity that future legislation will present to press his point again. I think we all agree that the solution we have before us today is not the perfect one, but we want to legislate in some way before the election and this is the most appropriate and perhaps only way we have of doing so.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), the shadow Minister, asked why the Government did not seek to extend the scope of the Bill. We took advice from the Public Bill Office on whether it would be possible to extend the scope through an instruction and thereby enable a Government new clause to be brought forward to give fullest effect to the interception of communications commissioner recommendation. The Public Bill Office advised that the scope of the Bill could not be extended in that way. We tried, but, unfortunately, that was not possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) asked about the timing of the production orders. The code will put in place the requirement to use production orders in cases where communications data are sought for the purposes of determining a journalistic source. The shadow Minister, also asked about the detail of the code of practice. We will shortly publish a revised code of practice that takes account of both the consultation responses and the recommendations of the IOCC. It will contain more detail on the factors to be considered in cases involving journalistic sources.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) talked about the throwing of packages over the wall. I have to tell him that in 2014 approximately 250 cases of new psychoactive substances being thrown into prison were recorded, compared with just 36 cases the previous year. There has been a significant increase in that number and in minor disorder and assaults in prison over the past year, and increased NPS use has been linked to some of those incidents. New psychoactive substances are not currently controlled drugs, which is why they do not fall within the legislation we would normally use.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

rose—

[Karen Bradley]

I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not mind if I do not take an intervention from him at this stage, just so that I can ensure we get on to the next group.

New clause 18 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and we have discussed this point in Westminster Hall. He will be familiar with the tribunal decision to uphold the Home Office and Information Commissioner’s decision on the neither confirm nor deny response to a freedom of information request on information held by the Department. It is a long-standing policy of this Government not to disclose the details of individual immigration cases, including in respect of those excluded from the UK. New clause 18 would have serious implications for the security of our borders and therefore to the national security of the country.

[Mr Raab]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Karen Bradley]

If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will not give way, because I need to finish by 8 o’clock, and I know that there are other hon. Members who wish to speak.

[Mr Raab]

Will my hon. Friend give us an illustration of the security problem?

20:00

[Karen Bradley]

Let me give my hon. Friend this example. There is a further risk that publication of individuals excluded from the UK may undermine international relations and foreign policy objectives. That risk is intensified if the excluded individual has connections with a foreign Government or well known organisation that may be working in partnership with the UK to broaden our interests abroad. That is one example. Also, ongoing investigations into the activities of an individual could be jeopardised if they became aware of the fact that they were on the list. While I appreciate the objective of the new clause and the commitment to transparency, the Home Secretary’s primary objective in the use of her exclusion powers is to protect the UK from those individuals who wish to damage our national security or undermine our values. The new clause would weaken her ability to do so and could put the British public at risk.

Turning to new clause 20 on firearms licensing, I put it to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North that the amendment is unnecessary. The police already have the ability to take into account evidence of violence and domestic violence when considering firearms applications, and rigorous new guidance was issued in July 2013 providing greater detail on how police should handle such cases.

The Government welcome the principle behind new clause 21, but the expert review panel made it clear in its report last October that the ban on the supply of new psychoactive substances needs careful consideration. Our priority is to frame correctly any new offence and ensure that it is robust yet proportionate and embedded in a comprehensive legislative package. The Government are moving swiftly so that the necessary primary legislation is ready to be introduced at the earliest opportunity in the new Parliament.

Finally, let me turn now to new clause 28 on money laundering, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay). The two of us have had many conversations about this. He knows that we are consulting on the suspicious activity reporting regime, and I urge him to respond to that consultation, as I am very keen to include all of those points.

In the light of my explanations, I ask my hon. Friends the Members for Esher and Walton, for North East Cambridgeshire and for Cambridge and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North not to press their amendments, and I commend the Government amendments to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 23 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 24

Codes of practice about investigatory powers: journalistic sources

In section 71 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (issue and revision of codes of practice), after subsection (2) insert—

“(2A) A code of practice under subsection (1) that relates (expressly or otherwise) to the exercise and performance, in connection with the prevention or detection of serious crime, of powers and duties conferred or imposed by or under Part 1 of this Act—

(a) shall include provision designed to protect the public interest in the confidentiality of journalistic sources;

(b) shall not be issued unless the Secretary of State has first consulted the Interception of Communications Commissioner and considered any relevant report made to the Prime Minister under section 58.”” .—(Karen Bradley.)

This New Clause requires a code of practice made under section 71 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 relating to the exercise of powers in Part 1 of that Act in relation to the prevention or detection of serious crime to include provision to protect the public interest in the confidentiality of journalistic sources.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

Termination of pregnancy on the grounds of the sex of the unborn child

‘Nothing in section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 is to be interpreted as allowing a pregnancy to be terminated on the grounds of the sex of the unborn child.’—(Fiona Bruce.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss New clause 25 —Termination of pregnancy on grounds of sex of foetus—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall arrange for an assessment to be made of the evidence of termination of pregnancy on the grounds of the sex of the foetus in England, Wales and Scotland.

(2) The arrangements made under subsection (1) shall be such as to enable publication of the assessment by the Secretary of State within 6 months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act.

(3) The Secretary of State shall consider the assessment made under subsection (1) and—

(a) determine and publish a strategic plan to tackle substantiated concerns identified in the assessment made under subsection (1); or

(b) publish a statement and explanation in relation to why a plan under subsection (3)(a) is not required.

(4) Any strategic plan under subsection (3)(a) must include, but need not be limited to, steps—

(a) to promote change in the social and cultural patterns of behaviour with a view to eradicating prejudices, customs, traditions and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority of women and which may amount to pressure to seek a termination on the grounds of the sex of the foetus;

(b) to ensure best practice exists in identifying women being coerced or pressured into seeking a termination on the grounds of the sex of the foetus, or at risk of being so, and in the provision of protection and support to potential victims; and

(c) to promote guidance to service providers, health professionals and other stakeholders.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the plan, determined under subsection (3)(a), before each House of Parliament within 6 months of the publication date of the assessment under subsection (2).’

[Fiona Bruce]

New clause 1, which I wish to be put to a vote, is supported by more than 100 MPs. The arguments for it are straightforward. First, it is to clarify beyond doubt, in statute, that sex-selective abortion is illegal in UK law. This new clause is not seeking to change the law on abortion, as some have said, but to confirm and clarify it. It also provides the Government with an opportunity to address the problem by bringing forward best practice regulations and guidance to support and protect women at risk.

New clause 1 is necessary because there is no explicit statement about gender selective abortion in UK law. The law is being interpreted in different ways because when the Abortion Act 1967 was passed, scans to determine the sex of the foetus were not available. That has led to a huge amount of confusion and mixed messages. That is despite the fact that the Government have repeatedly said that abortion on the grounds of gender alone is illegal. Health Ministers have said so; the Prime Minister has said so; the Department of Health has published guidance to that effect; and the chief medical officer has written to doctors about it. Despite all of that, abortion providers and others, staggeringly, are still refusing to accept the Government’s interpretation of the law.

Only last week, the country’s largest abortion provider, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, republished its controversial guidance in a booklet entitled, “Britain’s abortion law: what it says and why”. The following question is posed: is abortion for reasons of foetal sex illegal under the Abortion Act? To this, it answers, “No, the law is silent on the matter.” The former Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has said:

“The law does not in terms expressly prohibit gender-specific abortions.”

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

All we are trying to do is simply clarify what everyone in the House of Commons wants to be the law: we should not have abortion on the basis of gender. That is the reply to the DPP. We just want the law to be made absolutely clear.

[Fiona Bruce]

Absolutely right. That is the purpose of new clause 1. I will come on to explain why it is so important to many of the women who are suffering as a result of the lack of clarity in the law.

This House must make the matter clear. If we cannot get a consistent line from abortion providers on whether or not it is illegal to abort a girl—it is usually girls but not always—for the sole reason that she is a girl, then the law is not fit for purpose. To do so constitutes a gross form of sex discrimination. Indeed it is the first and most fundamental form of violence against women and girls. Surely no one can object to a clause that simply states that that is wrong.

New clause 1 will do more than that, because if it is passed, by virtue of clause 79 (2) the Government will be able to issue guidance to help address this abuse and support affected women. That is why new clause 25 is inadequate when taken alone. What it is proposing is a Department of Health assessment or review of the issue. The Department can already do that. Without new clause 1, it is inadequate, because it fails to go to the heart of the issue and to clear up the very real confusion that exists. It fails to clarify the law, as new clause 1 does, that sex election abortion is illegal in this country.

Let me turn now to some of the objections to new clause 1. Much of them have misrepresented its impact and some have been plain scaremongering. First, it is said that it will criminalise women. That is flatly untrue. The clause applies only to authorising doctors; it does not affect an expectant mother’s standing in law. We have also heard that it will stop abortion for disability where there is a sex-linked condition. That is also totally incorrect. I can reassure colleagues that there is nothing in this new clause to prevent a doctor from diagnosing substantial risk of serious handicap via the sex of the baby. In such cases, the ground for the abortion is the risk of the disability, not the sex of the baby. New clause 1 will not change that, and I have been careful to obtain expert legal opinion to that effect.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady spoke rightly a few moments ago about the importance of clarity in law. Does she not agree that there would be reluctance and confusion when the grounds for a termination were the genetic disorder, but the only way in which that genetic order could arise is in relation to the gender of the foetus?

[Fiona Bruce]

Not at all. We can trust our medical practitioners to be professional in that respect. It is quite clear that the ground for the abortion in such cases would be the genetic condition and not the sex of the child.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Fiona Bruce]

I will, but then I need to make progress.

[Glenda Jackson]

There are certain genetic diseases that are transmitted by the mother to a male foetus. They are not passed on to a female foetus. So the hon. Lady’s argument is invalid.

[Fiona Bruce]

That is exactly the point that I am making. If the handicap, or the condition, is diagnosed via the sex of the baby, in such cases the grounds for the abortion, through that diagnosis, is the risk of serious handicap, and on that ground the abortion can be legitimately carried out.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend, although I do not think that she needs assistance. Of all the arguments that have been put forward on this matter, the one that has no traction at all is the suggestion that enacting this new clause would lead to the confusion that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) fears. It plainly would not. There might be other arguments that can be advanced and of course there will be different views across the House, but that could not possibly happen if the new clause were enacted.

[Fiona Bruce]

rose—

[Glenda Jackson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Fiona Bruce]

No, I am going to continue. I thank the former Attorney-General for making that point so lucidly.

We have also heard that the new clause could introduce racial profiling of expectant mothers, but has anyone argued that for female genital mutilation? The term “family balancing” goes wider than any one particular community.

Then there is the argument that the new clause will do nothing to help abused women. It will indeed. It will clarify the law and as Polly Harrar of Jeena International powerfully told me:

“What we’ve found with the Forced Marriage Act 2007 was that we were able to use that piece of legislation as a bargaining tool to negotiate with parents, so a young woman could say, ‘You do realise this is a criminal offence?’”

In the same way, Polly says,

“with sex-selective abortion: having clarity in the law means that women could use this clarification to protect themselves against pressure to have a sex-selection abortion.”

She continues that

“as with FGM having a higher profile, legislation does effect a step change in cultural attitudes. So while legislation alone is not enough, it has real power to change behaviour, and that’s what is needed.”

That addresses clearly the Royal College of Midwives’ objection that new clause 1 will do little to alleviate the external pressures or coercion that these women face. As Mandy Sanghera said:

“We also we hope this will act as a deterrent—it will enable women to have more control over their own decisions.”

Is that not what many objecting to the clause want?

What does not help women under pressure to have an abortion simply because they are carrying a girl or a boy, whether that pressure comes from violence or coercion or is more subtle, is allowing that abortion to take place and sending the woman back to an abusive situation. To do so is to condone the very culture behind the pressure for such abortions and to exacerbate such abuse. The new clause does nothing to diminish services for those suffering abuse. Indeed, if it is followed by sensitively crafted regulations it should certainly improve them.

Then the quite offensive point is made that there is no evidence for sex-selective abortions in the UK. That is offensive as it is insulting to women such as those I have mentioned who have been campaigning for many years to stop this practice. Yes, the numbers are small compared with those in China or India, but they are real. Should we have to wait until those numbers grow before we take action? Rani Bilkhu, who, incidentally, is pro-choice, says:

“I have been supporting women dealing with sex-selective abortions…for almost a decade. Saying that there is no evidence is tantamount to saying that the women we work with are lying and that my organisation”—

Jeena International—

“is making things up.”

Interestingly, Rani also says that “nobody is collecting data”, so it is no wonder that opponents of the new clause say that there is none.

I know of many examples of women who have suffered. One had one daughter, conceived a second girl, had an abortion and then could not conceive again. Another had three abortions on the basis of gender, including of twins. Another’s husband punched and kicked her in the stomach when he discovered she was having a girl. Yet another says that

“women suffer depression after these abortions. What is not always considered is the emotional and psychological impact.”

These women deserve our support in the manner that they say will really help—through legislation and by clarifying the law. That does not stop a review, but it is essential that we clear up the confusion, support these women and pass new clause 1. In doing so, we would reflect the overwhelming public mood. A recent ComRes poll showed that 84% of the public agree that aborting babies because of their gender should be explicitly banned by law. More than that, we should support new clause 1 because it is, quite simply, the right thing to do.

[Ann Coffey]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of new clause 25, tabled by me, the right hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell), my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and the hon. Members for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) and for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). I will seek to test the opinion of the House on the new clause.

The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 makes it a criminal offence intentionally to unlawfully procure a miscarriage, including for a woman to procure her own miscarriage. The Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 makes it a criminal offence intentionally to kill a child capable of being born alive before it has a life independent of its mother. The Abortion Act 1967 creates exceptions to those offences in limited circumstances and abortion on the grounds of gender is not one of those exceptions. It is therefore illegal and subject to criminal prosecution. Indeed, guidance was reissued as recently as May 2014 by the Department of Health that said again categorically that abortion on the grounds of sex was illegal. I am therefore not quite sure why the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) is needed or how inserting it into the 1967 Act would address her concerns.

20:10

[Sir Edward Leigh]

If the hon. Lady thinks that such abortions are illegal under the 1967 Act, what possible objection could there be to making that explicit in law?

[Ann Coffey]

If the hon. Gentleman will wait, I am coming to that point.

The statement the hon. Member for Congleton proposes would sit alongside the existing seven grounds for termination in the 1967 Act, but of course the sex of the foetus can be a factor in causing so much distress for the woman that she meets the existing medical criteria for a termination. The British Medical Association supplied two case studies that demonstrated how that can occur. In both cases, gender was a key factor in affecting the state of mind of the pregnant woman and her wish not to continue the pregnancy. It is not clear how new clause 1, if added to the Bill, would affect the decision of doctors on the legal grounds on which they might agree a termination, if at all. It would inevitably be subject to legal challenges that would, I believe, dilute the clarity of the 1967 Act. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that doctors are granting terminations to women who do not meet the medical grounds laid down in the Abortion Act 1967.

[Mr Burrowes]

Does the hon. Lady agree with the TUC interpretation of the law, which is that it would be right in some circumstances for a doctor to approve an abortion if, for example, a woman did not want to have a girl for cultural reasons?

[Ann Coffey]

I repeat that as far as I am aware there is no evidence that doctors are granting terminations to women who do not meet the medical grounds laid down in the Abortion Act 1967. That would be a criminal offence.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I am sure that the hon. Lady is right about there not being evidence for that. Is she aware of whether there is evidence of doctors refusing permission for a termination on the grounds of none of those criteria? Are there statistics to demonstrate that that happens?

[Ann Coffey]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, part of the new clause proposes a proper assessment of some of the issues surrounding this question. I hope that during the assessment we would get much better facts about what is and what is not happening.

Women are pregnant in very different circumstances, subject to different pressures—economic, familial and community—that can all influence a pregnant woman’s state of mind and her attitude to continuing her pregnancy. If there is no substantiated evidence that doctors are granting abortions on the grounds of gender alone, we might be dealing with a more complex issue, which is how wider community and cultural attitudes to girls and women affect the physical and mental health of the pregnant woman.

Therefore, before legislating we should examine the facts relating to this complex issue, because I am concerned that the insertion of the proposed statement might have the unwanted consequence of women who might otherwise have access to an abortion on the grounds of physical and mental welfare being denied a termination. New clause 25 would arrange for an assessment of the evidence of termination of pregnancy on the grounds of the sex of the foetus in England, Wales and Scotland to be published within six months of Royal Assent. Of course, included in that assessment should be the experiences of women who feel that they have been pressured to have their pregnancies terminated.

Like other hon. Members, I have received briefings from many organisations and groups on the issue, and they demonstrate its complexity. One group that is in favour of new clause 1 talked about a growing body of research comprising the experiences of women who have talked about having sex-selective abortions in the UK as well as abroad. It states:

“We know from experience that women are having sex-selective abortions in the UK, and we feel their experiences—which reflect a much wider problem—should be taken seriously before the situation worsens.”

Another group that is opposed to new clause 1 has said that it would

“have far reaching and unintended consequences for the very women it purports to protect.”

It talked about the need to locate the protection of women from sex-selective abortion within a safeguarding framework. It states:

“There is a need to examine the issue alongside other forms of gender discrimination that impact on the practice, including the practice of dowry, domestic violence and honour based violence.”

It therefore calls for a wide-ranging inquiry, including on available support services.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

The arguments that the hon. Lady is making are those that I have read and that have persuaded me against supporting new clause 1, which I had originally intended to do when it was first mooted. I am persuaded that the real difficulty we face is getting evidence to court, and nothing that my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) has said will improve the quality of the evidence. I horribly disapprove—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. This is not an opportunity for the hon. and learned Gentleman to make a speech. This debate must end at 9 o’clock and many Members wish to speak, so interventions must be brief. I think that we have the gist of what he was saying—

[Sir Edward Garnier]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

No, I think that we have the gist. Thank you.

[Ann Coffey]

I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made his point.

I agree that the connection between cultural preferences for one sex and the factors that might then lead to a state of inconsolable distress for the pregnant woman needs to be better understood to enable us to protect women from coercion and to support them in their pregnancies. We should certainly look at the facts before agreeing to any change in the wording of the 1967 Act, because we must be careful not to worsen the situation for already vulnerable women.

New clause 1 assumes that restating that sex-selective abortion is illegal will offer women protection from pressure to terminate their pregnancies, but women subject to intolerable pressure to abort will continue to be subject to coercion. My concern is about how women would interpret the inclusion of the new clause. They might feel that Parliament has legislated that if the sex of the child is at all an issue, irrespective of their mental distress, they will not have access to a termination. Sometimes it is not what legislation says that has a powerful effect on behaviour, but what people believe it says. That might lead them to pursue alternative routes as a first resort, rather than a last one. We do not want to go back to the days of the botched backstreet abortions that took place prior to the 1967 Act, which throughout the ages have been the resort of desperate women. I remember the lengths to which women would go to terminate their pregnancies prior to that Act, in spite of the risks to their own health.

If the assessment that we propose uncovers substantiated concerns that there is pressure to seek terminations on the grounds of gender, we need to put in place a plan to deal with what is giving rise to those pressures and how we can better support women who might be being coerced. That is the proposal in the second part of new clause 25. I hope that in bringing forward those proposals there would be extensive consultation with women from all cultural backgrounds.

Finally, I would like to share a story with Members. On a recent train journey I started talking with an Asian woman who was originally from Bangladesh. In the course of the conversation she showed me a photo of her three daughters, who are now grown up. I said that they were beautiful and how lucky she was to have three daughters, at which point she looked very distressed. She then told me that she had never enjoyed any of her pregnancies because she knew that she was carrying a girl and that her then husband saw girls as being of no value and, in turn, viewed her as having no value as a wife because she had not produced a son. He eventually abandoned her. However, I am happy to report that my travelling companion went on to have her own career and that her girls are confident young women who are finding their own ways in life.

When I asked her what she thought could be done about those attitudes to girls, she said that the answer was education, education, education. She of course is right. We understand that from our own history of fighting for women’s equality—a fight that many of us still feel is a work in progress. I hope that this cross-party amendment will be supported by the House and that it will mean that when the Secretary of State reports back in six months’ time on her assessment, with accompanying proposals, we will be better informed about a way forward in addressing concerns that I agree we should not ignore. No woman should feel pressured into seeking a termination for any reason, including gender.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I will try to do so relatively briefly in order to allow more Back-Bench contributions. New clause 1, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), and new clause 25, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), both relate to the very important matter of addressing the abhorrent practice of sex-selective abortion.

The Government have been consistently clear that abortion on the grounds of gender alone is already illegal. The Department of Health repeated that in guidance issued in May 2014, and it is important to stress that all independent sector providers have agreed to comply with, and operate on the basis of, the Department’s guidance and that they must do so as part of their licensing conditions. The Care Quality Commission monitors compliance with that, including through its inspection visits.

[Mr Burrowes]

On the welcome guidance that was published, I understand from freedom of information requests, and from an e-mail sent on 21 January, that there was a request for joint badging of that guidance to ensure that all the stakeholders signed up to it. Why did that not happen? Why was it left only to the Department to publish it?

[Jane Ellison]

It was the Department’s own guidance, which is why the Department published it. In the course of forming the guidance, we spoke with all the people we would be expected to speak to.

The chief medical officer for England has written twice to all doctors—in February 2012 and November 2013—reminding them of their responsibilities under the 1967 Act and reiterating the Government’s position on gender-selective abortion, and that was reiterated by professional bodies.

The Department has also undertaken detailed analysis to investigate whether the gender birth ratio in the UK varies by the mother’s country of birth beyond the range that might be expected to occur naturally. The analysis, first published in May 2013 and updated in 2014, concluded that, when broken down by the mother’s country of birth, no group was statistically different from the range we would expect to see naturally occurring. The Department has quite rightly committed to repeat that analysis annually when new birth data become available. However, I stress that the Government will remain vigilant, will continue to monitor data and will be fully open to any other evidence that comes to light.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton cited poignant anecdotal reports of sex-selective abortion, as she did on her ten-minute rule Bill. As I said to her at the end of that debate, I urge her and anyone with evidence of individual cases to report this to the police to investigate. I invite her once again to come to the Department with such evidence.

20:30

Considerable concern has been expressed about the impact of new clause 1 and it is right that we touch on that. The Government consider that the new clause would restate our long-standing position on the issue—that abortion on the ground of gender alone is illegal. However, hon. Members will have heard the concerns expressed by a number of groups about the practical implications of new clause 1. Although the Government do not consider on balance that ground E would be affected by the new clause, it is naturally worrying for me as a Health Minister to hear from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives about the concerns that new clause 1 has caused among health professionals providing termination of pregnancy services to women.

[Mr Grieve]

I am very grateful to hear from my hon. Friend that ground E would not be jeopardised. The Government have access to good legal advice—[Interruption.] I trust that they have access to good legal advice, and it must be the case that the Government have a position on the matter. I am grateful to hear from my hon. Friend that that particular anxiety is completely misplaced.

[Jane Ellison]

I am concerned about the fears that some people have about the practical implications of the new clause, and I think others share that concern. I hope to come on to that

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists highlighted the potential impact on abortions for foetal abnormality—I hear the point that was made on that in two interventions—where an inherited gender-related condition may be indicated, and the possibility that the new clause, if passed, may result in further concerns. The RCOG says:

“Parents with a family history of such a condition may not have the option of Ground E.”

The RCOG also says, in relation to how doctors might feel about the practical implications, that

“doctors deciding not to provide this aspect of gynaecological care”

might do so

“because it is deemed to be too ‘risky’ to them professionally.”

The House will want to be aware of these and other concerns regarding the practical implications of the new clause from the body that represents the doctors who provide these services and whom we entrust with the training, support and education of our future work force.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that one of the issues is that there are some types of X-linked genetic disorders affecting only one sex that cannot be detected by genetic testing for the specific condition in question, and that that is where the uncertainty arises? In other words, it would be entirely on the basis of the sex of the child. That is why the concern and uncertainty would be increased by the new clause.

[Jane Ellison]

My hon. Friend exactly describes the concerns as they have been expressed to me by the RCOG.

It may be helpful for me to give the House some figures on abortions in our country. The House is aware that the vast majority of abortions—91%—are carried out at under 13 weeks’ gestation. This is before the gestational age at which the sex of the foetus is routinely identified at the second scan, at around 18 to 21 weeks’ gestation. Disclosing the sex of the foetus is a local decision and is based on clinical judgment about the certainty of the assessment and the individual circumstances of each case. Some 98% of all abortions were carried out at under 18 weeks’ gestation in England and Wales in 2013. It is also the case that 98% of abortions performed in the independent sector in 2013 were carried out at under 18 weeks. By contrast, in 2013, 94% of reported abortions for foetal abnormality were performed in NHS hospitals. In the light of this, the House would want to consider that the new clause could be thought likely to have greatest potential impact on those health professionals working in our NHS, rather than on independent sector providers.

As the hon. Member for Stockport explained, new clause 25 would require a further assessment of the evidence that terminations are taking place on the ground of the sex of the foetus alone. I have already outlined the analysis that the Department of Health is undertaking on an annual basis in this area. We will also take into consideration any other evidence that comes to light. I stress to the House that we take the issue of coercion and abuse very seriously. Women who present for an abortion will always have the opportunity to speak to a health professional on their own at some point during the consultation. From my perspective as public health Minister, this is the sort of issue that would sensibly be considered as part of any further review, and the Department of Health is already considering what further sources of evidence can contribute to our knowledge on this important issue.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that clauses 73 and 74 of this Bill precisely help to protect women from family coercion to have an abortion?

[Jane Ellison]

That is a useful point to draw out about other parts of this important Bill.

It is for the House to decide whether it wants to place the commitment to a further review on a statutory footing by supporting new clause 25.

As is the convention with such issues of conscience, as a Government we do not take a position either for or against new clauses 1 and 25. If the matter is pressed to a Division, Government Members will have a free vote. However, I hope that it has been helpful to hon. Members in forming their own opinion on these two new clauses for me to set out the Government’s actions to date in this area, the facts in relation to the gestations at which most abortions are performed, and the concerns raised by professional bodies. As I have said, it is for the House to decide whether it wants to support either of the new clauses, or indeed both or neither of them, but I reiterate that abortion of a foetus on the grounds of gender alone is already illegal.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

The impassioned speeches that we have heard in this debate are testament to what a sensitive and complex matter this is. New clause 1 would amend the Abortion Act 1967 and proposes that a pregnancy could not

“be terminated on the grounds of the sex of the unborn child.”

New clause 25 would require a review of the evidence relating to abortion on the grounds of gender alone and for this to be followed by a strategic Government plan that addresses concerns about the prevalence of termination on the grounds of the sex of the foetus in England, Scotland and Wales.

I am in favour of new clause 25 as the best way to address concerns about sex-selective abortions. Outwardly, the intentions behind new clause 1 might seem reasonable. However, a wide range of well-respected organisations and experts have raised concerns, pointing out a number of unintended and troubling consequences. The organisations include the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the British Medical Association, the TUC, the End Violence Against Women Coalition, Genetic Alliance UK, Imkaan and the Southall Black Sisters, among many others.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Luciana Berger]

I am going to continue because we have a lot to get through and many Members wish to speak.

New clause 1 represents a significant departure from the current principles on which abortion law in this country is based. Given that this is a matter of huge significance, the new clause deserves fuller debate and scrutiny than we have the opportunity for in the remaining 24 minutes of this debate.

Choosing to terminate a pregnancy simply because the foetus one is carrying is not the sex one wishes for is a notion that most people find abhorrent. As the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) confirmed, sex-selective abortion is already illegal under the Abortion Act 1967.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Luciana Berger]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am not going to take his intervention.

The Government, along with the chief medical officer, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and the Royal College of Midwives, have said that abortions carried out on the sole premise of foetal sex are illegal. As we have heard, updated guidance and instructions to doctors published within the past 12 months have clarified this. All independent sector providers have also agreed to follow the revised guidance as part of their licensing agreements. Let me be clear: we do not need new clause 1 to make sex-selective abortion illegal. However, it is right that we should send a strong message from this Parliament that gender-selective abortions are wrong. We can do that today by requiring the Government to carry out a thorough assessment and produce an action plan to address the root causes of this practice. That is what new clause 25 would do.

The change to the law proposed in new clause 1 would not only fail to address the root issues that lie behind the problem but have serious unintended consequences. I listened closely to the hon. Member for Congleton and to the former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), but I point to the text of new clause 1, which it is worth reading out:

“Nothing in section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 is to be interpreted as allowing a pregnancy to be terminated on the grounds of the sex of the unborn child.”

It says that nothing is to be so interpreted, so that includes medical grounds, the well-being of the mother, and gender-specific abnormalities. At best, this would create uncertainty and doubt for doctors who administer abortions in these situations and a legal grey area for women who are already facing a very difficult decision. I heard the former Attorney-General’s intervention, but I have listened to many legal experts who have written on the pages of many papers—

[Mr Grieve]

I appreciate that there may be policy arguments and all sorts of good arguments to make, but it is simply incorrect to argue that the new clause would have the consequences that have been claimed of preventing, for example, abortion from taking place where, because of the gender, there was a likelihood of disability. The Minister confirmed that. She was a bit hesitant about it, but she eventually did so when I intervened on her, so I repeat her assurance. My view is that this argument is completely groundless.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention, but, as we have heard, many legal experts dispute that position. I refer to the specific text of the new clause, which says nothing about, and is in direct conflict with, paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 1(1) of the Abortion Act.

The Genetic Alliance has said that

“the consequences of this amendment could be devastating to women and couples at risk of having a child affected by a serious x-linked condition.”

I have heard from one family where two sisters were carriers of x-linked severe combined immunodeficiency, a disease that affects only boys. After years of thinking, one sister decided not to have any children, because she did not want to risk the chance of having to choose between having a very poorly son or a termination. Her sister decided—also after many years of consideration—to have children and went on to have three healthy daughters. Those were the choices that those women made after much consideration and deliberation with their families. How can Parliament take that decision away from them? I am sure that no one would wish to deprive their daughter, sister or partner of that choice. It is surely not for Parliament to rush this through in the short time available and deny families the opportunity to have children or a healthy baby.

Another serious concern is that new clause 1 is not just a clarification of the law, but a fundamental reform of the essential principles on which existing abortion law in this country been based for 47 years. The Abortion Act 1967 places the physical and mental health of the woman as the overriding concern of a doctor authorising abortion. Our current legislation refers to the foetus rather than the unborn child. That is because, across our legislation and common law, children are accorded a wide range of protections and rights that Parliament has previously agreed should not be accorded to the foetus.

Changing the language of the Abortion Act, as this new clause would do, would send a very different signal to the courts and open up different judicial interpretations of abortion or new consequences and restrictions that would go far beyond the issue of sex selection. For the first time since legislation in 1929, new clause 1, if passed, could afford the foetus rights that would be in conflict with those of the mother and it could seriously jeopardise the future of safe, legal abortion in the UK.

[Fiona Bruce]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Luciana Berger]

I am not going to give way. I am going to wrap up, because I am conscious of the time and Madam Deputy Speaker wants me to conclude.

There are many other points that I would have liked to address, particularly the issue of custom and practice and why new clause 25 addresses the issue of coercion in communities, which is something we all want to deal with.

Voting against new clause 1 is not an indication of support for sex-selective practices, but an acknowledgement that it would do nothing to address the causes or reduce the incidences of sex-selective abortion and that some serious negative unintended consequences would result from enacting this proposed change to the Serious Crime Bill.

Few people would support the idea that families should be able to have abortions on the grounds of gender alone. That is why it is illegal under our current law. New clause 1 represents a significant departure from the current principles on which abortion law in this country is based. Instead, new clause 25 would require a review of the evidence relating to abortion on the grounds of gender alone, to ensure that we have a full understanding of the practice and the extent of the problem, and for that to be followed by a Government strategy to tackle it accordingly, based on the evidence of what works. I sincerely hope that Members on both sides of the House will vote against new clause 1 and in support of new clause 25.

[Mr Burrowes]

It is important that we try as far as possible to develop a consensus on subjects such as this. Everyone across the House is against abortion on the grounds of gender alone. We have communicated that view, the Government have written it in guidance and we want to make it clear in statute. It is as simple as that. We do not seek to have a Trojan horse or to upgrade the status of the unborn child. On that point, one simply needs to look at section 1(1)(d) of the Abortion Act 1967, which refers to “child” as a legal term, so that definition is not unknown.

We could support new clause 25, which aims to develop further research and have a plan, but it is not an alternative to new clause 1. Yes, we should develop more understanding and evidence, but we should not ignore the main point of this debate, which is what brought together more than 50 Members from both sides of the House—whether they were pro-choice or pro-life—when they signed a letter in 2013. Some of them have now signed different new clauses and are seeking to divide one another when we should be coming together to show that we want to clear up the law.

We have talked about different legal experts. Why not take one, Keir Starmer, the then Director of Public Prosecutions? On 7 October 2013, he said:

“The law does not…expressly prohibit gender-specific abortions”.

That no doubt came as a surprise to many members of the public. To put it simply, that is what new clause 1 is about—it would expressly prohibit such abortions. What does the law do? As Keir Starmer went on, rather the law

“prohibits any abortion carried out without two medical practitioners having formed a view, in good faith, that the health risks of continuing with a pregnancy outweigh those of termination.”

20:48

What drew Members from both sides of the House and all sides of the ethical debate to be concerned in 2013? They jointly said that the Crown Prosecution Service’s decision not to prosecute

“could lead to the conclusion that gender-specific abortion is merely a matter of professional misconduct rather than illegal.”

The issue is whether we simply delegate this matter to professionals’ judgment in performing a balancing act and to their conduct, or deal with it—as we as parliamentarians should do and are charged with doing—by recognising that at the very least we must ensure that the law is clear.

What did the Department do? It responded to the concerns expressed in 2013 by deciding to issue departmental guidance to set out its interpretation of the law. As we have already heard, and we have been bombarded with lots of briefings from many organisations —the royal colleges, the TUC, the BMA and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service—there are different interpretations of the law.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

We have to base the law on the law. There is no mention of this in the 1967 Act. There was no possibility of mentioning it in the Act, because it was not possible to determine gender when it was passed. Keir Starmer is therefore absolutely right: the law is unclear.

[Mr Burrowes]

That is right. The Department issued helpful guidance that abortion on the grounds of gender alone was illegal. However, guidance is not sufficient. We do not simply rely on guidance in many areas of policy.

As freedom of information requests have revealed, the Government’s attempt jointly to badge all stakeholders together did not succeed, because the BMA rejected the very guidance published by the Government. It said that gender selection abortion is “normally unethical”, but that the guidance

“fails to reflect the…full legal situation regarding abortion and gender.”

The BMA therefore had a different interpretation. It also said that, separate to the issue of gender-related disability that has quite properly been raised,

“in some cases doctors may come to the conclusion that the effects of having a child of a particular gender are so severe to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman as to provide legal and ethical justification for an abortion”.

We need greater clarity than can be given in guidance; we need to be sure that such a prohibition is clear in statute. The law as it stands is not clear. We have a duty not just to leave it to a doctor to perform a balancing act. No longer should we be silent on this issue. I urge hon. Members to support new clause 1.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. May I ask Members to make their comments very brief, because the debate will end at 9 pm and I want to get in as many as I can?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Many Members, including myself, strongly support new clause 1 as a means of clarifying the law to make it absolutely clear that sex-selective abortion, which is plainly discriminatory, is illegal in the United Kingdom. In so doing, we seek to inspire the Government to develop interventions that will address the issue of why boys are more desired than girls—the issue of son preference.

In setting out my position, I want to address head on the argument that the new clause will criminalise women. That is not the case: the legal standing of women would in no way be changed, but doctors would instead be held to account, and rightly so. Sex-selective abortion is already illegal in the United Kingdom. In fact, the Prime Minister suggested in March 2014 that abortion on the grounds of gender was not only unacceptable, but illegal. It is alarming that medical organisations, such as the British Medical Pregnancy Advisory Service and the British Medical Association, have suggested that that is not the case, or that at the very least the law is silent on the matter. That must be addressed.

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

Thankfully, we do not have the Abortion Act 1967 in Northern Ireland. One of the difficulties is that organisations, such as the BMA and others, which constantly call for clarification of the law in Northern Ireland by seeking to extend the level of abortion there are quick to say that we do not need to clarify the law when it comes to tightening the law on abortion in Great Britain.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making that clear and salient point.

If abortion laws are unclear on whether sex-selective abortion is legal, let us tighten them up using new clause 1, so that it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the practice is unacceptable. The new clause would inevitably clarify the law by stating explicitly that the termination of pregnancy on the grounds of the sex of the unborn child is illegal. It would add clarity and certainty for women and medical professionals, so that neither party would be left wondering what their rights and obligations were.

New clause 25 would not provide adequate means for holding doctors to account, because a prosecution would still hinge on the ambiguity of section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967. It is clear that it would do nothing to move forward the debate on the clarity of the law. New clause 1 would make it certain, without a doubt, that sex-selective abortion is illegal. There would be no conflicting interpretations, just the black letter of the law. It would force the Government not only to clarify the law, but to create initiatives to address the issue of son preference.

I will conclude, because I am conscious that others want to speak and I want to allow time for that. New clause 1 is vital for at least two reasons. First, at the moment it is possible to ask whether sex-selective abortion is illegal and to get three different answers that appear to be contradictory, but that are all correct. That will not do. If there are varying interpretations of the law and the legality of a practice is unclear, the law must be amended to thwart any confusion, particularly for women, who should be in no doubt as to their rights in this area. It is therefore important that we support new clause 1.

Secondly, campaigners such as Jeena International and Karma Nirvana suggest that a prejudicial attitude towards girls is a phenomenon that is occurring in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the time to act against sex-selective abortion is now, not when our sex ratios become distorted to the same levels as those of India and China. New clause 1 sends a clear, unequivocal message to doctors and medical practitioners that sex-selective abortion is illegal and cannot be tolerated in our society. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to vote for it tonight.

[Dr Wollaston]

We all agree that it is abhorrent to terminate a pregnancy on the grounds of a belief that daughters are less valuable than sons. However, I will vote against new clause 1 for three reasons: it is unnecessary, there would be unintended consequences and we have insufficient time to debate what would be a fundamental change to an underlying principle of the Abortion Act 1967.

We have heard clearly that it is already illegal to terminate a pregnancy on the grounds of gender alone, and rightly so. That has been clarified since many of us agreed that there was an issue. I agree that there was an issue. It was not possible to bring prosecutions until the clarification was issued by the Department of Health and the chief medical officer.

The updated data on this issue, which examines not only ethnicity but birth order, shows that there is no evidence of a systematic practice of gender-based abortion in this country. It happens in other parts of the world, where it is having a serious distorting effect on societies and on the status of women, but there is no systematic practice here, although I have no doubt that there are individual cases.

New clause 1 would have unintended consequences. At present, women may have the confidence to disclose to a doctor in the confidence of a consulting room that they feel under pressure. If we brought in the new clause, women might feel that they may be criminalised. That would do more harm than good and bring about the exact reverse of the intended consequence of the new clause. We also risk stigmatising communities through the implication that this is a widespread practice, which it is not in the UK. We have to be clear about that.

New clause 1 uses the very emotive term, “the unborn child”. That would change the meaning within the Abortion Act. We have to be very careful about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) mentioned that the word “child” appears in the Abortion Act. I accept that, but we must look at the context in which the word is mentioned. It is mentioned in the grounds for terminating a pregnancy when there is a grave risk that a child may suffer a serious abnormality. In other words, it does not confer personhood on the foetus in the way that this change would. It may be the view of the House that that needs to change, but let us come back and debate this incredibly serious ethical point with the time it deserves, not shoehorn it on to the tail end of a new clause with which it is difficult to disagree—as I said earlier, we are all agreed that termination on the grounds that a daughter is somehow of less value than a son is totally abhorrent.

I urge hon. Members please to come back to this issue and give it the time it deserves. Let us debate it on its ethical merits, not try to pretend that we are talking about something else. We are all agreed on the fundamental premise, so let us give it the time it deserves and reject new clause 1 tonight.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I speak as one of the 13 MPs who co-sponsored the original ten-minute rule Bill of the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). I did that because I think she was right to make people aware that sex selective abortion is illegal, and I thought her Bill was a powerful and good tactic to do that. However, I feel a bit as though I have been pulled along by a Trojan horse because, as the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) said, the new clause confers the status of an unborn child on the foetus, and that radically changes our abortion laws in a way I believe is dangerous.

As I said in an earlier intervention, clauses 73 and 74, which deal with coercive behaviour, contain a powerful tool that we should use to prevent the kind of coercion to which the hon. Member for Congleton referred. In those references she quoted extensively from an organisation based in my constituency, but personal experience of how that organisation has failed to help individual constituents has led me to the conclusion that it is not possible to depend on the accuracy of what it says. I am therefore concerned that we are using anecdote from an unreliable source to make legislation on the hoof.

Having supported the hon. Lady’s original ten-minute rule Bill, I have since read something from an organisation in America that is closely linked to the all-party pro-life group that she chairs. The head of that group stated:

“I propose that we—the pro-life movement—adopt as our next goal the banning of sex…selective abortion. By formally protecting all female fetuses from abortion on the ground of their sex, we would plant in the law the proposition that the developing child is a being whose claims on us should not depend on their sex…This sense of contradiction will be further heightened among radical feminists—”

I think he means people like me—

“the shock troops of the abortion movement. They may believe that the right to abortion is fundamental to women’s emancipation, but many will recoil at the thought of aborting their unborn sisters.”

My final reason for arguing that we should reject the new clause is the concern of the British Medical Association that it will make doctors more fearful of providing abortion services and training to carry out abortions. One of the biggest risks for young women seeking help to terminate a pregnancy is not getting that help in time, as a result of which we end up with late abortions and women who cannot have abortions when they are entitled to them. One reason for that is the growing number of doctors who are reluctant to perform abortions because they practise defensive medicine. I have no doubt that the new clause is unnecessary and likely to increase that and make it more difficult for women to access their right to termination—a right that I am afraid the hon. Member for Congleton, although I agree when she says that we all agree that abortion should not be available on the basis of gender, does not support at all.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

If the whole House is agreed that it is morally repugnant to destroy a foetus simply on the basis of its gender—it is usually a girl—let us make that explicit in law.

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

Very briefly—

21:00

Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 5 January).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.

21:00

Division 157

Ayes: 201

---

Conservative: 151
Labour: 30
Liberal Democrat: 12
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
UK Independence Party: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Scottish National Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 292

---

Labour: 178
Conservative: 78
Liberal Democrat: 29
Scottish National Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 1
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1

The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 2

Official Secrets Act 1989 (additional defence)

(1) The Official Secrets Act 1989 is amended as follows—

(2) After section 8, insert—

“(8A) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under any provision of this Act to prove that he knew, or had reasonable cause to believe, that the information, document or article disclosed was—

(a) germane to an official investigation of, or inquiry into, historic child abuse, and

(b) provided only to an officer of such an investigation or inquiry.”—(John Mann.)

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

21:15

Division 158

Ayes: 233

---

Labour: 208
Conservative: 8
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Scottish National Party: 4
Liberal Democrat: 3
UK Independence Party: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Green Party: 1

Noes: 296

---

Conservative: 253
Liberal Democrat: 40
Independent: 1

New Clause 17

Mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse

‘(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) he is involved in the provision of regulated activity as defined by section 5 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 for which he is paid;

(b) he is a provider of regulated activity as defined by section 6 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006;

(c) he becomes aware that a child has been harmed in connection to the regulated activity; and

(d) he does not inform a relevant authority of this harm.

(2) A person does not commit an offence under this section if—

(a) he can demonstrate he acted in the best interests of the child, or

(b) he complied with relevant professional guidelines or institutional guidelines for the reporting of abuse as he believed them to be, complying with institutional guidelines for the reporting of abuse can include informing another individual with relevant safeguarding responsibilities.

(3) In this section “harm” means conduct which amounts to one of the following offences—

(a) cruelty to and neglect of children;

(b) cruelty to children/young persons;

(c) child abduction;

(d) rape of a female child under 16;

(e) rape of a female child under 13;

(f) rape of a male child under 16;

(g) rape of a male child under 13;

(h) sexual assault on a male child under 13;

(i) sexual assault on a female child under 13;

(j) sexual activity involving a child under 13;

(k) sexual activity involving a child under 16;

(l) sexual exploitation of children;

(m) abuse of position of trust of a sexual nature; and

(n) sexual grooming.

(4) The Secretary of State may, by way of regulation, make guidance as to the interpretation of subsection (2) or amend subsection (3).

(5) Any regulations made under subsection (4) must be subject to an affirmative procedure of both Houses of Parliament.

(6) In this section “relevant authority” means—

(a) the local authority with safeguarding authorities;

(b) the local police force; and

(c) the Disclosure and Barring Service.

(7) A person guilty of an offence under this Part of this Act shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both such imprisonment and fine;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years.”—(Diana Johnson.)

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

21:27

Division 159

Ayes: 212

---

Labour: 206
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Conservative: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1
UK Independence Party: 1

Noes: 305

---

Conservative: 258
Liberal Democrat: 40
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 2
Labour: 1

New Clause 19

Child abduction warning notice

‘In the Child Abduction Act 1984, after section 2 (offence of abduction of child by other person) insert—

“2A Power to issue a child abduction warning notice

(1) A member of a police force not below the rank of superintendent (“the authorising officer”) may issue a child abduction warning notice (“a CAWN”) under this section.

(2) A CAWN may be issued to a person (“A”) aged 18 years or over if the authorising officer has reasonable grounds for believing that—

(a) A has without lawful authority or reasonable excuse been found in the company of a child (“C”); and

(b) C is reported missing and is found on two or more occasions to be in the company of A; or

(c) there is reason to suspect that C‘s behaviour is, by reason of association with the defendant, giving significant cause for concern.

(3) Before issuing a CAWN, the authorising officer must, in particular, take reasonable steps to gather and consider—

(a) representations made by the person with lawful authority for C; and

(b) representations made by A as to the issuing of the CAWN.

(4) A CAWN must prohibit A from being in the company of C.

2B Contents and service of a child abduction warning notice

(1) A CAWN must state—

(a) the grounds on which it has been issued;

(b) that a constable may arrest A without warrant if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that A is in breach of the CAWN;

(c) that an application for a child abduction warning order under section 2D will be heard within 48 hours of the time of service of the CAWN and a notice of the hearing will be given to A;

(d) that the CAWN continues in effect until that application has been determined; and

(e) the provisions that a magistrates’ court may include in a child abduction warning order (CAWO) under sections 2D and 2E.

(2) A CAWN must be in writing and must be served on A personally by a constable.

(3) On serving A with a CAWN, the constable must ask A for an address for the purposes of being given the notice of the hearing of the application for the child abduction warning order.

2C Breach of a child abduction warning notice

(1) A person arrested by virtue of section 2B(1)(b) for a breach of a CAWN must be held in custody and brought before the magistrates’ court which will hear the application for a child abduction warning order (CAWO) under sections 2D and 2E—

(a) before the end of the period of 24 hours beginning with the time of the arrest; or

(b) if earlier, at the hearing of that application.

(2) If the person is brought before the court by virtue of subsection (1)(a), the court may remand the person.

(3) If the court adjourns the hearing of the application by virtue of subsection 2D(8), the court may remand the person.

(4) In calculating when the period of 24 hours mentioned in subsection (1)(a) of this section ends, Christmas Day, Good Friday, any Sunday and any day which is a bank holiday in England and Wales under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 are to be disregarded.

2D Application for a child abduction warning order

(1) If a CAWN has been issued, a constable must apply for a child abduction warning order (“a CAWO”).

(2) The application must be made by complaint to a magistrates’ court.

(3) The application must be heard by the magistrates’ court no later than 48 hours after the CAWN was served pursuant to section 2B(2).

(4) In calculating when the period of 48 hours mentioned in subsection (3) of this section ends, Christmas Day, Good Friday, any Sunday and any day which is a bank holiday in England and Wales under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 are to be disregarded.

(5) A notice of the hearing of the application must be given to A.

(6) The notice is deemed given if it has been left at the address given by A under section 2B(3).

(7) But if the notice has not been given because no address was given by A under section 2B(3), the court may hear the application for the CAWO if the court is satisfied that the constable applying for the CAWO has made reasonable efforts to give A the notice.

(8) The magistrates’ court may adjourn the hearing of the application.

(9) If the court adjourns the hearing, the CAWN continues in effect until the application has been determined.

(10) On the hearing of an application for a CAWO, section 97 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 (summons to witness and warrant for his arrest) does not apply in relation to a person for whose protection the CAWO would be made, except where the person has given oral or written evidence at the hearing.

2E Conditions for and contents of a child abduction warning order

(1) The court may make a CAWO if two conditions are met.

(2) The first condition is that the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that one or more of the criteria in section 2A(2)(a)-(c) are satisfied.

(3) The second condition is that the court thinks that making the CAWO is necessary to protect C from harm as a result of association with A.

(4) A CAWO must state that a constable may arrest A without warrant if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing A is in breach of the CAWO.

(5) A CAWO may be in force for—

(a) no fewer than 14 days beginning with the day on which it is made; and

(b) until the date of the 16th birthday of C.

(6) A CAWO must state the period for which it is to be in force.

2F Breach of a child abduction warning order

(1) A person arrested by virtue of section 2E(4) for a breach of a CAWO must be held in custody and brought before a magistrates’ court within the period of 24 hours beginning with the time of the arrest.

(2) If the matter is not disposed of when the person is brought before the court, the court may remand the person.

(3) In calculating when the period of 24 hours mentioned in subsection (1) ends, Christmas Day, Good Friday, any Sunday and any day which is a bank holiday in England and Wales under the Banking and Financial. Dealings Act 1971 are to be disregarded.

2G Further provision about remand

(1) This section applies for the purposes of the remand of a person by a magistrates’ court under section 2C(2) or (3) or 2F(2).

(2) In the application of section 128(6) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 for those purposes, the reference to the “other party” is to be read—

(a) in the case of a remand prior to the hearing of an application for a CAWO, as a reference to the authorising officer; and

(b) in any other case, as a reference to the constable who applied for the CAWO.

(3) If the court has reason to suspect that a medical report will be required, the power to remand a person may be exercised for the purpose of enabling a medical examination to take place and a report to be made.

(4) If the person is remanded in custody for that purpose, the adjournment may not be for more than three weeks at a time.

(5) If the person is remanded on bail for that purpose, the adjournment may not be for more than four weeks at a time.

(6) If the court has reason to suspect that the person is suffering from a mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983, the court has the same power to make an order under section 35 of that Act (remand to hospital for medical report) as it has under that section in the case of an accused person (within the meaning of that section).

(7) The court may, when remanding the person on bail, require the person to comply before release on bail or later, with such requirements as appear to the court to be necessary to secure that the person does not interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.

2H Guidance

(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance relating to the exercise by a constable of functions under sections 2A to 2F.

(2) The guidance must set out the behaviours associated with “giving significant cause for concern”, including, in particular, behaviours associated with giving cause for concern of sexual exploitation or grooming.

(3) A constable must have regard to any guidance issued under subsection (1) when exercising a function to which the guidance relates.

(4) Before issuing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Association of Chief Police Officers;

(b) the National Crime Agency; and

(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks fit.”” —(Diana Johnson.)

This amendment establishes child abduction warning notices (CAWNs) on a statutory basis, addressing concerns raised in the House of Lords on the issue, by introducing a two-stage process providing judicial oversight, without compromising the ability of the police to issue a CAWN without delay. The proposed process is similar to that in place for Domestic Violence Prevention Notices/Domestic Violence Prevention Orders (DVPN/DVPO).

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

21:40

Division 160

Ayes: 212

---

Labour: 204
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Green Party: 1

Noes: 305

---

Conservative: 261
Liberal Democrat: 43
Independent: 1

New Clause 25

Termination of pregnancy on grounds of sex of foetus

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall arrange for an assessment to be made of the evidence of termination of pregnancy on the grounds of the sex of the foetus in England, Wales and Scotland.

(2) The arrangements made under subsection (1) shall be such as to enable publication of the assessment by the Secretary of State within 6 months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act.

(3) The Secretary of State shall consider the assessment made under subsection (1) and—

(a) determine and publish a strategic plan to tackle substantiated concerns identified in the assessment made under subsection (1); or

(b) publish a statement and explanation in relation to why a plan under subsection (3)(a) is not required.

(4) Any strategic plan under subsection (3)(a) must include, but need not be limited to, steps—

(a) to promote change in the social and cultural patterns of behaviour with a view to eradicating prejudices, customs, traditions and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority of women and which may amount to pressure to seek a termination on the grounds of the sex of the foetus;

(b) to ensure best practice exists in identifying women being coerced or pressured into seeking a termination on the grounds of the sex of the foetus, or at risk of being so, and in the provision of protection and support to potential victims; and

(c) to promote guidance to service providers, health professionals and other stakeholders.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the plan, determined under subsection (3)(a), before each House of Parliament within 6 months of the publication date of the assessment under subsection (2).’—(Ann Coffey.)

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

21:53

Division 161

Ayes: 491

---

Conservative: 237
Labour: 202
Liberal Democrat: 39
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Scottish National Party: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 2

---

Conservative: 2

Question accordingly agreed to.

New clause 25 added to the Bill.

Clause 65

Interpretation etc

Amendment made: 1, page 52, line 45, at end insert—

‘( ) An application to a sheriff for an order under section 60, 61, 63 or 64 must be made by summary application.” —(Karen Bradley.)

Under clauses 60, 61, 63 and 64 an application may be made to the appropriate court (in Scotland, a sheriff) for continued retention of seized substances, for forfeiture or return of substances and for compensation where no forfeiture order is made. This amendment provides that such applications to a sheriff must be made by summary application.

Clause 72

Female genital mutilation protection orders

Amendment proposed: 20, page 63, line 27, leave out “the” and insert “a risk of”.—(Sir William Cash.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

22:12

Division 162

Ayes: 227

---

Labour: 205
Conservative: 10
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Liberal Democrat: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1
Scottish National Party: 1

Noes: 282

---

Conservative: 243
Liberal Democrat: 38

Clause 80

Transitional and Saving Provisions

Amendments made: 2, page 83, line 24, at end insert—

‘( ) Subsection (7) of section (Child sexual exploitation) and paragraph 1A of Schedule 4 do not apply in the case of an offence proceedings for which are started before the commencement of that subsection.”

This amendment is consequential on subsection (7) of NC8. It provides that the restriction of the offence of loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution to persons aged 18 or over does not apply where proceedings for such an offence have started prior to commencement of that subsection.

Amendment 23, page 83, line 24, at end insert—

‘( ) The amendment made by section (Codes of practice about investigatory powers: journalistic sources) applies only to a code of practice that is issued or revised on or after the day on which this Act is passed.”

This amendment ensures that NC24 applies only to a new or newly-revised code of practice under section 71 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

Amendment 24, page 83, line 44, at end insert—

“() in that Act, subsection (4)(b) of the section 40CB inserted by section (Throwing articles into prisons) above.”

This amendment is consequential on NC23. It provides that the maximum penalty on summary conviction for the new offence is six months’ imprisonment, rather than 12 months’, pending the coming into force of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Amendment 25, page 84, line 10, at end insert—

(0) in that Act, subsection (4)(b) of the section 40CB inserted by section (Throwing articles into prisons) above;”—(Karen Bradley.)

This amendment is consequential on NC23. It provides that the maximum fine on summary conviction for the new offence is the current statutory maximum (£5,000), rather than an unlimited fine, pending the coming into force of section 85(1) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.

Clause 81

Extent

Amendments made: 3, page 84, line 27, leave out paragraphs (d) and (e) and insert—

“() sections 66 to (Child sexual exploitation);”

This amendment is consequential on NC8. It provides that the New Clause extends to England and Wales only.

Amendment 4, page 84, line 28, at end insert—

“() sections (Duty to notify police of female genital mutilation) and (Guidance about female genital mutilation);”.

This amendment and amendment 7 are consequential on NC9 and NC10. They provide that the new clauses and the new sections they insert into the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 extend to England and Wales only.

Amendment 26, page 84, line 30, leave out “section 75” and insert—

“sections 75 and (Throwing articles into prisons)”—(Karen Bradley.)

This amendment is consequential on NC23. It provides that the New Clause extends to England and Wales only.

Clause 82

Commencement

Amendment made: 27, page 85, line 28, at end insert—

“() section (Codes of practice about investigatory powers: journalistic sources);”—(Karen Bradley.)

This amendment ensures that NC24 comes into force as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Schedule 4

Minor and Consequential Amendments

Amendments made: 5, page 108, line 38, at end insert—

“Street Offences Act 1959 (c. 57)

1A (1) The Schedule to the Street Offences Act 1959 (orders under section 1(2A): breach, amendment etc) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraphs 2(3), 3(3) and 5(4), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute “a magistrates’ court acting in the relevant local justice area”.

(3) In paragraph 9(2), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute “any magistrates’ court”.

(4) Omit paragraph 9(4).

(5) In paragraph 10(4), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute “to a prison”.

(6) Omit paragraph 10(5).

(7) In paragraph 11(1) omit “youth court or other”.”

This amendment makes consequential amendments to the Street Offences Act 1959 as a result of the restriction of the offence of loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution to persons aged 18 or over, as provided for in subsection (7) of New Clause 8 [Child sexual exploitation].

Amendment 28, page 110, line 32, at end insert—

“Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23)

In section 71 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (issue and revision of codes of practice), in subsection (8), for “(3)” substitute “(2A)”.”

This amendment, which is consequential on NC24, ensures that the new subsection (2A) inserted by that New Clause applies not just to a new code of practice but also to a revised code.

Amendment 6, page 117, line 3, at end insert—

‘( ) In Schedule 2 to that Act (lifestyle offences: England and Wales), in paragraph 8 (prostitution and child sex), sub-paragraph (2) is amended as follows.

( ) In paragraph (b), for “child prostitution or pornography” substitute “sexual exploitation of a child”.

( ) In paragraph (c), for “prostitute or a child involved in pornography” substitute “in relation to sexual exploitation”.

( ) In paragraph (d), for “child prostitution or pornography” substitute “sexual exploitation of a child”.”

This amendment and amendments 9 and 11 to 17 are consequential on NC8. In each case they carry through to other legislative provisions the changes to the nomenclature used in the offences in sections 48 to 50 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, as amended by the New Clause.

Amendment 7, page 117, line 6, at end insert—

“Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 (c.31)

In section 8 of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 (extent etc), in subsection (4) after “Scotland” insert “and sections 5B and 5C do not extend to Northern Ireland”.

Amendment 8, page 117, line 10, at end insert—

In section 54 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sections 51A to 53A: interpretation), for subsections (2) and (3) substitute—

(2) In sections 51A, 52, 53 and 53A “prostitute” means a person (A) who, on at least one occasion and whether or not compelled to do so, offers or provides sexual services to another person in return for payment or a promise of payment to A or a third person; and “prostitution” is to be interpreted accordingly.

(3) In subsection (2) and section 53A, “payment” means any financial advantage, including the discharge of an obligation to pay or the provision of goods or services (including sexual services) gratuitously or at a discount.””

This amendment is consequential on NC8. It amends section 54 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 so as to preserve the existing definitions of “prostitute” and “payment” for the purposes of sections 51A to 53A of that Act.

Amendment 9, page 117, line 12, at end insert—

( ) In section 136A of that Act (meaning of specified prostitution offence etc) subsection (2) is amended as follows.

( ) After paragraph (a) insert—

“(aa) an offence under section 48 of this Act committed by causing or inciting a child to be sexually exploited within the meaning given by section 51(2)(a);”.

( ) In paragraph (b), for “section 48 of this Act, or Article 38 of the Northern Ireland order,” substitute “Article 38 of the Northern Ireland order”.”

( ) After paragraph (b) insert—

“(ba) an offence under section 49 of this Act committed by controlling the activities of a child in relation to sexual exploitation within the meaning given by section 51(2)(a);”.

( ) In paragraph (c), for “section 49 of this Act, or Article 39 of the Northern Ireland order,” substitute “Article 39 of the Northern Ireland order”.

( ) After paragraph (c) insert—

“(ca) an offence under section 50 of this Act committed by arranging or facilitating the sexual exploitation, within the meaning given by section 51(2)(a), of a child;”.

( ) In paragraph (d), for “section 50 of this Act, or Article 40 of the Northern Ireland order,” substitute “Article 49 of the Northern Ireland order”.

( ) Subsection (3) of that section is amended as follows.

( ) Before paragraph (a) insert—

“(za) an offence under section 48 of this Act committed by causing or inciting a child to be sexually exploited within the meaning given by section 51(2)(b);”.

( ) In paragraph (a), for “section 48 of this Act, or Article 38 of the Northern Ireland order,” substitute “Article 38 of the Northern Ireland order”.

( ) After paragraph (a) insert—

“(aa) an offence under section 49 of this Act committed by controlling the activities of a child in relation to sexual exploitation within the meaning given by section 51(2)(b);”.

( ) In paragraph (b), for “section 49 of this Act, or Article 39 of the Northern Ireland order,” substitute “Article 39 of the Northern Ireland order”.

( ) After paragraph (b) insert—

“(ba) an offence under section 50 of this Act committed by arranging or facilitating the sexual exploitation, within the meaning given by section 51(2)(b), of a child;”.

( ) In paragraph (c), for “section 50 of this Act, or Article 40 of the Northern Ireland order,” substitute “Article 49 of the Northern Ireland order”.”

Amendment 10, page 117, line 13, leave out paragraph 59

The effect of this amendment is that new offence of sexual communication with a child under clause 67 will be subject to those provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which provide for extra-territorial jurisdiction; as such, offences committed outside the United Kingdom may in certain circumstances be prosecuted in England and Wales.

Amendment 11, page 117, line 36, leave out “In”

Amendment 12, page 117, line 37, leave out “, after” and insert “is amended as follows.

‘( ) After”

Amendment 13, page 117, line 39, at end insert—

‘( ) In paragraph 136, for “child prostitution or pornography” substitute “sexual exploitation of a child”.

( ) In paragraph 137, for “prostitute or a child involved in pornography” substitute “in relation to sexual exploitation”.

( ) In paragraph 138, for “child prostitution or pornography” substitute “sexual exploitation of a child”.”

Amendment 14, page 117, line 39, at end insert—

‘( ) Schedule 15B to that Act (offences listed for the purposes of sections 224A, 226A and 246A) is amended as follows.

( ) In paragraph 35, for “child prostitution or pornography” substitute “sexual exploitation of a child”.

( ) In paragraph 36, for “prostitute or a child involved in pornography” substitute “in relation to sexual exploitation”.

( ) In paragraph 37, for “child prostitution or pornography” substitute “sexual exploitation of a child”.”

Amendment 15, page 118, line 3, at end insert—

‘( ) In paragraph 7(e), for “abuse of children through prostitution and pornography” substitute “sexual exploitation of children”.”

Amendment 16, page 119, line 16, after “Wales),” insert—

“in paragraph 4 (prostitution and child sex), in sub-paragraph (2)—

(a) in paragraph (b), for “child prostitution or pornography” substitute “sexual exploitation of a child”;

(b) in paragraph (c), for “prostitute or a child involved in pornography” substitute “in relation to sexual exploitation”;

(c) in paragraph (d), for “child prostitution or pornography” substitute “sexual exploitation of a child”.

‘( ) In that Part,”

Amendment 17, page 120, line 36, at end insert—

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (c. 12)

In section 116 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (information about guests at hotels believed to be used for child sexual exploitation), in subsection (8)(a), for “prostitution and pornography” substitute “sexual exploitation”.”—(Karen Bradley.)

Title

Amendments made: 18, line 2 after “1933,” insert

“the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the Street Offences Act 1959,”

Amendment 29, line 3 after “2005” insert “, the Prison Act 1952”

Amendment 19, line 5 leave out from “agents;” to first “to” in line 6

Amendment 30, line 8 leave out from “relationships;” to “to” in line 9

Amendment 31, line 12 after “crime;” insert

“to make provision about codes of practice that relate to the exercise and performance, in connection with the prevention or detection of serious crime, of powers and duties in relation to communications;” —(Karen Bradley.)

22:25

It being after 10 pm, the Speaker put the Question necessary to bring proceedings on Third Reading to a conclusion (Programme Order, 5 January).

Question put forthwith (Standing order No. 83E), That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Business without Debate

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

delegated legislation

[Mr Speaker]

With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 3 and 4 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Immigration

That the draft Immigration (Biometric Registration) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 17 December 2014, be approved.

That the draft Immigration (Provision of Physical Data) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 17 December 2014, be approved.—(Mr Foster.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

British Nationality

That the draft British Nationality (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 17 December 2014, be approved.—(Mr Foster.)

Question agreed to.

[Mr Speaker]

With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 6 and 7 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Immigration

That the draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.

That the draft Immigration (Biometric Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.—(Mr Foster.)

Question agreed to.

[Mr Speaker]

With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 8, 9 and 10 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

European Union

That the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Association Agreement) (Moldova) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 13 January, be approved.

That the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Association Agreement) (Ukraine) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 13 January, be approved.

That the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Association Agreement) (Georgia) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 13 January, be approved.—(Mr Foster.)

Question agreed to.

[Mr Speaker]

With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 11 and 12 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Road Traffic

That the draft Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 14 January, be approved.

That the draft Road Safety Act 2006 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 16 January, be approved.—(Mr. Foster.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Local Government

That the draft Community Right to Challenge (Business Improvement Districts) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 14 January, be approved.—(Mr. Foster.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Ecclesiastical Law

That the draft Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 13 January, be approved.—(Mr. Foster.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Social Security

That the draft Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.— (Mr. Foster.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Social Security (Northern Ireland)

That the draft Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating (Northern Ireland) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.—(Mr. Foster.)

Question agreed to.

[Mr Speaker]

With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 17 and 18 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Tax Credits

That the draft Tax Credits (Appeals) Regulations (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.

That the draft Tax Credits Up-rating Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.— (Mr. Foster.)

Question agreed to.

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That Lindsay Roy be discharged from the Scottish Affairs Committee and Iain McKenzie be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Oesophageal Cancer

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Foster.)

22:27

[Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)]

In November 2011, I had my dinner as normal, but what was not normal was that it did not settle well and I threw up. I dismissed it as probably a bug of some sort, but then it happened again a few days later. Clearly something was not right, but I did not relish the hassle of getting an appointment to see my doctor. I hate going to see my GP, not because I do not like her, but because the booking system is so frustrating. I put it off for another week or so, but by mid-December 2011, still throwing up occasionally, I decided to battle the booking system, and I went to see my wonderful GP. She referred me to the local NHS hospital, and five weeks later I got an appointment to see a gastroenterologist. The first diagnosis was excess stomach acid, so I was put on antacids and on the list for both an endoscopy and colonoscopy. Unfortunately, the painful probes were inconclusive, as was the follow-up CT scan—nothing was really found other than a severely restrictive oesophagus—but by now eating was becoming a major problem.

There are many people who influence and shape a life, but when someone saves a life—well, that is something very special. Professor Robert Mason is one of those exceptional people. He drew on all his experience, and despite no conclusive evidence, he insisted I came in immediately to have my oesophagus removed. Of course, I argued against this, asking for key-hole surgery or to defer the operation until the summer after more tests, but Professor Mason insisted until I changed my mind and a date was set for 18 April 2012. The full extent of just how serious this was had not fully registered with me. When I was in the pre-op room, I was asked what I had done to prepare in the morning, and I said I had gone to work, and indeed I had. I went into Parliament in the morning and drafted letters to constituents, and at the required time I popped across the river and slipped on the less-than-flattering gown.

It turns out that the surgery is equivalent to a triple heart bypass—the whole oesophagus is removed plus, in my case, a third of the stomach. May I pause here to thank all the doctors and nurses who looked after me at St Thomas’, and especially the nurses in the high dependency unit, who were simply fantastic and a tribute to the NHS? I must also mention a second person who was integral to saving my life—James Gossage, who carried out the surgery along with Professor Mason, and who carried out many post-operative follow-up surgical procedures. Mr Gossage is an exceptionally nice specialist who has a dedication to his profession that is inspirational.

Despite the ordeal, the worst moment was still to come. Until this point no cancer had been detected, but a week after the operation, Professor Mason came in and gave me the confirmation—the biopsy confirmed stage 3 cancer. There is nothing in this world that can prepare someone for the words, “You have cancer.” Sadly, oesophageal cancer is particularly aggressive, and more than half of oesophageal cancer patients die within a year. All sorts of things go through your mind when you hear stats like that, from severe regret about potentially not seeing your kids get married, to even more regret about not being treated earlier—every week really does matter—and many more dark thoughts. A sobering fact is that if Professor Mason had not insisted that the operation should be in April, and if he had agreed to wait until July as I wanted, it seems very likely that I would have been dead by Christmas 2012.

Step up the third person I owe my life to—Andy Gaya, who was in charge of my post-operative treatments. Intensive revolutionary radiotherapy and chemotherapy followed. There were days when I was so exhausted that I could not even reach out for the remote control to change TV channels. Andy Gaya made sure that I was going to be given the best chance of survival. We know that almost certainly some cancer cells were not removed during the surgery, and the treatments, while not pleasant, had to be intensive and push the boundaries in order to be sure that the cancer was treated.

Of course, there is a fourth member of the care team that I owe my life to, and that is my partner Niki. I cannot imagine how difficult it is for anyone going through this experience without someone holding their hand throughout. We throw around stats and theoretical outcomes, but the reality is that there is a whole army of real people behind every medical condition. In my case, there are four people who I can say directly saved my life, plus a huge number of attentive hospital staff, post-operative specialists, district care nurses, GPs and others. My dad often says that being born in the UK is like winning the lottery of life, and he is not wrong. We live in a great country. Having seen the NHS from the inside, I can of course see many areas where it is easy to say that this or that could be done better, and of course it is not perfect, but the reality is that it is an amazing institution that performs incredibly well. That is a result of the amazing people who work in that rightly cherished organisation.

However, I need to mention the opposite side of the spectrum. There are a lot of people out there in society who should hang their heads in shame. Around that time, as a result of my work in Parliament on various issues, I was getting death threats and other hate-filled correspondence, including from many people who simply tweeted with #getcancer. I wanted to reply saying, “Too late—already have it!”, but of course I refrained. The experience served as a stark contrast. One the one hand I was seeing the best of society in the care delivered by really caring people, but then there were the despicable members of society who contributed nothing positive. When I asked the Prime Minister to hold Russia to account for gay rights violations, I got one particularly nasty threat, which the police tracked down to a 24-year-old postgraduate from Manchester who said that she thought it would “be a laugh”. Anyone who supports that kind of hatred should spend a day in a hospital to see just how lucky they are and how great doing good is.

Moving back to cancer, let me take a moment to consider some statistics. The UK is facing an upcoming battle with cancer. It is projected that by 2020, more than half the European population will receive a cancer diagnosis sometime in their life. However, the rates of cancer survival in the UK rank among the worst in Europe. Reasons for that include, but are not limited to, late diagnosis and a lack of treatment options for cancer patients. In fact, a major study of more than 29 European countries found that the survival rates of almost all the most common cancers are worse in Britain than the European average. How will the NHS cope when, within five years, more than half a million people will be diagnosed?

As a cancer survivor—I say “survivor”, but all people who have had the disease know that it can come back at any time, so we are really just in remission—there are a few things that I have learned. Cancer support groups such as Macmillan Cancer Support and the Oesophageal Patients Association are key in providing aid and comfort to those with cancer. Beside providing emotional support to victims of cancer and their families, they often go the extra mile to provide information on matters such as treatment options, local support groups, holistic alternatives to surgery and chemotherapy, and cancer prevention. I was lucky—I had a great partner who helped me through it all, and I did not need to use the support services. I did have one moment in a restaurant when I could not eat and hit a terrible low, and I started reaching for the support line, but for the most part I did not have to fight it on my own. Sadly, many do, and such support groups are vital.

Specific to my cancer is the Oesophageal Patients Association, started by David Kirby back in 1985, which provides support and advice to patients with oesophageal cancer. It is involved in the campaign to increase awareness and in expanding our self-care groups across the UK. My thanks go also to Alan Moss, chairman of Action Against Heartburn, for his input into this speech.

More than 331,000 people are diagnosed with cancer each year in the UK. More than one in four deaths are caused by it, and 161,000 people died of it in 2012. Cancer is primarily a disease of old people—more than 50% of cases occur in those aged 75 or more—but, surprisingly, it is also the most common cause of death in children aged between eight and 14. In those aged between 25 and 49, cancer accounts for 18% of all deaths, and 41% of deaths among those aged between 50 and 74 are related to it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In Northern Ireland, the mortality rate among women with oesophageal cancer is rising, and the five-year survival rate among men is only 16%. That indicates a need for resources to be directed towards oesophageal cancer throughout the United Kingdom. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it may be time for a UK-wide strategy to be applied to all four regions?

[Mike Weatherley]

I could not agree more. Early diagnosis is one of the key recommendations that I shall be making.

It is clear that cancer is one of the leading causes of death, but there are risks for survivors as well. It is estimated that 2.5 million people are living with and beyond cancer, and we know that at least one in four cancer survivors face poor health or disability after treatment. Cancer of the oesophagus is the eighth most common type of cancer in the UK among men. Only 40% of those who are diagnosed with it will live for at least one year after the diagnosis, and, tragically, 85% will die within five years. Let me put that into a personal perspective. According to the statistics, if I survive for another four years, I shall be part of a very small minority of just 15%. When people ask why I am leaving Parliament after one term, I reply that one of the reasons is that, given such a high probability, there is a chance that I will not see out another Parliament, and that does make one think about other options.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this issue in the House. As ever, he is making a powerful speech. He will know—because he is living proof of it—that oesophageal cancer is curable if diagnosed early, and I know from all the work that has been done in connection with cancer, and particularly as a result of the interest that I have taken in the House over the years in the subject of breast cancer, that early diagnosis is the key. However, although timely and equitable access to diagnostic tests is hugely important, there is considerable evidence that access to referral for endoscopies is not as readily available in less affluent areas, and that treatments differ widely across the country. The equity of access for endoscopies from which my hon. Friend was so lucky to benefit is the key to early diagnosis, and hence to enabling many more people to survive oesophageal cancer.

[Mike Weatherley]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point that I was not going to cover, and I thank him immensely for doing so.

Crucially, as with many other types of cancer, the outcome of oesophageal cancer depends on how advanced it is when it is diagnosed. The reason not many people can have surgery is that by the time a difficulty in swallowing is recognised, the tumour has become fairly large and has spread. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the surgeons see most people when they are already too late for curative treatment, which makes it difficult to identify survival rates for each individual stage of the disease.

What measures would I like the Minister to consider? Let me make six points. First and, I think, most important, we should make the process of seeing the doctor much easier. No one should be put off from making an appointment at the first available opportunity. Access to evening and weekend GP clinics remains patchy at best, and, as we know, that has a knock-on effect on A and E departments.

Secondly, we should make every effort to improve testing at the point of contact with GPs, and to ensure that there is rapid follow-up access to hospital diagnostic tests. Giving some GPs direct access to hospital specialist tests such as endoscopies and CT scanning would speed up the process of diagnosis.

Thirdly, we should educate patients so that they recognise the symptoms of oesophageal cancer. That will lead to earlier detection of cancer, which in turn will lead to higher survival rates. A good oesophageal awareness campaign is currently running on television.

Fourthly, 1 believe there are some “quick wins” which, if implemented, could speed up processes, remove inefficiencies and save money. For example, at the moment if someone is referred for a chest X-ray and the findings are abnormal, the results go back to the consultant or GP and the person has to have another appointment before they can be referred for an additional test, such as a CT scan. If a chest X-ray was found to be abnormal and the person was then referred straight for a CT scan, it would save on unnecessary GP or consultant appointments, and ensure that when the person is seen, their GP or consultant has all the information they need to make a diagnosis and set out next steps.

Fifthly, another factor in poor care is that it is almost invariably because of pressure on specialists due to the volume of work. When campaigns are announced by the Government, they create a surge in demand, which causes problems for medical staff because they cannot cope with the high volume of work. I would like the Minister to consider allocating extra resources for endoscopy. Targets and high outputs mean that patients are treated as statistics rather than as individuals. Take this quote, for example, from an upper-GI surgeon:

“I get lists of potential 62 day target breaches with no details of the patients themselves. We see about 20 patients in two hours in our cancer clinic on the one morning we have for these appointments—that equates to just six minutes per patient. In order to give patients dignity and respect, most doctors would need an hour per patient to talk them through their diagnosis, treatment and surgery.”

Here is a similar point direct from another specialist surgeon:

“I fully support the ‘Action Against Heartburn’ organisation emphasising the need to take seriously symptoms of persistent heartburn and dysphagia, and not having more and more medications without investigation.”

This will increase demand on endoscopy services significantly, as well as CT scanning, which of course would need extra funding to cope. However, the increased detection of early disease will enable more minimally invasive endoscopic therapy, avoiding surgery and saving money.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I recently had the advantage of an intensive briefing on oesophageal cancer from Professor Tim Underwood, a specialist at Southampton general. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that it is developing a technique that would enable the discovery of the cancer cells earlier and without an endoscopy being carried out. Research is constantly going on to try to remedy the very problem that he has identified so clearly.

[Mike Weatherley]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and my surgeons have made similar points to me. Clearly the tools are available to do that.

The sixth strategy I recommend is greater hospice care to provide end-of-life care away from hospitals that supports people and allows them to spend their final weeks and days in a place of their choice, rather than in a hospital bed.

I hope that this short Adjournment debate has two positive outcomes. The first is an increased awareness of this cancer, with many more people detecting problems earlier. If we can save lives through early detection, that has to be a good thing. The second is a commitment to additional specific resources. Of course this would mean more money being allocated, and I am well aware that there are huge conflicting demands on limited budgets, but part of this could be achieved by a quicker, more efficient diagnostic procedure. Our radiotherapy capacity is far short of what we need and access to the latest advanced techniques to spare normal tissues is limited—although I would stress again that, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said, we do have diagnostic tools to deal with this disease and change outcomes, so it is not a huge step to save more lives.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments and, hopefully, Government determination to be on the patient’s side in treating this particular cancer. We really do need to improve on just 15% of patients living longer than five years once diagnosed.

22:43

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) on both securing this debate and moving it in such a personal way and giving us an account of his own experience of this dreadful disease. I am sure his words will resonate with all of us who have listened tonight, and in particular the way he took us on that journey from the first difficult moments of diagnosis through to treatment. It was a vivid and thought-provoking, but also a heartening, account.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the dedicated and inspirational NHS staff, who work so passionately up and down the country for their patients. How nice it was of him to take the opportunity to put that on record this evening; that was tremendous. Never is the debt of gratitude we owe the NHS staff felt more keenly than when we personally benefit from the care they provide, often at our most vulnerable and weak moments. They are, as he says, not just care-givers, but life-savers in those situations.

My hon. Friend rightly challenged us to do better in this area. Improving cancer outcomes is a major priority for this Government and, as the annual report on our cancer outcomes strategy last December showed, we are on track to save an extra 12,000 lives a year by 2015. That is the projection based on the figures to date. We all want to see the best possible results for all cancer patients, but he was right to highlight the fact that outcomes are particularly poor for patients with oesophageal cancer. I am aware, from all our debates, that this is an area in which we have not seen the sort of movement that we have seen with other cancers. Each year in England, about 7,000 people are diagnosed with oesophageal cancer and 6,000 people are diagnosed with stomach cancer. Those diseases cause around 10,200 deaths in England each year.

We had some exciting news recently: the NHS England cancer taskforce was announced on 11 January. NHS England announced that this new independent cancer taskforce would develop a five-year action plan for cancer services with the aim of improving survival rates and saving thousands of lives in England. The cancer taskforce has been set up to produce a new cross-system national cancer strategy to take us through the next five years to 2020, building on NHS England’s vision for improving cancer outcomes that was set out in the NHS’s “Five Year Forward View”. It was formed in partnership with lots of different cancer charities and other parts of the cancer community, along with other health system leaders, and it is chaired by Dr Harpal Kumar, the chief executive of Cancer Research UK.

The taskforce will cover the whole cancer pathway through prevention, diagnosis and treatment to provide support for those living with and beyond cancer and end-of-life care, as well as covering how all those services will need to develop and innovate. My hon. Friend was right to challenge us to look creatively at different ways of doing things, and that is exactly what the taskforce has been charged with doing. NHS England is assessing the opportunity for improved cancer care and will produce initial views by March—next month—with the new five-year cancer strategy to be published in the summer.

As my hon. Friend emphasised, early diagnosis is absolutely key. Tackling late diagnosis will be an important element if we are to achieve our ambition to improve cancer outcomes, which is why our cancer strategy invested £450 million during this Parliament in improving earlier diagnosis. As his own experience has attested, it can be difficult to diagnose oesophageal cancer, especially in its early stages. I congratulate him again on securing this debate and I hope that there is someone out there tuning into the debate who has heard his words. I am sure that they will help to publicise the message about taking notice of symptoms.

When symptoms do manifest themselves, it is often an indication that the cancer has developed. That is why early diagnosis is crucial. Just under 70% of people diagnosed with oesophago-gastric cancers at the earliest stage survive for at least five years. My hon. Friend has highlighted what it means in human terms for those who are diagnosed at a very late stage. It has been estimated that around 950 lives could be saved in England each year if our survival rates for oesophageal and stomach cancers matched the best in Europe, and that clearly has to be our aim: we have to do better.

NHS England has launched a major early diagnosis programme, working together with Cancer Research UK and Macmillan Cancer Support to test new approaches to identifying cancer more quickly. I hope that that programme will give my hon. Friend some encouragement, because it touches on some of the issues that he has mentioned. It will include offering patients the option to self-refer for diagnostic tests; lowering the threshold for GP referrals; creating a pathway for vague symptoms; and setting up multi-disciplinary diagnostic centres so that patients can have several tests done at the same place on the same day.

[Steve Brine]

Southampton has been mentioned, as has my constituent Tim Underwood, who leads the team there. What the Minister is saying is absolutely right. Does she agree that regional centres such as Southampton—which do things that, quite rightly, not everyone does—are the key to providing regional areas of specialism to help us to do even better on the diagnosis and treatment of oesophageal cancer?

[Jane Ellison]

In a recent Back-Bench debate on cancer, mention was made of the tension that we all feel as constituency Members between the desire to have services nearby and the recognition that the expertise resulting from seeing lots of cancers, particularly the rarer ones, is really important to developing clinical excellence. We have to be clear that there are areas where concentrating excellence and clinical experience will save lives, and my hon. Friend perhaps highlights one such area. We often underestimate just how few cancers of any kind the average GP sees, and that is especially true of rarer cancers.

Let me go back to the different ways of looking at earlier diagnosis. NHS England’s aim is to evaluate these innovative initiatives across more than 60 centres around England to collect evidence on approaches that could be implemented from 2016-17. In 2013, Macmillan Cancer Support, partly funded by the Department, piloted an electronic cancer decision support—CDS—tool for GPs to use in their routine practice. It covers lung, colorectal, pancreatic, oesophagus and stomach, and ovarian cancers. Following the pilot, the CDS tool has been refined and is currently installed in more than 1,000 GP practices across the UK. It is designed exactly to deal with the point about helping people who do not see certain things very often with those diagnostics. Macmillan is working with software companies to adapt the CDS for different IT systems and make it available to GPs as part of their standard software offer.

I just wish to mention the Be Clear on Cancer campaign, which I am glad my hon. Friend the Member for Hove mentioned.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

The Minister has said many things that give me the impression that there is potential for a huge additional demand on consultants. One of the most striking things that my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) said was that a consultant will get only six minutes with a patient. Will the Minister explain what the Government are going to do to make sure that consultants have enough capacity to deal with the extra demand that is likely as a result of these laudable new methods?

[Jane Ellison]

The cancer taskforce is charged with looking at all those challenges and resolving those tensions, but the NHS’s own “Five Year Forward View” considers some of the ways in which it can be innovative about the use of consultants and the interaction between primary and secondary care, and whether we can do more by looking at that differently. If my hon. Friend is interested in that, it is definitely worth looking at. That is very much the sense of direction and we are now looking to the cancer taskforce to examine all those issues. Parliamentary all-party groups have been asked by the cancer taskforce to contribute to its review, and we ascertained that before the Back-Bench debate. He highlights a fair point; all these things bring their challenges, and that is one reason why we put so much effort into testing the Be Clear on Cancer campaign.

I was delighted that the recent pilot of the Be Clear on Cancer campaign for oesophageal and stomach cancer in the north-east and north Cumbria was so successful. We carry out the pilots in order to understand what additional demand they create in the system, so we can model that and cope with it if the campaigns are rolled out. Following the pilot, a national four-week campaign ran from 26 January until yesterday, and was supported with national TV, radio, digital and out-of-home advertising and a public relations campaign. A variety of face-to-face events were held across the country in venues such as shopping centres.

The campaign aimed to raise awareness of the symptoms of oesophageal and stomach cancers and to encourage those with symptoms such as persistent heartburn to visit their GP. The campaign was targeted at men and women aged 50 and over. Of the nearly 13,000 people who are diagnosed with oesophageal or stomach cancer each year in England, more than nine out of 10 are aged 50 and over. The campaign was also aimed at friends and family, who can encourage those with symptoms to make an appointment with their doctor if they are concerned. We are all aware of those times when despite knowing what is good for us, we need a loved one to say, “It is time to go to the doctor.” The campaign takes that into account.

Let me deal with the clear and good points made about endoscopy, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine). We accept that there are issues to address on endoscopy capacity, which is why we have been working with NHS England and Health Education England to prioritise this area. A joint endoscopy working group, set up by the NHS England’s national clinical director on diagnostics and imaging, has been analysing the latest data, and an action plan has been developed to ensure sufficient capacity in the short and long term.

Let me briefly mention treatment. NHS England’s oesophageal and gastric cancer service specification clearly defines what it expects to be in place for providers to offer evidence-based, safe and effective oesophageal cancer services, in line with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s clinical guideline, “Improving Outcomes in Upper Gastro-intestinal Cancers”.

I want to touch on research, because people should understand what we are doing to invest in understanding more about these specialist areas. The National Institute for Health Research has awarded £2 million for a research professorship with a focus on improving outcomes for oesophageal cancer through innovative screening and surveillance tests. It is also funding a £2 million trial of palliative radiotherapy in addition to self-expanding metal stents for improving outcomes of dysphagia and survival from advanced oesophageal cancer. The NIHR clinical research network is currently recruiting for 24 clinical trials and studies in oesophageal cancer.

In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hove for securing this debate and congratulate him on the way he moved and delivered it. I do not underestimate the challenge of improving outcomes for people with oesophageal cancer. However, I hope that what I have briefly set out here shows that we are committed to improving cancer care through building greater awareness among the public; targeted and high-profile awareness campaigns, such as the Be Clear on Cancer; using technology and innovation to support GPs to better identify symptoms and improve the referral process; and taking action to ensure sufficient capacity in areas such as endoscopy. Things are improving, but there is much work still to be done. We are committed to improving cancer survival rates and building on the improvements we have made so far so that we have the best cancer outcomes in Europe. My hon. Friend’s speech tonight illustrated far more eloquently than I can, with all my facts, figures and statistics, why that is important to our fellow countrymen and women and why it is so important that we continue to make progress, and I thank him for highlighting that this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

22:56

House adjourned.

Ministerial Correction

Monday 23rd February 2015 Ministerial Corrections

Monday 23 February 2015

Home Department

Monday 23rd February 2015 Ministerial Corrections

Cyber and Online Crime

The following is an extract from Questions to the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 9 February 2015.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

10. What assessment she has made of changes in the level of cyber and online crime in the last 12 months; and if she will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

We take cybercrime very seriously, and the Government have committed £860 million over five years to tackling it. We are also working to increase the reporting of online offences to Action Fraud, and official figures show that the recorded number of those crimes has nearly trebled since Action Fraud was set up.

[Official Report, 9 February 2015, Vol. 592, c. 542.]

Letter of correction from Karen Bradley:

An error has been identified in the oral answer given to the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) during Questions to the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

The correct response should have been:

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

We take cyber security very seriously, and the Government have committed £860 million over five years to tackling it. We are also working to increase the reporting of online offences to Action Fraud, and official figures show that the recorded number of those crimes has nearly trebled since Action Fraud was set up.

Petition

Monday 23rd February 2015 Petitions

Monday 23 February 2015

Traffic safety measures in Cartmel

Monday 23rd February 2015 Petitions

The Petition of a resident of the UK,

Declares that current traffic safety measures on the road outside Cartmel Priory School are insufficient and pose a safety risk to pupils and local residents and further that a local petition on this matter was signed by 255 individuals.

The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urges the Government to launch an urgent strategic review of traffic safety measures in the Cartmel area and the implementation of further controls and restrictions.

And the Petitioner remains, etc.—[Presented by Tim Farron, Official Report, 26 January 2015; Vol. 591, c. 697.]

[P001423]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Transport received 13 February 2015:

I recognise the importance of the provision of adequate measures to ensure the safety of children and all pedestrians in the vicinity of schools. Local highway authorities are responsible for managing and maintaining the road network in their area and each authority, in this case Cumbria county council, has a duty to ensure that traffic is managed in such a way as to promote road safety. Measures to achieve this objective are available for local authorities to use and might include the setting of local speed limits (whether mandatory or advisory), placing warning signs near schools, providing crossings for children and providing traffic-calming features such as humps or chicanes.

The DFT is responsible for setting legislation and for producing guidance to traffic authorities on how to provide various traffic management measures. We have various publications on our website for the following topics;

Setting local speed limits -

www.gov.uk/government/publications/setting-local-speed-limits

The Assessment of Pedestrian Crossings, The Design of Pedestrian Crossings and Traffic Calming –

www.gov.uk/government/publications/local- transport-notes

Guidance on the use of prescribed traffic signs –

www.gov.uk/government/publications/traffic-signs-manual

Mandatory requirements for specific traffic schemes such as regulatory traffic signs (speed limit signs) are set out in current legislation and the advice and guidance that we have published is given to assist local authorities in their statutory duties.

The DFT has also issued an area-wide authorisation to all traffic authorities in England which includes a part-time advisory 20 mph limit sign for outside schools. The sign includes flashing school warning signals to draw attention to the static signing and may be placed on one side of the road only. The light signals must not be in operation outside of school term times, as drivers may come to ignore them year-round if they are known to operate when children are on holiday. It is not mandatory that traffic authorities should use this or any of the other authorised signs, it is just another signing combination that is available to them.

This authorisation issued to Cumbria county council may be viewed on a database on the DFT website and can be viewed at:

www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-auths/?search=2678

It is for the council to consider whether to meet the requests of the petitioners by using any of the above measures to alleviate the problems identified near the school.

In line with the coalition Government’s commitment to localism, Ministers and officials have no remit to intervene in the day-to-day affairs of local authorities except where specific provision has been made in legislation.

Westminster Hall

Monday 23rd February 2015 Westminster Hall

Monday 23 February 2015

[Mr James Gray in the Chair]

Backbench business

Monday 23rd February 2015 Westminster Hall

Animal Welfare (Non-stun Slaughter)

Monday 23rd February 2015 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the e-petition relating to ending non-stun slaughter to promote animal welfare.

It is a huge pleasure to serve under your distinguished chairmanship, Mr Gray, and a huge honour to start the debate, which was triggered not by any Member of the House but by the great British public; 115,000 people have signed an e-petition, which reads:

“We call for an end to slaughter without pre-stunning for all animals. EU and UK law requires all animals to be pre-stunned before slaughter to render them insensible to pain until death supervenes. But non-stun slaughter is permitted for certain communities.

We support BVA, RSPCA, HSA, FAWC and FVE who conclude that scientific evidence shows that non-stun slaughter allows animals to perceive pain and compromises welfare.

We must differentiate between religious and non-stun slaughter. Our concern does not relate to religious belief but to the animal welfare compromise of non-stun slaughter.

We note—

over 80% of UK Halal slaughter is pre-stunned—

hindquarters of animals killed by (non-stun) Shechita can enter the market unlabelled.

While non-stun slaughter is permitted we call for clearer slaughter-method labelling and post-cut stunning to improve welfare.

Non-stun slaughter affects millions of animals. We support a good life and a humane death for all animals.”

Under rules recently introduced in the House, the signing of an e-petition by more than 100,000 people facilitates a debate in Westminster Hall. That is a good system, because it means Parliament debates issues that are of concern to everyone. Whatever our views, I hope we all agree on the need for such debates; and where else should the issues be debated, if not here? I hope that today’s debate will generate more light than heat. The issue is a contentious one for many Members and many of our constituents, but it generates much interest. I contend that an overwhelming number of people want non-stun slaughter in this country to be ended.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I will be blunt. If my throat were going to be cut, I would prefer to be stunned. I have seen what happens to pigs when their throats are cut, and it made my heart bleed—if that is not a pun. It is disgraceful that animals in this country are not pre-stunned before slaughter.

[Mr Hollobone]

I am sure that my hon. Friend speaks for the vast majority of his constituents. Indeed, a recent YouGov poll, commissioned by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, shows that, as my hon. Friend has demonstrated, people have strong feelings on the issue. Seventy-seven per cent. of the people surveyed agreed that the practice of non-stun slaughter should be banned, with no exceptions. However, perhaps we can all agree that the debate is not as simple as we might imagine. The same poll also highlighted that there is a great deal of confusion about non-stun slaughter. Half of British people—51% of the people polled—believe that all halal meat is from animals that are not pre-stunned. In fact 80% of halal meat is from animals stunned before slaughter.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend on his speech. Would it be helpful if people had a better idea of what they were buying, and could make an informed choice about whether they wanted to buy halal or kosher meat? He mentioned that there is a dispensation for religious belief, but the Halal Food Authority estimates that halal meat makes up about 25% of the meat market. It has been estimated that 70% of kosher meat is not consumed by the Jewish community. Many people buy that meat without knowing it, and surely we should have proper labelling laws, to enable people to make an informed choice. Then those who want to buy it can do so with confidence, and those who do not can avoid it.

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point and reflects one of the main concerns in the e-petition, about the labelling of meat products. Whatever their views on stun versus non-stun, or on halal, kosher or other methods of slaughter, I hope that most hon. Members agree that the important thing is to label meat products as helpfully as possible, so that consumers can make an informed choice.

I can well understand the concerns of my constituents who realise that they may have eaten halal or kosher meat, when that goes against all their beliefs about what sort of meat they should consume. Whatever the views on either side of the debate about how animals should be slaughtered, I hope there is more of a consensus in the House about the need to improve the labelling of meat products.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

The point about labelling is fine; but does my hon. Friend agree that it should extend also to other means of causing death to an animal, which could include clubbing, electrocution and gassing? Should meat be labelled in that way?

[Mr Hollobone]

There is of course a danger that if meat products are labelled in such detail, people will be put off buying them altogether. As my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) said in the debate on 4 November, there is no nice way to kill an animal. It is unpleasant whether halal or kosher, and whether the animal is stunned or not. It is a pretty unpleasant business. My hon. Friend has made a good point. At some point the process of improving the amount of information given to consumers in labelling meat products would have to stop, or there would be information overload. I understand the concerns of the Jewish and Muslim communities that to label meat as stunned or non-stunned is not informative enough. I might personally go for a four-bar system stating that the slaughter was stun or non-stun and halal or kosher. I think that is a sensible amount of information that consumers would read and take account of. I accept that we should provide as much information as possible, but realistically there comes a point where not everything can be put on a label.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as well as strengthening the law, in consultation with the religious communities involved, we could also try to improve standards in all slaughterhouses, by for example supporting the campaign for mandatory CCTV? Even things that are technically legal often involve high levels of animal cruelty.

[Mr Hollobone]

Yes; one of the advantages of speaking first in a debate such as this is the many helpful interventions from informed Members that flag up items coming later in the speech. The hon. Lady has mentioned one of those. I support mandatory CCTV in all slaughterhouses. There have been some disgraceful episodes, which we have all seen, of animals being slaughtered incorrectly, in huge distress and much pain. No one, whatever side of the debate they are on, would support that. Having CCTV in slaughterhouses would seem to be a helpful weapon against such abuse.

[Sir James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I wanted to pick up on my hon. Friend’s suggestion of a four-bar label. After he listed stunned and non-stunned, which I would support, he listed halal and kosher. I draw his attention to the distinct difference between those two. All kosher meat has to be killed by the shechita method, which is non-stunned, but not all halal meat is non-stunned. As he said, for 80% of halal meat the animal is electrically stunned first and then done in the normal way. Therefore, if he were to put halal on a label, he would be inviting people to discriminate on religious grounds as opposed to the welfare grounds of stunned or non-stunned. I want to make him and colleagues aware that we must be careful. We are talking about welfare, which has nothing to do with religion as he said in his opening comments.

[Mr Hollobone]

My right hon. Friend knows far more about this subject than I do, not least because he was a distinguished Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. He makes a good point, but perhaps I did not explain myself as well as I might have done, which is a common failing of mine.

Personally, I have no problem with labelling food in a religious way. If my constituents went to the supermarket and saw packets of meat on the shelves marked with four boxes—stunned, non-stunned, halal and kosher—some meat might have ticks in the stunned and halal boxes, which is fine, and other products might have ticks in the halal and non-stunned boxes, which is also fine. It is helpful to give consumers that level of information and I do not see what the problem is with labelling food halal and kosher. After all, a Muslim constituent who wants to eat halal meat will be looking for that halal label. A Jewish constituent who wants to eat kosher food sees the shechita label—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Hollobone]

I will be happy to give way to all hon. Members, but I want to finish this point. If someone of Jewish faith wants to buy shechita products and products are labelled as such, that is helpful information. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said, more meat is being slaughtered by non-stun methods in this country than is required by the Muslim and Jewish communities, and that is of great concern to those members of our society who are neither Muslim nor Jewish. There are three experienced and distinguished Members whom I will happily give way to, the first being the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir Alan Meale).

[Sir Alan Meale (Mansfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his very good approach to this issue. To reiterate, the point he has been trying to make is that this debate is not about religions, but about the non-stunning of animals for slaughter. As he pointed out, one of the reasons why we need labelling is to show the scale of this in Britain today—at least 4 million to 5 million beasts. That is before we get to the question of poultry: 900 million such birds are slaughtered in the UK every year, 90 million without any stunning whatsoever. This is a big issue, but it is not about differences with religions or anything else; it is about stunning and non-stunning.

[Mr Hollobone]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. The wording of the e-petition refers to stunning versus non-stunning, but we cannot have a complete debate about this subject unless we tackle the religious dimension because that is the elephant in the room. I have been led down that path in the first few minutes of the debate because that is the understandable concern of Muslim and Jewish communities. He is correct that the wording of the e-petition and the purpose of the debate is about stunned versus non-stunned, but we soon come on to other issues.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Muslim constituents in Wycombe will want to buy halal meat and they should be able to do that. One of my Muslim constituents wants to buy halal meat because of not only the religious justification, but welfare. For him, halal slaughter is a method with a higher standard of welfare than other methods that were common, such as strangulation. Could an element of the debate be that animal welfare standards have advanced with technology, and that in many cases we can find common ground for animals to be both stunned and halal slaughtered?

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend has demonstrated once again how he frequently speaks up in a most thoughtful way in this House on behalf of his constituents. His constituent and many others elsewhere who are Muslim might well take that view of halal slaughter, but he will be aware that that is not the majority opinion. Eight out of 10 people want to see an end to non-stunned slaughter and I suggest that the Muslim and Jewish communities have a lot of persuading to do if they want their point of view to win the day.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that nothing can justify cruelty to animals, and that that has little to do with religion and more to do with cultural history? That practice would have been introduced when stunning was not available, so is it time for everyone to move on and accept that we should not be unnecessarily cruel to animals in the food chain?

[Mr Hollobone]

That is the view of the British Veterinary Association, the RSPCA and the other distinguished animal welfare groups who come at that from the latest advances in animal welfare. The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point, but that will be contended with by the Jewish and Muslim communities.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is being very generous. Does he agree that this is not just about animal welfare? Of course, that is incredibly important, but many people of different religious views, such as Sikhs and Christians, object to the blessing given to halal meat. That is one reason why they believe it should be labelled. I am delighted that there seems to be growing support for labelling, because that was not evident when I twice tried to introduce legislation to make it compulsory.

[Mr Hollobone]

I was pleased to support my hon. Friend’s ten-minute rule Bill, because I am a strong supporter of more transparent labelling for meat products. The wording of the e-petition does not go into the religious rites said over slaughtered meat, but he makes an extremely good point.

We have already discussed that there is no nice way for any animal to die. It is important, however, to get in context the volumes of halal and shechita meat compared with everything else. One estimate is that 114 million animals are killed annually in the UK using the halal method, 80% of which will have been stunned first, and only 2 million animals are killed under the Jewish shechita method. An RSPCA poll showed that only two fifths of people surveyed knew that the exemption in the law applied to the shechita method of slaughter. Therefore, while there has been much comment ahead of the debate from the Jewish community, the number of animals slaughtered according to shechita requirements is small.

To put that into content, while there is no nice way for an animal to die, sadly there are many instances in which animals are mis-stunned and mis-slaughtered. In my research for the debate, I was horrified to realise that, each year, potentially hundreds of thousands of animals are not stunned properly before slaughter, yet data on the extent of the problem are practically non-existent.

When the Minister addresses the Chamber, I hope he will stress his commitment to get the Food Standards Agency to raise its game to ensure not only that all slaughterhouses are properly monitored, but that the number of mis-stuns is properly recorded. In some years, critical instances of mis-stunning have been in single figures when we all know that the scale of the problem is potentially hundreds of thousands. Of course, the number of animals mis-stunned could well be greater than the number of animals slaughtered by the shechita method appropriate for the Jewish community.

The strong view of the BVA, the RSPCA and the other organisations behind the e-petition is that there is clear scientific evidence that slaughter without pre-stunning causes pain and distress. Behavioural and brain scanning research reveals that animals experience pain when their neck is cut and they inhale their own blood, which causes pain and distress—that was very much the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). Slaughter without pre-stunning causes a delay to loss of consciousness. It can take up to two minutes for cattle to lose consciousness, up to 20 seconds for sheep, up to two and a half minutes or more for poultry, and sometimes 15 minutes or more for fish. Pre-stunning delivers an instant loss of consciousness when it is done correctly.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that a great deal more research has been done on this matter recently, and that our knowledge of the effects on animals has increased? We understand better nowadays their level of suffering than we ever have previously.

[Mr Hollobone]

That is an extremely good point, and the House will want to ensure that our domestic legislation follows the evidence. If the quality of the evidence is improved by scientific advance, that should surely be reflected in the laws that we pass.

As has been said, EU and UK law requires all farm animals to be stunned before slaughter, but there is an exemption for religious slaughter. That comes back to the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Mansfield: although the e-petition mentions stun versus non-stun, one soon gets on to the religious dimension. The EU law on slaughter is contained in European Council regulation 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing. The regulation came into force in January 2013 and allows member states to apply a derogation to permit slaughter without stunning for religious and traditional purposes. That can be decided at member state level.

Interestingly, practice differs across the European Union. Slaughter without prior stunning has been banned in Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Denmark. In Austria, Estonia, Finland and Slovakia, stunning is required immediately after the incision if the animal has not been stunned before. In Germany, abattoirs have to prove the religious needs, and the number of animals to be slaughtered to satisfy the needs of the religious community concerned, before they are granted a licence. In Australia, stunning at slaughter is required, but there is an option for a state or meat inspection authority to provide an exemption and approve an abattoir for ritual slaughter without prior stunning for the domestic market, but even in those cases, post-cut stunning is a requirement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley mentioned the large number of animals that are slaughtered in this country without having been stunned first, and how that exceeds the requirements of the Muslim and Jewish communities. The Food Standards Agency carried out a survey of slaughterhouses in September 2013, and the results published last month indicated that in 2013, 31 million poultry animals, 2.5 million sheep and goats, and 44,000 cattle were not stunned. The number of slaughtered chickens, sheep, goats and cattle is more than is required for the Muslim and Jewish communities to consume.

The British Veterinary Association does not agree with me. It does not support calls to label meat as halal or kosher compulsorily because, in its view, that would not help consumers. As we have mentioned, 80% of halal slaughter is pre-stunned and the hindquarters of animals killed by the non-stun shechita method are not regarded as kosher and are therefore unlabelled.

In a November 2014 debate in this Chamber that I had the privilege to chair, the Minister said that

“from the EU perspective, ‘stunned’ has a clear legal definition in the legislation, and it is simply that an animal is rendered insensible to pain almost immediately.”

He also said that it was

“a clear definition and the scientific evidence does not support the argument that a cut without prior stunning achieves that.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2014; Vol. 587, c. 169WH.]

I understand that that goes directly against the shechita understanding, in that a cut to the throat stuns, kills and exsanguinates all in one go, so there is clearly a different view, and that circle needs to be squared. The shechita authorities in this country need to make a more powerful case to Her Majesty’s Government if they want their view to prevail.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

Unlike most colleagues, my constituents are more likely to be beef producers than halal or shechita consumers. I am concerned that, although everybody should be able to eat beef whatever their religious backgrounds, more work could be done on the amount of blood left in carcases that have been stunned or not stunned, and we do not have sufficient evidence to allow the Jewish community to convince themselves that stunning would be helpful. Without that, we are not really allowing them to take the right steps.

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. As he represents a farming constituency, he will appreciate perhaps more than many Members that farmers take a very close interest in where their livestock ends up. They take the view that if they bend over backwards to ensure that their reared animals have a good quality of life, and that they are looked after to the very high standards that we enforce in this country, their lives should not be ended inappropriately with inappropriate slaughter. He will know that farmers are very concerned that their livestock ends up being slaughtered in an appropriate way.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

My hon. Friend referred originally to the question of pain and suffering for the animal. Is he aware of any laboratory experiments or any scientific evidence whatever that point to the fact that shechita is cruel and unacceptable? The shechita community clearly believe that it is the most humane method of slaughtering animals, and of course, if the animal is damaged in any way, shape or form, it would not be kosher meat.

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I have a great deal of respect for the shechita position. The shochetim who slaughter under the shechita provisions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green has described, might be miscategorised as mad axemen running around with knives slaughtering animals by cutting their throats. They are not like that. They have to go through a very intensive training programme that lasts at least three years. They have to be calm, and the animal has to be calm when the slaughter is about to take place. A surgically sharp knife is used, and I have to say that a strong case can be made that an animal meeting its death in that calm environment with a trained professional may meet a better end—“happy” is the wrong word—than an animal that is pushed through mass production abattoirs, where animals are bumping into each other, mis-stunning takes place and there is a lot of distress and noise because of the need for mass-produced meat in this country.

The shechita community can make a good case, but I contend that they are not making it strongly enough, and that there is work for them to do to convince the Government of the merits of their case. They are also going against an overwhelming tide of opinion in this country which is against the non-stun slaughter of meat. I respect the Jewish point of view—please do not get me wrong on that—but they need to make their case rather better.

There was an interesting letter in last week’s Jewish Chronicle, of which I happen to be a weekly reader, from, presumably, a Jewish correspondent from Lancaster, who said:

“The rabbinical interpretation has been made that the blood should be removed by drainage through a severed artery. And that is carried out by cutting the throat. However, I cannot see why having the animal anaesthetised, before its throat is cut, in any way detracts from the original biblical injunction not to consume animal blood.

Perhaps a rabbi can explain where I am wrong.

Is there really any religious reason that shechita might not include stunning of the cattle before their throats are cut?”

I suggest that elements of the Jewish community do not quite understand where Shechita UK and other organisations are coming from.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I place on the record my complete support for what my hon. Friend is attempting to do. Perhaps he could, though, use this debate to draw a distinction between the expressions “cruelty” and “suffering”. The former is often assigned to human behaviour and the latter is a more measurable impact on the animals themselves. The House does not have a particularly good record of separating the two.

[Mr Hollobone]

That is right, but to the great British public, the two are closely aligned. A lot of people would take the view that non-stun slaughter is a cruel way for animals to die. That would be the language of British public opinion. About 80% of people want an end to non-stun slaughter, but I take my hon. Friend’s point.

I have spoken for too long and I know that many other hon. Members will make better contributions than I have, but I want to ask the Minister five questions. Do the Government agree that all animals should be stunned before slaughter for animal welfare reasons? Why are they allowing non-stunned meat to go outside the communities for which it was intended, contrary to EU and UK legislation? Will they support the introduction of compulsory labelling of meat, fish and products from non-stun slaughter as “non-stun”? Will they look at introducing mandatory post-cut stunning, as has been done in some countries, including Finland, Austria, Estonia, Slovakia and Australia? Finally, will they consider the German approach of abattoirs having to prove the religious needs, and to define the number of animals to be slaughtered to satisfy the needs of the religious community concerned, before being granted a licence?

It has been a huge privilege to introduce this debate. There will be many contributions that are more intelligent, thoughtful and informed than mine, and I look forward to doing my best to sum those up at the end of the three hours.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. A glance around the Chamber will demonstrate that quite a large number of hon. Members want to take part in the debate. I do not intend to impose a time limit, which to me would sacrifice quality in favour of clock-watching. None the less, colleagues might wish to be considerate towards one another by keeping their remarks reasonably crisp.

17:02

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and to speak after the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), who opened the debate very well. I note that the last time I spoke in a Westminster Hall debate on this matter, he was in the Chair. It has been good to hear his views this afternoon.

I welcome this debate. It is important that we debate this very emotive issue in an atmosphere of calm in which, hopefully, reason can dominate, rather than the hysteria that we sometimes see in the national media. Certainly there was much more hysteria the last time this issue was debated in Westminster Hall, and religious minority communities in this country—the Muslim and Jewish communities—rightly felt picked on and unfairly scrutinised. It was as if people were saying that their way of life was significantly more cruel, and that they were more reckless as to the level of cruelty than any other communities, which is a deeply unfair mischaracterisation of the seriousness with which practising religious minority communities in this country take their religious obligations.

It is clear from some interventions that significant points of disagreement will remain at the end of the debate, but it is important that we continue to examine these issues in an atmosphere that, as the hon. Member for Kettering said, generates light rather than heat. As I have noted before, I am a practising Muslim, so the debate matters to me on a personal level, but I also represent many thousands of practising Muslims and Jews, and both communities have written to ask me to place on the record in this debate their views and feelings.

It is interesting to note that the first national legislative requirement in England and Wales for stunning before slaughter was in the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933, which, even then, retained an exception from stunning for religious slaughter by Jews and Muslims. That strikes me as a very British approach to an issue that is clearly of long-standing interest to both the public and legislators in this place. The Government have made it clear—this is my understanding; I hope that the Minister will confirm it this afternoon—that they do not intend to move away from having an exception in the law for religious non-stun slaughter. I welcome that commitment on behalf of my constituents, for whom this is an incredibly important issue.

As we have heard in the debate, the key point of disagreement is of course about welfare. I have to say to hon. Members who tried to make a distinction between a debate that is focused on religion and one that is focused on welfare that it is actually very difficult to make that distinction. For those of us who are members of a religious minority in this country and who practise our faith, it is very difficult to hear people say, “Actually, we are talking about only one thing here, not something else. You shouldn’t really feel so strongly about it.” That is simply not possible to do. All these issues are tied in intimately with one another and should therefore be considered in that context.

There will be differing views, and different pieces of science that we can quote at one another in support of our respective positions on whether non-stun slaughter is or can be described as humane, but one point that is often not made in these debates is that for religious minority communities, the non-stun slaughter of animals must be done in a way that ensures that the animal does not suffer. The whole reason for having those rules and laws in the first place was precisely to prevent the suffering of animals. It is testimony to the importance of the ancient texts that laid down those laws that there was such concern for animal rights at that point. That motivation and desire to ensure that an animal does not suffer needless pain is important for everyone to remember when we debate these matters.

I also make the point that for religious people, who are looking for religious slaughter of animals before they consume meat, that act itself is an act of faith, because religious people, who care about these issues, do not take the killing of animals lightly. The hon. Member for Kettering made the point that there is no good way to kill an animal—I made that exact point in the last debate—but for religious communities, the right to take the life of an animal is an expression of faith. It is a God-given right that can be exercised only in very specific and prescribed circumstances. For people who take their religious obligations seriously and who practise their religious obligations, these are matters of great concern. These things are not done in a way that is negligent or reckless as to what act is being committed.

Practising Muslims and Jews know, when they are consuming meat, that as a matter of religious law, they are allowed that meat only in certain circumstances. They recognise that the animal had a life and then died. They care about that fact before they consume that meat. It is important to recognise that, because often the debate happens in a way that implies that we simply do not care about the welfare of animals—we just want it our way and no other way—without recognising the reasons behind how those ways came about.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Before the hon. Lady concludes her remarks, will she deal with the point about labelling? Surely there can be no objection to supporting more comprehensive labelling of halal meat.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful for that intervention. The next part of my remarks is about precisely that: labelling. However, before I leave the issue of welfare, I want to say—this point was made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—that enforcement of the current rules on welfare is just as important, when we discuss these issues, as whether religious slaughter is humane or can be done in other ways, because any abuse of the current rules does not exactly inspire confidence that any additional rules that we may bring in will be followed.

The point about mis-stunning is really important. For religious communities, the risk that an animal has been mis-stunned would negate the claim that it had been slaughtered in accordance with religious rites. Even those who accept that stunning might be possible under a different reading of religious law would not tolerate mis-stunning, which is cruel and barbaric.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Many of the points that my hon. Friend is making will be welcomed by the large number of my constituents who have contacted me about the matter. In the discussions that she has had, have any concerns been expressed about the pretty horrific things that appear to be going on under the label of mis-stunning? In theory, that is supposed to protect animal welfare, but the reality seems to be very different.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why it is so important that we reach the position of being able to guarantee that the current basic standards are fully realised in slaughterhouses. We all need to understand better what goes on in slaughterhouses and how different types of animals are slaughtered in the current process. It is important to shed more light on what goes on in slaughterhouses before moving the debate to other practices and complicating things further. That may or may not be a road that we want to go down, but it does not inspire confidence about enforcement if we cannot do things correctly now.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

We are talking about the clash of two principles, one being animal welfare and the other being people’s right to practise their religion. If it were proved that there were serious issues of animal welfare, which of those two principles does the hon. Lady believe would trump the other?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman and I are entering the debate from different starting points. I do not accept that non-stun slaughter is cruel or inhumane, if it is done properly in accordance with Jewish or Islamic religious texts. We must not forget that those texts lay down clear and detailed rules about, for example, how one animal must not witness what happens to another animal. That would never apply in any of the slaughterhouses where the mechanised slaughter of large volumes of animals takes place. I simply reject the basis of the hon. Gentleman’s question.

I turn to the question of labelling, which we have debated before. I agree with the labelling of our meat, and I believe that all consumers in this country should have a much better idea of where our meat comes from. My perspective on the debate is shaped by being a practising Muslim. I have spent my whole life looking at labels and trying to work out whether something contains, for example, derivatives of alcohol or derivatives of pig meat. For me, labels that provide a lot of detail and information are a great thing, because they enable me to exercise choice. At the moment, when I am in doubt about something, I simply put it back, but I may be missing out on something that I could legitimately have consumed. Often, I rely on the good old V symbol on food, which shows that it is suitable for vegans and vegetarians, because I think that it must be okay for me as long as it is not a meat product. That does not help me out when it comes to meat, however.

I reject what the hon. Member for Kettering said about the danger of too much information. I simply do not buy that argument. If we say that people should be able to make a choice, we should ensure that their choice is fully informed. If we want to shed light, we should not say that that light can extend no further than an arbitrary threshold. That seems very unfair to me. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the line should be drawn at labelling meat halal or kosher, and stun or non-stun, but to do so would support a debate that is about heat rather than light. Such a debate stigmatises certain communities and implies that their way of doing things is really bad, so there must be a special label to allow people to opt out of it. To say that is to forget that there is no good, clean way of killing an animal; it ends up dead one way or the other.

We ought to know more about how animals are stunned. As a result, many people may well make the choice that they do not want to consume meat full stop, and they have the right to do so. That is not a choice that I would make, because I am quite well informed about these things. I make my choice knowing exactly what happens when stunning does or does not take place, and what happens during different types of slaughter. However, I believe that the majority of people in our country do not have that knowledge. If we are to be champions of animal rights and animal welfare, not only in our country but across the world, we should be better informed as a nation. Detailed labelling would go a long way to supporting that.

The point has been made that 80% of the halal meat produced within the Muslim community is stunned. It is certainly true to say that large numbers of Muslims have accepted the stunning of animals before slaughter, and it should be open to them to make that choice. Clearly, there is a demand for such meat, because it is being produced and consumed. For those of us who wish to make a different choice, however, it is just as important to know that our halal meat is non-stunned and to be able to rely on the label to give us true and accurate information. I am all for labelling, but it should be thorough. It should not be introduced because we want to muddy the waters in the debate. I believe that some on the other side of the argument believe that we are trying to do that when we say that a label should detail whether the stunning has been done by bolt, or whatever. We support that precisely because we live in the information age, and people want to know what has happened to an animal. We should not draw an arbitrary line that puts some communities under greater scrutiny and makes people feel threatened. We should make all the information available for all to see. In an age of social media, it is very easy to put lots of information into the public domain so that the public who care about the matter will learn about it, understand it and then apply the rules to their daily life.

I accept that as technology develops, we should continue to re-examine the issues that we are discussing. Speaking from a Muslim perspective, it is imperative that as society and science evolve, we continue to examine our jurisprudence and our approach to it. However, I see nothing at the moment that would support a derogation from the exception for non-stun slaughter. We should ask much deeper questions about the mechanisation of our slaughter processes and the volume of meat that we produce, and whether they make it difficult to maintain any kind of standards. When so much meat has to be produced in such a short time, it is hard to keep track of different rules and regulations. I believe that that is where science, as it develops, should focus. I see no reason for us to move away from the very British way in which we have approached the matter. We have maintained the exception in law for many decades, and I hope that the Government will confirm that that exception will remain for the foreseeable future.

17:17

[Sir James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I suspect that if we asked hon. Members of this House, I would not be seen as someone who was particularly squeamish or had too much of a conscience, given my agricultural credentials, which have already been referred to. I have to say, however, that the killing of an animal without stunning is, in my view, repugnant. It should be stopped, in an ideal world, but I accept that there are constraints on taking that final step. I say that not because I have read about the process or been pressurised by various people, but because I took the trouble when I was a Minister to go and watch it happening. It was clear to me that what was often referred to as religious slaughter—unstunned slaughter—was a political issue of some importance, so my private office organised my visit to a halal slaughterhouse to witness it happening. I stress that I have not been to a shechita abattoir.

I went to the halal abattoir, and I watched a number of sheep and cattle being slaughtered. The owner of the abattoir, himself a Muslim, made it absolutely clear to me that he did not like unstunned killing, but that when it comes to the obligation that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) touched on a moment ago, the decision as to whether something is halal is taken by the imam who is present at the time. A prayer has to be said during the slaughter of all halal meat, but the decision on whether an animal is stunned or unstunned is taken by the imam. A number of Muslim organisations take it upon themselves to decide what is and what is not halal. When I was a Minister, I organised meetings with representatives of many Muslim organisations and groups, and I am afraid that there was absolutely no meeting of minds—I do not mean with me, but between the organisations across the table. I sat back and listened to some very strong language between Muslim abattoir operators who always pre-stun everything and whose imams are happy to say the prayer when an animal has its throat cut after being electrically stunned.

Going back to my own experience, I have watched a number of sheep having their throat cut without pre-stunning. As anyone who has visited an abattoir will know, the sheep were held in a conventional rising V-belt. They are hugged by the V-belt, which is made up of two belts, and when they reach the top it is their turn to be killed. Normally the animals are stunned before their throat is cut, but what I saw was without the stunning. Incidentally, that is how the abattoirs address the issue that one animal should not see another animal being slaughtered, because, in a V-belt, the next animal in line is behind the one being slaughtered. I saw a number of sheep being slaughtered, and the average time before those animals appeared to become senseless—in other words, before their head dropped, which most people assume is the point at which an animal collapses—was between 15 and 18 seconds.

I have also watched cattle being slaughtered, and I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) underestimates the length of time before cattle become senseless. He referred to two minutes, but when I was a Minister I was told that it often takes a lot longer. In the slaughters I witnessed it was nearly always much longer than two minutes. I watched animals going into the slaughter box, where their head was lifted by a form of restraint to expose the neck, which was then cut. Their heart, of course, was still going. Blood gushed out—there is no alternative word, and I am not overemphasising this—and stretched several feet in front of the animal. The gushing went on for minute after minute. Animals are not held up in such restraints, so they remain standing on their legs. If we take the point that an animal becomes senseless when it collapses, or that it collapses at the point when it becomes senseless, we are talking about four to six minutes. I saw animals stand for six minutes before they collapsed. That is my experience.

The owner of the abattoir I visited was trying to be helpful. He clearly understood the reason for my presence and would have preferred not to have to slaughter unstunned animals, so he also did what has been referred to as a post-cut stun, in which a bolt is fired into the animal’s head at the moment its throat is cut. Of course, the animal collapsed immediately. Any animal in the conventional slaughter process collapses senseless at the moment the bolt is fired. Such post-cut stunning strikes me as a significant alternative option. I am concerned about the disagreement within the Muslim religion about what constitutes halal, but I believe that we should be able to find a way forward.

My hon. Friend did not refer to New Zealand, but I have also witnessed the halal slaughter of both sheep and cattle in New Zealand slaughterhouses. The animals were all electrically stunned, rather than stunned with a retained bolt, before their throat was cut. In all the cases I witnessed, the animals appeared to be completely senseless from the electrical shock when their throat was cut. I therefore conclude that the animals were not suffering, but my experience in this country is different.

As an aside, we have heard from a number of quarters about mis-stunning. I was going to say that mis-stunning is regrettable, but that is not strong enough. Mis-stunning is not good enough, but it is a distraction from the issue. Mis-stunning should be dealt with. Even if every animal is stunned, mis-stunning should be addressed through better training and the proper prosecution of abattoirs in which it takes place.

I do not want to venture too far into the religious arguments—I strongly feel that non-stun slaughter is an animal welfare issue—but the other issue is what constitutes what is legitimate under sharia law and Muslim beliefs. The argument put to me by those who support non-stun slaughter is that the animal must be able to recover if its throat is not cut. An animal clearly cannot recover from a bolt fired from a bolt gun, and therefore it is not permissible. The debate is much more balanced on electrical pre-cut stunning. The problem—I am sure this has already been put to my hon. Friend—is that members of the Muslim community who would be prepared to entertain electrical stunning as acceptable, other than those who already do, want evidence that animals are able to recover. In other words, if an animal’s throat is not cut after it has been electrocuted, they want evidence that, moments later, it will recover and be perfectly all right and undamaged. The problem—this is bureaucracy gone mad—is that supporters cannot provide that evidence because it then becomes animal experimentation, which requires a Home Office licence. The Home Office will not grant such a licence, so supporters cannot provide the evidence that might convince people of the argument.

Earlier, somebody said that pigs do not count because they are not eaten by either Muslims or Jews, and I also want to address the issue of training.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I am genuinely interested in the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, and I bow to his far superior knowledge of the subject. May I ask him about the head-only electrical stun? I have been told by animal welfare groups that, under UK law, sheep only have to have one artery, rather than both arteries, cut, which often means that, because the electrical stun only lasts between 20 and 40 seconds, there is a good chance that a sheep will recover consciousness before it bleeds to death. Will he enlighten me as to whether that is the case? I have been told that, even though they have been stunned, some 4 million sheep a year recover consciousness before their throats are cut.

[Sir James Paice]

I genuinely do not know. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of that statistic. All I would say is that I have watched quite a number of sheep having their throat cut after electrical stunning not just in the UK but in New Zealand, and they usually become insensible—in other words, their head collapses—in about 15 seconds. I have never witnessed an animal come round at a point at which it might suffer. I cannot answer the hon. Lady’s question.

Understandably, there has been a lot of debate about labelling, not least because a lot of shechita meat is not acceptable for Jews to eat and therefore goes into the mainstream, as does a lot of halal, whether or not it has been pre-cut stunned. Nobody can argue against informing consumers, of course, and I would never dream of doing so. I have advocated all sorts of labelling, and I would support it in this instance, except that I question whether it would work. It is not that I think that consumers would not respond to it; however, it is wide open to abuse. It would be extremely difficult to enforce and monitor, and to trace pieces of meat as they moved through the supply chain to determine whether the labelling on whether the animal was stunned before slaughter was correct.

I am afraid that I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering about putting religious connotations into labelling, because I wholly object to anybody discriminating on those grounds. People have written to me saying, “I object to buying meat that has had some Muslim say a prayer over it.” I reject that attitude totally; in my view, it is racist, and I will have nothing to do with it. I am concerned purely with welfare.

I want to mention the distinction that was made concerning the Jewish process, which renders an animal effectively dead the moment its throat is cut. As I said, I have never actually witnessed that process, so I cannot speak from experience, but if that is the case, I cannot see how that community can argue against a post-cut stun. If their view is that the animal is dead the moment its throat is cut, what is wrong with a bolt or electrical shock seconds afterwards? According to that argument, it is effectively being applied to a dead animal.

The conclusion that I came to when I was the Minister responsible—frankly, I wish that I had had time to pursue the issue as I wanted to—was that the way forward to reduce suffering while recognising the need for proper respect for religious rites was to introduce compulsory post-cut stunning. That would have been far more effective at reducing suffering, as I witnessed. I also thought that the arguments used by those who opposed a pre-cut stun would fall aside, if their view is that the animal is dead immediately after stunning.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his well-informed and impressive speech. Does he see no role for additional labelling?

[Sir James Paice]

I am certainly not against labelling. As I said a few minutes ago, I have recommended and indeed driven forward initiatives to provide consumers with more information, and I am not averse to the idea of doing so in this context. I have grave doubts about how effective it would be, simply because I fear that it would be difficult to enforce.

My final comment relates to training. I discussed the issue of mis-stunning, and I am sure that all of us have often heard different groups say that Jewish slaughtermen are far more effectively trained than Muslim slaughtermen. I have heard all sorts of accusations about some halal slaughtermen using blunt knives to saw away at necks and so on. All that I can say—maybe this is obvious—is that the examples that I witnessed in both this country and New Zealand do not sustain that argument. As far as I could tell—I am not a complete layman; I have been to many abattoirs in my lifetime—the animals were cut as quickly as possible with very sharp weapons, and the training was perfect. Whatever system of slaughter is used—pre-cut stun, post-cut stun or anything else—we cannot accept anything less than highly skilled operators. I certainly believe that that is a matter for enforcement, whatever else might be decided.

I do not know whether I shall speak again in this place during the next five weeks, but if this is my last speech, I hope that it is recognised as a seriously intentioned argument for moving forward in the interests of animal welfare and nothing else. I strongly urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the post-cut stun—it is a compromise—as a way of effectively reducing unwanted and unnecessary suffering.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that if that was his last speech—we all hope that it was not—it was an extremely fine contribution at the end of a long and distinguished career.

17:35

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) on his speech, which was moving and hugely well informed. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on his part in this debate.

I am afraid that I do not have such experience or erudition to add to the debate, but I will make one or two points. I am Jewish. I was not brought up to eat kosher meat, and I am not agricultural. I have visited slaughterhouses on two occasions, which I will mention in a minute. I make these comments entirely because of what I have learned from speaking to my constituents—both those who are religious and those who simply follow the traditions—after debates on the subject in this House.

Perhaps I should mention that I have received a petition from nearly 2,000 members of the Muslim community in Watford, suitably supported by members of the Jewish community, who were rather fewer in number because there are rather fewer Jewish people in Watford than Muslims. It came about as a result of comments by the new president of the British Veterinary Association that appeared in The Times.

I took the petition to the Prime Minister, who seemed clear on the Government’s view, although of course the Minister will say what he has to say. The Prime Minister said that he was “delighted to support” my campaign in Watford, and that he was

“very happy to confirm that while I am Prime Minister of this country”,

both halal and kosher killing are

“safe in Britain”.

That is a clear view from the Government. If I may speak for the Opposition—I have never had the arrogance to do so before, but I think that I am right in saying this—I imagine their official view to be much the same.

I have visited two abattoirs in my life, one using conventional slaughter and the other religious slaughter. I did not visit them as a Member of Parliament, and again, I cannot compare my visits and level of observation to those of my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire. I must say that I did not see a material difference between the death of the animal in the conventional abattoir, which was stunned, and the religious slaughter, which was done without stunning. I can say without discrimination that I was absolutely put off eating meat for some time by both of them—I am not a vegetarian, but I could see an argument for it —but I cannot and would not say that I noticed any material difference in the suffering of the animals in either case.

Given that it is one of our great beliefs in this country that people’s religious traditions and views should be upheld, and that the issue is important to religious Muslims and religious Jewish people, I believe that it is the Government’s job to stipulate standards of cleanliness and to deal with other more modern issues. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) mentioned, religious texts can be interpreted in a modern way, which I am sure must include modern versions of safety and cleanliness, but I cannot accept that in today’s society, religious traditions held with such belief by people in this country could be declared illegal by the Government. I will do everything in my power, modest though that power may be, to reject anything of the sort.

[Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend that people’s freedom to practise religion, and to eat meat produced as they feel it should be produced, is vital. Does he agree that this is really a matter of protecting animals? A bad abattoir is a bad abattoir, whatever process it might carry out. That is what we should stamp out: bad abattoirs, not the method by which the animals are slaughtered.

[Richard Harrington]

My hon. Friend, as ever, makes an extremely good point that reiterates what I was saying about modern standards of cleanliness and methods.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering pointed out in his brilliant opening remarks that this debate came about because of an e-petition; I think that he said about 110,000 or 115,000 people had signed it. I know that this debate is not simply a “mine’s bigger than yours” or “my brother is bigger than yours” kind of argument. However, the chairman of the Conservative Muslim Forum, Mohammed Amin, had a counter-petition called “Protect religious slaughter in the UK and EU”, which has received 125,000 signatures. It is not just a question of the number of signatures, but we can gauge from the number of signatures to both these petitions that strong views are held, quite legitimately and properly, by people on both sides of the argument.

I congratulate my hon. Friend for the way that he tried to address all the arguments. MPs have a reputation for talking about things they do not know much about, and it is true that most of us from urban backgrounds do not know very much about this issue. However, based first on the interests of my constituents and the sincerity with which they hold their views; secondly, on my limited experience of observing two types of slaughterhouse, and I do not recommend either of them, but I saw no material difference in the suffering of the animals; and thirdly, on this country’s belief in tolerance and religious freedom, including protecting people’s religious beliefs, it seems to me that the status quo should be upheld, possibly with some amendments relating to modern slaughterhouse conditions.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman and I—a Jew and a Muslim—travelled to some of the most deprived communities in the world together when we were on the International Development Committee, and we have had many discussions similar to this one. Is it right to say that this cannot be viewed as a debate between those in favour of animal welfare and people of faith? I am sure that there are people who have an overlap—who are really keen followers of faith and who also passionately believe in animal welfare. If it is right, confusing the two is very dangerous indeed, particularly as both Islamophobia and anti-Semitism are on the rise in the UK.

[Richard Harrington]

The hon. Gentleman is correct. Of course, certain things come out of ignorance, and ignorance breeds the sort of anti-Semitism and Islamophobic comments that are made; the actual method of slaughter becomes almost irrelevant.

Mr Gray, you have been very patient as regards the time that you have given me. I will say finally that most things in religion came about for a reason, including hygiene, decency at the time and the reduction of animal suffering, and I do not really see that very much has changed.

17:42

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Gray, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on presenting this e-petition and speaking to it with his usual charm, eloquence and thoughtfulness.

This is not an issue that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has considered, so I make my remarks today in a personal capacity. Also, I come from the constituency of Thirsk and Malton, which contains Filey. It is not only probably the most northerly but also one of the most rural constituencies in England. It has two livestock marts and a number of abattoirs.

At the outset, we must recognise that farmers put the welfare of the animals they produce right at the heart of all their activities, and their passion. I recognise that the ritual slaughter of animals for religious purposes is of historical interest, not only in this country but across many other EU countries, and that traditionally it has been a very limited practice. As my hon. Friend pointed out, some 80% of halal meat is already non-stunned, which puts this debate in context.

I must refer to the highly regrettable incident at Bowood Lamb abattoir in Carlton Miniott, near Thirsk, in my constituency, which displayed the most gross and unacceptable animal cruelty; it was caught on camera. There is absolutely no place for cruelty at any stage of production, or indeed in the final stage of slaughter, and this incident has sent shockwaves through the rural constituency—through Thirsk, Malton and Filey—and not least through farmers, who feel very beleaguered at present, even though they are of course in no way implicated in the incident.

Farmers display the highest level of care and welfare, and leave their animals at the place of slaughter in the most stress-free state. They are concerned about that not only because they invest a lot of time, energy and, as I say, passion in the production of animals, but for a very good economic reason: a stressed animal damages the quality of the meat, making it, in many instances, either inedible or valued at a price lower than the market would otherwise dictate. It is an affront to farmers and others if their animals are treated in such a way.

The debate today, and indeed that incident, prompts a number of questions that go beyond the actual incident, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), a former Minister, mentioned. I went to see a halal slaughterhouse, where chickens were being slaughtered. I saw the chickens before they went through the slaughterhouse and after they came out, but I could not bring myself to see the moment of truth. Today’s debate raises a number of questions about who inspects such premises and how frequently.

When the Minister responding to this debate replies, I would be grateful if he could say what the role of the Food Standards Agency should be in all this. In particular, when was the Bowood Lamb abattoir last inspected, and how frequently would it have been inspected? Obviously, in that particular case, the camera revealed inhumane and deeply cruel practice, which one hopes was a one-off incident and not something that had happened previously. The footage went to the heart of how workers at abattoirs are trained. It is some time since that abattoir changed hands, but we must ask how abattoir workers are trained, because what is important for halal and kosher is not only the moment of truth—the point of slaughter—but whether the workers at that abattoir were working directly under the supervision of the owners and managers. Had the workers been properly trained in handling livestock?

Having seen animals, not so much at abattoirs but at a regular auction mart, I can accept that livestock coming at someone in numbers and at some speed can be scary, and I think that goes to the heart of the matter. The way forward is to regulate, inspect and have much closer supervision of slaughterhouses, including this particular slaughterhouse, to ensure that the standards within are the highest possible.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady that better inspection and enforcement of standards is the way forward. However, I understand that many slaughterhouses pay their staff according to the number of animals killed. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Meat Hygiene Service have said that it is not their business how slaughterhouses choose to pay their workers. Surely, however, if workers are being paid according to how many hundreds of animals they kill each day, they are less likely to pay attention to proper standards and doing things properly.

[Miss McIntosh]

The Minister will have heard what the hon. Lady said, and I think that her questions back up my argument.

The issue of how many animals are being slaughtered, particularly for halal meat, was first raised with me at a meeting attended by the then chairman of Natural England at a regular farmers’ event I hold in my constituency at the new auction mart premises at Thirsk Rural Business Centre. At that meeting, it was put to me by someone who farms and who is also a former newsreader—so they obviously make a good case—that many animals are being slaughtered for halal meat, but actually there is no intention that the meat produced will be used in the specific religious halal trade; instead, it enters into the general market. I take the point made by the former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire, about its being difficult to label, but people are getting quite upset.

There is a market out there for halal meat, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) for making the case for it. I support the case for all forms of religious slaughter—I have done as a Member of the European Parliament, and I continue to do so in this place—but I ask the Minister to look closely into practices arising where halal slaughter might be respected but the ultimate destination of meat so slaughtered is not halal.

There is clearly a higher proportion of such meat—my understanding is that it is more halal than shechita meat—being produced now than there was, say, five, 10 or 15 years ago. I understand that this has to be provided to hospitals, schools, airlines and many other public places and restaurants, but this matter goes to the heart of the issue addressed in the petition regarding animal welfare, as my hon. Friends the Members for Watford (Richard Harrington) and for Kettering said, and it raises questions about where this meat ends up. That is a separate source of concern.

You would think, Mr Gray, that we had learned the lessons of adulterating the food chain through the horsemeat scandal, but today’s debate shows—I back up what the Minister has said previously—that any form of labelling has to be done at EU level. I hope that the Minister is able to report to us and say precisely where we are in that process, because if the wish of the House, along with that of the 115,000 petitioners, is to have better labelling—or, indeed, any form of labelling—stating that an animal has been slaughtered according to religious conditions, meat should be clearly marked accordingly. We should also aim to have shorter food supply chains, greater transparency and openness in the food chain and better labelling, either for religious or animal welfare purposes, which is what the red tractor label covers.

How can we seek to raise standards at slaughterhouses? There was a recent debate, which I was not able to attend, on the use of closed circuit television in slaughterhouses. I hope that the Minister will forgive my asking a question that may have been asked during that debate. We have regular debates about the cost of food and the cost of food production. If CCTV cameras are to be installed and regularly monitored in slaughterhouses and abattoirs, who will be responsible for monitoring them and for the cost of fitting them? Obviously, if the farmer has to pay, that is taking away from their profit. Many sectors—dairy is the worst—feel beleaguered, given the difference between the farm-gate price and what we pay in the supermarket.

This is a timely debate, given the questions raised in the petition and those asked by hon. Members this afternoon. We have to establish how labelling would work, whether the amount of meat produced for religious purposes is larger than required, whether it is entering into the regular food chain, and how it could be labelled as such. I invite the Minister to report back on negotiations for better labelling at EU level.

I should be delighted if the Minister also reassured the public that there are regular inspections at abattoirs and slaughterhouses, and that standards are being upheld. I understand that criminal prosecutions may follow from the recent cruelty at Bowood Lamb abattoir, and I hope that that sends a message to other abattoirs throughout the country.

[Mr Dai Havard in the Chair]

17:54

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I apologise for my late arrival, Mr Havard—I was chairing the Select Committee on Transport—and I thank you for calling me to speak. I congratulate the hon. Members who secured the debate and the 115,000 people who signed the e-petition, which has brought this debate to the fore.

There are differences of view on this topic, but I believe that everybody speaks about it with sincerity, and that concerns about animal welfare are at the forefront. I ask that the concerns of the Jewish community be considered when looking at this whole issue, and that some thought be given to shechita, the Jewish method of slaughter, in relation to the genuine and legitimate concerns raised by petitioners, which have led to today’s debate. First, I hope that we can all reject the term “ritual slaughter”, which is often used in relation to both Jewish and Muslim methods of slaughter. That is an unpleasant, pejorative term with very unpleasant connotations. It is not helpful for such a term to be used.

I stress that Judaism’s key concern is with the animal’s welfare, in life as well as in death. Shechita, the Jewish method of slaughter, is extremely complex. It has rules governing which animals people are permitted to eat, what condition they must be in before that is allowed, and how they are killed and subsequently dealt with, and it is performed by a trained person whose licence is annually renewed. The incision is made by a regularly inspected sharp instrument at the structure at the back of the neck, and at that point, blood supply and the ability to feel pain cease, consciousness is immediately lost, and rapid death follows. In effect, cutting and stunning happen almost simultaneously. It is important to spell those things out, because it is vital that when slaughter of a permitted animal occurs it is done in the kindest, most pain-free way possible.

What is not permitted under Jewish laws is mechanical stunning. We are not just talking about stunning; we are talking about mechanical stunning. Many people believe that mechanical stunning is essentially superior to any other kind of stunning as regards the alleviation of pain, but there is no scientific unanimity on that point. In a recent contribution in the other place, the noble Lord Winston went into some detail on those points, and I do not intend to repeat that here.

It is important to look at what happens in practice. Mis-stunning takes place on a significant scale. The Food Standards Authority has admitted that its numbers do not constitute a full record, and that it is likely that a greatly reduced number of animals have been recorded as having been subjected to mis-stunning. The 2004 report from the European Food Safety Authority on the welfare aspects of animal stunning and killing methods shows that failure rates for mechanical stunning in cattle may be more than 6.6% and could rise to 31% for non-penetrative bolt stunning and electric stunning. There is a significant level of mis-stunning. Anecdotal reports from DEFRA show a similar picture.

It is also important to remember the video produced by Animal Aid after secret filming in three slaughterhouses in 2009, which showed pigs, sheep and calves inadequately stunned by electrocution, and horrific scenes in those slaughterhouses of animals trying to flee and ewes watching their young being killed.

In debating this issue, it is important that we look at not only the theory but the facts. It is also important that there is proper monitoring of what takes place in all slaughterhouses, whatever the methods of slaughter, and that CCTV is used where it can be effective in showing what is actually happening.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have a large number of constituents who are concerned about animal welfare. I also have a large number of constituents who are concerned that this debate and this petition highlight animal welfare issues for the Muslim and Jewish communities that are not being highlighted more widely. My hon. Friend referred to the Animal Aid videos and filming, but some of the terrible practices they show were in places that have nothing to do with shechita or halal. They were producing meat in the normal, run-of-the-mill way that we do in this country. Is there therefore not a danger that we are focusing the debate on the wrong issue? We should be concerned about all animals and their welfare. If people do not like animals being hurt in any way, presumably they will become vegans. I am afraid that I am not prepared to do that, but—

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that interventions are meant to be short, concise and cogent.

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) for his intervention. He makes an extremely important point. Animal welfare is important and counts in how animals live, as well as in how they die. It is not solely about methods of slaughter, but about what is happening in individual slaughterhouses daily. His point shows the wider context in which this issue should be discussed.

The kashrut enables observant Jewish people to eat meat and poultry. Although not all members of the Jewish community observe the rules of kashrut, most do. Enabling kashrut to take place in this country is a recognition of an important part of the Jewish way of life. If such a practice were banned, that would be seen as an infringement of the civil rights of many members of the Jewish community. It would be a sad day for the diverse communities in our society, which are important, and our recognition of their individual contributions.

I end by reiterating the statement I began with: this issue is about animal welfare and being humane. Judaism and kashrut are about humanity and reducing pain. Those Jewish people who observe kashrut do so because they believe it to be the most humane and kindest way to deal with animals.

18:02

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Havard. I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this important debate. As we have heard, it has attracted a great amount of attention. The e-petition on which the debate is based has attracted, according to my iPhone, more than 116,000 signatories. On the other hand, the other petition, which is aimed at protecting religious slaughter, has attracted more than 124,000 signatories. This issue clearly attracts a great deal of interest and arouses a great deal of passion, and it is a credit to Members of this House that the debate is being conducted in such a calm and rational manner.

We must not be under any illusions. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) pointed out, any form of animal slaughter is a distressing business and all rational people, whatever their beliefs, would wish to do all they can to minimise, if not obviate altogether, any suffering caused to another sentient creature. In that regard, the scientific evidence is clear: stunning minimises the distress caused to the animal before and at the time of slaughter. The Dialrel report of 2010, for example, stated:

“It can be stated with high probability that animals feel pain during and after the throat cut without prior stunning.”

It also found that in the case of stunned slaughter, the hazards of restraint stress and injury were low, as were pain and suffering during the cut and immediately afterwards, while in the case of slaughter without stunning, those hazards were considered to be high. On purely scientific grounds, therefore, it seems clear that the case for stunned slaughter is strong.

It is with good reason, therefore, that European law and United Kingdom law require that animals should be stunned before slaughter, but as we have heard, the relevant EU directive permits member states to apply a derogation to permit non-stunned slaughter for religious purposes. Out of understandable consideration for religious beliefs, the UK and certain other member states have decided to apply the derogation, but it is clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) pointed out in his excellent opening remarks, that there is no uniformity in how that derogation has been applied. In some countries, such as Denmark and Sweden, non-stunned slaughter is not permitted. In others, such as Austria, Estonia, Finland and Slovakia, post-incision stunning is required if the animal has not been previously stunned. That is the halfway house my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire mentioned.

Interestingly and importantly—this was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering—in Germany, where the derogation has been applied, abattoirs have to prove the religious needs of the community concerned before a licence is granted. There may well be different approaches to the interpretation of the derogation by individual states, but all the member states I have mentioned have a great deal more clarity on how the derogation has been applied than the United Kingdom. Indeed, I specifically ask the Minister to address the lack of clarity in the application of the UK derogation.

The fact is that in the UK in 2013, some 15% of sheep and goats were not stunned before slaughter. That is some 2.4 million animals. Given that the Muslim and Jewish communities together comprise only 4% to 5% of the British population, and given that most halal meat —we have heard that the figure is 80%—is from stunned animals, it follows that a significant proportion of sheep and goat meat from non-stunned slaughter is being supplied otherwise than to the market for which it was intended. In other words, I would go so far as to say —this was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh)—that there seems to be a gross over-provision of non-stun slaughterhouses in this country, and I would be interested to hear what the Government intend to do about it. The extent of non-stunned slaughter in this country tends to go against the UK and EU legislation.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Surely the point that the right hon. Gentleman raises is about labelling, rather than the nature of the stunning.

[Mr Jones]

Not entirely. If more non-stunned slaughter is being carried out in this country than is required for religious purposes, there is an over-provision of non-stunned slaughter. The point that the hon. Lady makes on labelling is absolutely right, however. It is unacceptable that meat from non-stunned animals should be sold in this country without that being drawn to the attention of potential consumers. While we have heard suggestions today that the precise methods of non-stunned or stunned slaughter should be drawn to consumers’ attention, my view is that “stunned” or “non-stunned” is at least a clear and understandable starting point for labelling, and I believe it would be widely welcomed. We have already heard that simply to label meat as “halal” or “kosher” would be insufficient, for all the reasons that have already been advanced.

It emerged last year that the restaurant chain PizzaExpress had been serving halal-only chicken for some considerable time without drawing that to the attention of consumers. Labelling goes beyond what is displayed in the butcher’s shop or on the supermarket shelves. People in restaurants must have a clear choice as to what they are being offered, so labelling should extend to menus in restaurants.

We must ensure that only the appropriate level of non-stunned meat is allowed to be sold in this country. Similarly, it is essential that consumers know precisely what is being offered for sale before they buy it and put it on their families’ plates.

18:10

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Havard, and to follow the hon. Members for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), who succinctly set out the positions of the Jewish and Muslim faiths on the stunning and non-stunning of meat. It is always useful to debate a range of subjects, but this debate seems to involve a sense of déjà vu. We discussed the issue on 4 November, and I see present Members who contributed to that debate, along with others. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) chaired that debate. I am surprised that the issue has come around for discussion again so quickly. If former and current Ministers did not already know the range of views on this matter, we have made them very clear over the years.

I want to say a few words about why I certainly do not support the e-petition. I have several thousand Muslim and Jewish constituents, and I am representing their point of view. I am also against stunning because of my own view about animal welfare. I have been a vegetarian for the past 32 years. I can assure Members that I am not squeamish about killing animals: on occasion, animal welfare necessitates the death of animals. I have, in the recent past, put animals—particularly rabbits —out of their misery when I felt that their poor quality of life required action, so I feel that I speak on animal welfare with some authority. The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) suggested in an intervention that perhaps more people should go vegan or vegetarian. Sometimes, when the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) suggests that we should have a day in Parliament each year when people do not eat meat, she is ridiculed. That is wrong.

In preparing for this speech, I looked at the amount of meat that is consumed in this country. We have already heard about the glut of meat in the market. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has consulted on the consumption habits of the British public for the past 20 years. In the last year for which the figures are known, people consumed around 190 grams of chicken each week. If we multiply that figure by 52, we get around 9.8 kg—almost 10 kg of chicken every year. If broilers are slaughtered at eight weeks and the average carcase weight is around 1.8 kg, that means that some people, at least, are eating at least six chickens a year. If we extrapolate those figures, we come to the view that every year in the UK approximately 2.6 million cattle, 10 million pigs, 14.5 million sheep and lambs, 80 million fish and 950 million birds are slaughtered for human consumption. I have to ask: why are we consuming so much meat?

I will contradict some of my colleagues in saying that shechita accounts for only 1% of the totals that I just read out, and it is incorrect to say that it enters the food chain: it does not. There are approximately 300,000 Jewish people in this country, and the meat produced for them goes to the community itself. The Beth Din already label kosher meat.

[Sir James Paice]

If all shechita slaughtered meat is eaten by Jews, is my hon. Friend saying that they are eating the hind quarters? That is forbidden. What happens to the hind quarters?

[Dr Offord]

I take my right hon. Friend’s point about all parts of the animal—I do not know whether they are discarded, or whether my right hon. Friend knows the answer to that.

[Sir James Paice]

They are sold into the rest of the supply.

[Dr Offord]

My right hon. Friend may say that, but he has not come forward with any evidence to convince me. Some people may argue that slaughter is humane if it is—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Offord]

Well, I must give way to the Minister.

[George Eustice]

I have discussed this issue with Shechita UK, and everyone acknowledges that the hind quarters are normally sold on the open market. It would be conceded that most of it goes to Smithfield, possibly to be sold to caterers, but Shechita UK will also maintain that some of it goes to halal markets.

[Dr Offord]

I apologise to the former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), because I have been corrected. I can only say that some of it may indeed go into the food chain, but not in the way that was anticipated—that is, the whole carcase of an animal. I think we are dancing on the head of a pin if we are saying that only some might go into the food chain.

What is humane slaughter? Some people say that slaughter is humane if an animal is protected from unavoidable excitement, pain or suffering, and that that requires the animal to be restrained and stunned, rendering it insensitive to pain before it is allowed to bleed to death. I do not accept that. I too have been to an abattoir, and I have also been around cattle when they have been killed in other places. When cattle enter any kind of contraption, including the back of a lorry, their stress levels increase.

In preparation for this debate, I read Jon Henley’s January 2009 article in The Guardian about the European pig industry. Some animals experience a lifetime of distress and suffering. The article documented pigs being kept on slatted concrete floors; pregnant sows being kept in cages so small that they could not move; piglets being castrated without pain relief; and tails routinely being docked to prevent animals from attacking each other. The food that enters the UK food chain from the EU is never discussed, which is peculiar. Muslim and Jewish people do not eat pork, but no one ever discusses such issues—we seem to be focusing on the same issues time and again. We should certainly spend time on other issues, such as the trimming of hens’ beaks; the mechanical mis-stunning of animals; the fly-grazing of horses; puppy farming; the culling of chicks on the basis of sex; and the cultivation of endangered turtle meat in places such as the Cayman Islands. None of that is ever covered.

It is worth highlighting that the petition has come about with great haste, in contrast with the British Veterinary Association petition, which has taken almost a year to come to fruition. I would like the new BVA chairman to stop fanning the hysteria around this issue and look at what veterinarians are doing to ensure animal welfare in slaughter houses.

I will not talk about shechita in particular, because it has already been covered, but I want to make a point about why some of the methods we have discussed have come about. The whole motivation in the large-scale factory abattoirs is to speed up the process and prevent the animal from thrashing around at the point of slaughter. That is why stunning occurs. Animal welfare organisations claim to have adopted the idea of stunning in an effort to raise levels of animal welfare, but the evidence in support of the animal welfare benefits is inconclusive. Mechanical methods frequently go wrong, leaving the animal in great, prolonged distress.

The last time we debated this issue, I mentioned the Food Standards Agency statistics on mis-stuns, which showed—and the Minister agreed—that an unrealistically low number of mis-stuns had been reported in the UK. In 2011, only six cattle were officially reported as having been mis-stunned. Following my questions, the Minister conceded that the statistics are not complete and may represent only a fraction of the actual number, and that the FSA will have to endeavour to improve its reporting methods.

I oppose stunning on the basis that mis-stuns cause animals more pain and distress and that it does not improve animal welfare. I am uneasy about the idea of ending non-stun slaughter coming forward so soon after the previous debate. I defend people’s right to eat meat and I defend my right not to eat meat; I also defend my constituents’ right to eat meat slaughtered in the way that they want it to be. Some people have said that these methods of slaughter are alien practices that are not part of British culture and not something we do in Britain. That starts to produce a divide between some groups and the so-called British public, and I am greatly concerned about that.

On the back of the Copenhagen and Paris attacks, many of my Jewish constituents worry that they are not wanted in this country. They, however, are more British than some of the people who have signed the e-petition; they, at the end of their synagogue services, always play “God Save the Queen” and sing along. We do not see that in other parts of society, more’s the pity. Similarly, when I visit my Muslim constituents at the mosque, they do not talk about the issues that some of the far right claim that they do; they are more concerned about parking outside the mosque on a Friday, so that they can get not only to the mosque but back to work afterwards.

[Ms Abbott]

My local Muslim community is concerned about this debate. Many do not feel that it is really about animal welfare; they worry that it is some sort of covert attack on them and their way of life. I am glad that so many of the speeches today have confirmed the importance—for some of us, at least—of not only animal welfare, obviously, but the right of communities to slaughter meat in the way they wish to under the law.

[Dr Offord]

The hon. Lady’s intervention illustrates that some of the concerns of people in different communities are not as portrayed by far-right organisations, but are very much about more normal things, including not only how they feed their children, but how they look after their children and live their daily lives.

In preparing my speech, I wondered which of the British values we are talking about are those to which slaughter practices are alien. I looked at the Department for Education’s advice on promoting fundamental British values in UK schools, which is clear:

“Schools should promote the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs”.

Surely the e-petition goes against that. Moreover, schools should

“further tolerance and harmony between different cultural traditions by enabling students to acquire an appreciation of and respect for their own and other cultures…encourage respect for other people...and…an understanding that the freedom to choose and hold other faiths and beliefs is protected in law”.

The e-petition and today’s motion go against that. We are going down the route of asking people to choose the food that they eat on the basis of religion. Labelling already exists to indicate whether food is kosher, and the Muslim community may introduce similar arrangements as well. I feel aggrieved on behalf of my constituents that we are returning to the same issue. Many of them feel under attack as a result.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Four Members wish to speak and I want to start the Front-Bench wind-ups by 6.55, leaving them a goodly time to reply. Will Members restrain themselves to about seven minutes each, so that they may all get in?

18:22

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

Thank you, Mr Havard, and it is a great pleasure to take part in the debate, which I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) for securing.

I do not rise to talk about anything that is anti the Jewish or Muslim communities. The debate is very much about animal welfare. My right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) made the point very well: in the end, according to scientific and veterinary experience and the New Zealand research into slaughter methods, an animal that is stunned before slaughter without doubt feels less pain than one that is not stunned. That is the issue.

We should be able to work with religious communities to find compromises to ensure that animals are stunned at slaughter. For example, my right hon. Friend made the point that there is very much a case for post-stunning, especially of large animals. Clearly, a cow or beef animal can take up to four or five minutes to die, so post-stunning is relevant.

In addition, the halal system is about ensuring that an animal may recover from being stunned—that is what makes the difference. If electric shock is used, the animal should be rendered senseless so that the cut may be made and the animal bled without it feeling any pain, but it should be able to recover from the shock. That is why the stunning system is acceptable—we should not forget that 80% or 90% of halal meat is from stunned animals—and it is what we want to happen. I want to see more and more animals stunned.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) made many points, one of which was that all the meat slaughtered under the shechita system was consumed by the Jewish community. That is far from the point and is not what happens. All the hindquarters go into general meat consumption, so labelling of such products is essential.

Furthermore, I think I am right to say that in Israel, because fewer cattle are slaughtered, much more of the animal is eaten by the Jewish community than in this country. I have done a lot of work on this through various Committees and, no matter how much meat is needed for the Jewish community, they will accept no stunning whatever. They are absolutely convinced that the way in which the knife is wielded does the stunning. I do not believe that to be the case, but that is the argument that is made. If so, clearly the amount of meat needed for the Jewish community should be the amount slaughtered under the shechita system. I therefore press the Minister on the situation in Germany where, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering pointed out, the Jewish community has to be clear about the amount of meat they need, so that that is the amount of meat slaughtered.

In this country, not all shechita systems use slow methods of slaughter. In some slaughterhouses, even shechita is a relatively fast system. When two or three animals are slaughtered without stunning, only one might land up as in the shechita system, because the other two have passed through before the Jewish inspectors have time to ensure that the animals are fit. Shechita is not only about the method of slaughter, but about testing the lungs and other parts of the animal to ensure that it is healthy enough to be accepted. There is a lot of practice out there that we can tighten up on.

There should also be CCTV cameras in all slaughterhouses, whether they are using shechita or halal systems, or the general system of slaughter with stunning. Also, mis-stunning should be put right. I wish to refute entirely an argument that has been made several times, which is that because there are some mis-stuns when we stun animals, we should not stun them at all and do everything under a shechita system. We should ensure that there is absolutely no mis-stunning in this country. That is where I nail my colours to the mast, because we have to stamp out any mis-stunning. Furthermore, where possible animals should be stunned.

We also need to look at having a workable labelling system, which we do not have at the moment. If we talk about a shechita or halal system, we immediately make the issue a religious one. We do not want to make it a religious issue, nor should it be one. My right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire said that any system would not be easy to police, but if we are to go down the labelling route, we must ensure that the labels say “Stunned” or “Non-stunned”. That should clearly be the issue. We need to get that right.

In this country and throughout Europe and the world, if religious communities believe that there can be no stunning of animals, we should ensure that as few animals as possible are slaughtered under such a system and that that meat should go to the community concerned. I am not against people having their religious rights, but it is wrong that more animals than necessary are being slaughtered without stunning. We need to sort that out.

I repeat that we have to have cameras in slaughterhouses to ensure that the systems are carried out properly. We can then work with religious communities to try to minimise the amount of animals not stunned at slaughter and the amount of meat that goes into the normal meat trade and not into the kosher or halal trade. That way we will be able to get to a position where most animals in this country are stunned before slaughter and fewer and fewer are not. That is where we need to get to. That is not an easy matter, but it is something that I am sure the Minister will reply to. At the end of the day, this is not a party political issue but an issue of what is right for animal welfare.

18:31

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I have listened with great interest to the contributions to the debate, in particular the contribution from the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice). I am here to speak not to the technicalities or detail of the issue, but about how it is seen by communities.

I represent Hackney, a traditional centre of the Jewish community, with the oldest synagogue in the country in Brenthouse road. We also have, from a little more recently, a large Muslim community. Both those communities are quite anxious about this debate. Both are very civic- minded. On Cazenove road in Stoke Newington we have a mosque; the Simon Marks school, which is a maintained Jewish school; and other Jewish schools. Whenever there have been pressures and tensions, my Jewish community and my Muslim community have come together—they are an example of how that can happen.

Both communities are concerned about the debate. They are concerned that it has come forward so quickly after we debated the issue in November. They are also concerned about what the debate really means. They are worried that the issue is not really one of animal welfare. People of all faiths and none are concerned about animal welfare. There is an issue about whether slaughterhouses are well run, and there is agreement that we must get them run properly, through using CCTV and stamping out abuses where they occur. Everyone is concerned about animal welfare, but my communities are concerned that although we hear little about other forms of animal use and abuse that could be dubbed cruel, some people keep wanting to go back to the issue of halal meat.

I was asked to speak in the debate to make it clear to people that communities want to work within the law and to have the highest standards of animal welfare, but that they worry that some people—not all, because I imagine most people who signed the petition did so in good faith—who are pursing the issue of halal meat are in some sense antagonistic to some of our communities of faith. When we are debating this issue, I urge hon. Members to avoid a narrative that makes it sound as if one is trying to say that communities of faith are backward or mediaeval, or unnecessarily cruel to animals. Let us try to restrict the debate to practical measures to achieve the safest and most humane methods of animal slaughter.

There is real concern in communities. They will not read the details of some of the speeches made today, but they hear people going back once more to the issue of halal meat and wonder what it is a vehicle for. I do not believe that there is necessarily a contradiction between religious observance and treating animals in a humane way, and would not want anyone to feel that their methods of religious observance are under threat. I was glad to hear from the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) that the Prime Minister himself has given an undertaking that halal slaughter and shechita slaughter are safe in principle. That will be reassuring to the people I represent and to Jewish and Muslim faith communities up and down the country.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Order. To give hon. Members a little advice before we continue, when we vote it will be on a motion to say that we have considered the petition, not that we necessarily agree or disagree with it. Mr Freer is itching to go in trap one.

18:35

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

The debate has quite rightly focused on animal welfare. I have to say that those who believe in methods associated with religious slaughter are equally concerned with animal welfare. I am not Jewish, but, representing Finchley and Golders Green, I have taken a great deal of time to understand the religious traditions behind religious slaughter. Any rabbi or imam will say that the welfare of the animal is paramount. If the animal is stressed or in any way hurt or damaged, it cannot be slaughtered. It is also important to remember the long and proud tradition we have of protecting religious freedoms. I do not believe that the two are incompatible.

We are here once more, having debated the same issues in November. I apologise, but I want to repeat some points that I have made previously. I recognise that the debate has been prompted by 116,000 people signing a petition calling for non-stun slaughter to be banned, which I believe was started last April. However, 10 days ago, a counter-petition was started, which now has 124,000 signatures. My point is that the public are completely divided. There is not a common view.

Before we go on to the key animal welfare issues, I will touch on something that is a bit like the elephant in the room. A number of Members have alluded to the fact that our religious communities, whether the Muslim community or the Haredi community in Hackney, the Jewish community that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) and I share in London, or the largest Jewish population in the UK, represented by a colleague from slightly further away, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), and our constituents, are concerned about the motives behind some of the debate—not all of it, but some of it.

I believe that the vast majority of people raising this issue are concerned with animal welfare, but that for some it is a flag of convenience. For instance, when Animal Aid aired the video on 3 February of the appalling behaviour of slaughtermen in a halal abattoir, there was quite rightly an outcry, but a week later, when a video was aired showing the same behaviour in a mainstream abattoir, there was not a peep. It is an interesting juxtaposition of people’s responses: for halal, there is outcry, but for non-halal, silence.

I have also had e-mails in the past saying:

“I don’t want my meat touched by a dirty man in a beard”

or

“I don’t want Muslim meat”—

whatever Muslim meat is. I have bought meat in halal shops, in kosher shops and in Sainsbury’s, and frankly I cannot tell the difference, so I am still trying to get my head around how Muslim meat or kosher meat is meant to be so different that people do not want it because it is blessed or is in some way religious meat. Sadly, it shows that perhaps ignorance, racism, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism lurk behind some of the respectable arguments.

[Mike Gapes]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point. I will add my voice to his. Constituents in Ilford have written to me in exactly those terms this week, saying that there is a rising Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. I have had almost identical words from Jewish constituents and from Muslim constituents. It is not just in his part of London but in east London, which has large Jewish and Muslim communities that go back many decades—indeed, the Jewish community goes back centuries.

[Mike Freer]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Religious communities feel that they are under threat and that they are being made to feel unwelcome. However, I should put the issue in context: some, but not all, and certainly not the majority, are using animal welfare as a flag of convenience. That is why we must ensure that we anchor our arguments in animal welfare.

In that respect, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice)—I took members of Shechita UK to see him when he was a Minister—has given this issue a huge amount of thought, not only because of his farming background, but because of his former ministerial position. I do not always share his views, but they come from a very valid point of view, and I will seek advice on the point he raised about post cut stunning, because it is a fair one and it needs to be explored—I am not a Talmudic scholar, although I sometimes feel I am rapidly becoming one. I am sure someone will have an answer.

Before I looked at this issue, I thought I would go to see these things for myself, and I am surprised to find that a number of colleagues have also been to an abattoir. I went to see what goes on, and I have to say it is not a pleasant experience. Anyone who goes to an abattoir either comes back firmly a vegan or simply has to deal with the fact that there is no such thing as a good death for a cow. I certainly do not have the experience of my right hon. Friend or the experts. I saw these things from a layman’s point of view, like my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington).

I have seen the shochetim operate, and I have seen the bolt through the head, and, to put it bluntly, there is no such thing as a warm, cuddly abattoir. The cow or the lamb is being slaughtered: they either get a quick slice across the neck or they get a bolt fired at pressure through their skull—there is no nice way of dressing it up. However, from what I witnessed, I simply could not see the difference between the two methods. If colleagues get the opportunity to see animals being slaughtered, they should do so—it is gruesome, but they will be better informed.

My right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire said the training of non-religious slaughtermen is rigorous, but it is not as rigorous as that for the shochetim. The shochetim go through examinations, and they have at least three years’ training before they can use the surgical blade. Furthermore—this sounds slightly frivolous—if the shochet is involved in a row while driving to the abattoir, he is not allowed to practise. Not only must the animal be calm, centred and unharmed, but the shochetim must be peaceful and calm as well. A great deal of time and effort are put into ensuring that the process is as humane as possible.

The point about labelling is a fair one, but labelling meat as stunned or non-stunned is simplistic. If we are going to talk about animal welfare, we have to say, “This was stunned”, “This was gassed”, “This was electrified” and “This was a bolt through the head. Oh, by the way, we had to use three bolts before we got it right.” If people want to inform the public about animal welfare, they can do so. If we label meat only kosher or halal, stunned or non-stunned, the danger is that the issue becomes religion, not animal welfare.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who is not in his place, said the scientific evidence showed that non-stunned animals suffered more pain, but that contradicts last November’s report from his all-party parliamentary group for beef and lamb, which said the evidence regarding the pain felt following a bolt through the head or following religious slaughter was inconclusive.

I have two final comments. First, 1% of animals in the food chain are non-stunned, but we seem to obsess about that 1%, rather than about the poor practices that have been illustrated in the slaughter of the other 99% of animals. Secondly, the all-party group report said:

“it is to the benefit and pride of the United Kingdom that religious freedoms allow communities to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious rites.”

That has been the consistent view of this House, and I say once again that we should leave it alone.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

I now intend to let Mr Blackman speak. We will then have the two Front-Bench spokesmen. I will give Mr Hollobone some time at the end to wind up.

18:45

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Havard. The debate has demonstrated the power of e-petitions to generate calm, sensible and rational debates on issues petitioners wish to raise with us.

I start from the principle that we should look at the definition of stunning, because it has not been referred to during the debate. The EU definition is that stunning is

“any intentionally induced process which causes loss of consciousness and sensibility without pain, including any process resulting in instantaneous death”

by causing immediate cerebral perfusion. That is my starting point.

The debate has largely centred on the difference between religious manners of slaughtering cattle, sheep and other animals, and the supposed stunning version. However, it should be clear, as has been alluded to, that the welfare of the animal being slaughtered is paramount in the Jewish religion and the Muslim religion. The animal is being used for food and to sustain human life, so it is paramount in both religions that the slaughter takes place in the most humane way possible.

In an intervention, I made a point about the process that I think is quite important. As my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) said, shechita slaughter requires a fully trained individual to slice through the neck and carotid arteries of the cattle with one stroke—not a series of strokes. There is a particular way of doing this, which is quite clear, and it requires particular skill and ability, as I have personally seen. The stroke renders the animal unconscious, removing its ability to feel pain through the cerebral link—it is an instantaneous means of rendering it unable to suffer pain. However, I would argue that the animal will suffer pain regardless of whether it is stunned with a bolt or electrified. Therefore, the shechita method and the halal method, if used properly, are the humane way to proceed—they are a process of stunning the animal to start with.

There has been no scientific evidence from a laboratory environment to demonstrate whether one method of stunning is more humane than another. However, leading scientists and academics regard shechita and halal slaughter as being at least as humane as, if not preferable to, the forms of stunning used in abattoirs up and down the country. There is a clear issue there. There is an absolute duty to introduce CCTV in every abattoir in the country. We will then be able to see the process, and there will be evidence that the slaughter has taken place in an effective and humane way.

Several hon. Members have mentioned labelling. Simplistically labelling food as stunned or non-stunned is not appropriate. The process that has taken place should be clear. If meat is regarded as kosher or halal, or is produced by any other means, fine; I do not believe that that sort of labelling is a problem. Accepting stunning or non-stunning as the principle would not be appropriate, particularly given the contention by the shechita and halal communities that their means of stunning are at least as humane as other, conventional methods. Such labelling would clearly be directly discriminatory against both the Jewish and Muslim communities. I do not think that that is acceptable.

Debates such as this one are generally a means of formulating policy, and getting the views of the Government and the Opposition, so I would welcome a clear statement from both of them that there will be no change to the principle of allowing shechita and halal meat to be prepared exactly as it is now, and that slaughter will be allowed to happen exactly as it has for hundreds of years. In the summer, a comprehensive food labelling report will come from the European Commission. The Government of the day will then have to make a decision. I would welcome the Government’s and Opposition’s view on what they would do about that report if their party were to form the next Government. The process is important.

The regulations that apply to shechita, in particular, are important. The animal’s throat must be cut by one rapid, uninterrupted movement of the knife. Both the carotid arteries and both jugular veins must be severed, and the knife used to slaughter the animal must be inspected before each animal is slaughtered, to make sure it is of sufficient size and sharpness to slaughter that animal and render it deceased immediately. Since March 1999, under the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) (Amendment) Regulations 1999, such religious slaughter has been able to take place only in a licensed slaughterhouse. The relevant European Council regulation requires stunning before slaughter, but allows member states to exempt religious slaughter. However, they can impose stricter rules if they wish. I invite the Opposition and the Government to state their position on whether they will continue with the derogations. That will give an important signal to the community.

I share the view of many hon. Members who have spoken in the debate that there is a growing feeling of anti-Semitism and of Islamophobia in this country. The public’s attitudes have given rise to great concern, particularly among the Jewish community. Those concerns must be treated appropriately. I received many e-mails before the debate from constituents who believe that their way of life is being directly threatened and attacked. We need to send the strong signal that they are British and deserve to be treated appropriately. Their way of life must be respected.

18:53

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

This has been an excellent debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on introducing it, and on his calm and reasoned approach to the subject matter. I also congratulate the other right hon. and hon. Members who have made speeches or interventions, including my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), the right hon. Members for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) and for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), and the hon. Members for Watford (Richard Harrington), for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), for Hendon (Dr Offord), for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) and for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). All brought well-informed views to the debate and spoke passionately on behalf of their constituents. There have been urban and rural, agricultural and non-agricultural, religious and non-religious views put forward. The animal welfare considerations have been wide-ranging, and I hope that people who read the report of the debate will, like me—and, I think, other Members—feel better informed because of the debate and this afternoon’s parliamentary work.

I forget who made the comment this afternoon that religious communities are deeply concerned with animal welfare. I put that top and foremost in my speech, because it is right. Those who condemn the slaughter practices of religious communities should be aware that those who practise shechita or halal do it with the best interest of the animal in mind, and attempt to do that to the highest standard.

The Labour party position is that we would prefer it if all animals were stunned before slaughter. That is a long-held policy position shared with Her Majesty’s Government and is based on well-established scientific consensus, which points to evidence that slaughter without pre-stunning causes pain and distress. The EU-funded DIALREL project, a DEFRA and New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry research study, a European Food Safety Authority study, and the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, among others, have come to the same conclusion. Some, in defence of non-stun slaughter for religious reasons, contest the evidence; but the mainstream scientific consensus is well established. There is, however, an exemption within EU and UK law to allow religious slaughter for kosher and halal meat. Labour would prefer that all animals be stunned before slaughter, but we support the exemption, which allows for production and consumption of kosher and halal meat. There is of course a delicate balance to be struck between the pressing need to respect different religious communities and beliefs in the UK, and the equally pressing need for animal welfare and the reduction of suffering and distress in slaughter.

The Labour party also believes strongly that consumer interests are best served through transparency in food production and processing, and that consumers have a right to know where their food comes from, and how it was reared and slaughtered. We believe that that labelling to show different methods of slaughter, or simply stun or non-stun slaughter, has merit, but that it is best debated and agreed at an EU level to ensure a clear and consistent approach across all EU member states. We hope that today the Minister will be able to reveal some progress with the extended European Commission study on labelling, which was originally expected to report in 2014.

The Minister might also want to comment on the practicality of an industry-led UK-only scheme, in response to consumer concerns. The British trade body for the beef and sheep industry, EBLEX, led a consultation in 2013 on such a scheme, and the British Veterinary Association, of which I am an honorary associate member, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Humane Slaughter Association have advocated the adoption of a simple logo to indicate whether the animal was stunned before slaughter. Has the Minister had any discussions with those trade bodies or other organisations on the practicality of implementing a UK-only scheme—perhaps industry-led, and perhaps a voluntary approach? Will the Minister also reveal what discussions, if any, he has had with consumer organisations about the changing levels of concern—or otherwise—of UK consumers, given heightened media coverage of the issue in recent times? What is the current level of consumer demand in the UK for clear labelling on methods of slaughter, or simply on stunned or non-stunned slaughter?

Many organisations have come together to demand a total ban on slaughter without pre-stunning. The Labour party commends their focus on animal welfare, which is something that we have long championed. Only last week, the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), launched Labour’s wide-ranging animal welfare proposals, which were warmly welcomed.

However, the call for an outright ban on pre-stunned slaughter would have significant consequences. It would end the non-stunned slaughter for kosher and halal meat in the UK, which would of course impact on religious communities. It would not, to my understanding, ban the importation of non-stunned meat from other countries, where we have no direct control over methods of slaughter. If done in the UK, at least we can effectively regulate and enforce the highest standards of animal welfare for stunned and non-stunned slaughter. When standards of slaughter fall short, as they have in recent examples highlighted by Animal Aid and others, action can be and is taken decisively by UK authorities. For animal welfare considerations, therefore, exponents of a ban need to be sure that we would not simply offshore non-stunned slaughter to other countries where we have no such controls.

Let me be absolutely clear: banning the production of non-stunned meat will not lead automatically to the end of the consumption of non-stunned meat. For many Muslims and Jews, there is no alternative to consumption of meat slaughtered in accordance with their religious beliefs, or an interpretation of religious beliefs that stipulates that an animal may not be stunned.

Organisations such as the RSPCA, the BVA, the Humane Slaughter Association and others have come together with reasonable questions for the Minister on measures that fall short of a ban, but could improve animal welfare at slaughter. I ask him for his response to their suggestions, which he will have had time to consider before the debate. First, what consideration have the Government given to the German approach, which places a requirement on abattoirs to demonstrate religious need and demand, and to define precisely the numbers to be slaughtered for the demand of that religious community, as a condition of being granted a licence for non-stunned slaughter? The logic is that that restricts non-stunned slaughter to a minimum, and avoids excessive and unnecessary non-stunned slaughter, in which ultimately surplus meat is diverted away from those communities and into the wider UK and EU supply chain.

What discussions has the Minister had with our Muslim and Jewish community leaders and organisations in the UK on greater use of post-cut stunning to reduce animals’ distress and suffering? Does he, as Members have said today, see scope for progress on that? Post-cut stunning would be a significant step forward on animal welfare. While countries such as Finland, Estonia, Austria, Slovakia and Australia have made that mandatory, we want to see our religious communities work with the Government to achieve that without mandation, if possible.

Labour will continue to speak up for animal welfare and consumer rights while respecting religious communities. There is work to be done by Government, but also by and with organisations concerned with animal welfare and those religious communities affected, who are also hugely concerned with animal welfare. We are committed to taking this matter forward when we are in government, working with all concerned to ensure the highest standards of animal welfare at slaughter, and building on our long-standing support for improving welfare standards in production and processing of Great British food and in our fisheries. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

19:04

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I congratulate all the members of the public who signed the petition and congratulate them on getting it past the 100,000 threshold to secure this debate. Members from all parties have expressed frustration at the fact that we debated this issue as recently as November, but let me be clear: I have always been of the view that debate never does harm to a democracy such as ours. This issue has been debated in Parliament since 1875 and if reports are to be believed that another petition has also exceeded 100,000 signatories, no doubt we will discuss it again, perhaps even before the general election. The reason for that is the importance of this issue to the public.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) that the new procedure that enables members of the public to force debate on issues that are important to them is a good one. It is healthy for our democracy, so we should embrace and support it. I remember that he chaired the previous debate, which took place here back in November, when I dealt with many of these issues. He may recall that I set out some of the historical context. Given that some hon. Members here were not at that debate, it might be useful to summarise briefly some of that context again.

European and domestic regulations, which apply to the welfare of all animals slaughtered, require that all animals are stunned before slaughter. However, there is a long-standing derogation to allow slaughter without stunning in accordance with religious rites for the production of halal or kosher meat.

Our current national requirements on religious slaughter have a long history. The Government first set down powers to prevent cruelty in slaughterhouses through the Public Health Act 1875, and byelaws made under that legislation required animals to be “effectually stunned”. In 1904, the Admiralty set up a committee to ascertain the most humane and practical methods of slaughtering animals. Its report recommended, without exception, that all animals should be stunned before slaughter.

Following that report, the Local Government Board issued a circular proposing that the recommendations of the Admiralty’s committee should be implemented, but stunning should not be obligatory where slaughter was carried out by a Jew, licensed by the Chief Rabbi, provided that no unnecessary suffering was inflicted. It is interesting that a similar requirement for shechita slaughter—that it is carried out by a Jewish slaughterman, licensed by the Rabbinical Commission—still exists in our national legislation.

The first national legislative requirement for stunning was brought in under the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933, as I think the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) alluded to. That also contained an exception from stunning for slaughter for Jews and Muslims. Over the years the national rules governing religious slaughter have developed to provide protection to animals that are slaughtered in accordance with religious rites. That brings me to the current situation.

Our existing national rules on religious slaughter, which are set out in schedule 12 to the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter and Killing) Regulations 1995, provide greater protection than those contained in the European regulation. For example, there are requirements on how cattle can be restrained: we require bovines to be restrained only in pens that meet the requirements set down in the regulations. Such pens must be of suitable size and design, and include a suitable head restraint and a means of support that will take the animal’s weight during and following slaughter—a belly support. All pens must go through a rigorous procedure before approval is given.

Furthermore, unlike member states such as France and the Netherlands, we do not allow inversion of cattle for religious slaughter. That ban followed the 1985 report of the then Farm Animal Welfare Council, which recommended that inversion should be banned. The reason it gave was

“the terror and discomfort which ensue from the inversion of cattle in the rotary pen”.

The FAWC went on to recommend

“that the law be amended to permit the use of a pen which restrains the animal in a standing position provided that the design of the pen, which must be approved by Ministers, incorporates effective restraint and support for the animal”.

Other recommendations from that important 1985 FAWC report have been part of our national rules for some 25 years. They include, for instance, that no animal should be placed in a restraining pen until the slaughterman is in position and ready to carry out the incision. The regulations also require that a captive bolt gun must be kept close to the restraining pen in case of any emergency—for example, if the animal does not become unconscious due to the occlusion of the arteries in its neck.

[Miss McIntosh]

The Bowood episode clearly shows that the regulations might not be being followed to the letter, so who is responsible for ensuring that they are?

[George Eustice]

The food business operator—the operator of the abattoir—is legally required to ensure that those are followed, but I point out that an official veterinarian is present at every abattoir and it is their job to enforce them. I shall return to the issue of enforcement later.

In addition, the regulations require that before each animal is slaughtered, the knife must be checked to ensure it is sharp and undamaged, and that the cut must be a rapid and uninterrupted movement that cuts both carotid arteries and veins.

Other national rules concern the so-called standstill times for cattle, sheep and goats: following the neck cut, the animal cannot be moved, in the case of bovines, until it is unconscious and at least 30 seconds have passed, or, in the case of sheep and goats, until at least 20 seconds have passed. The standstill times aim to provide protection from avoidable pain, suffering and distress caused, for example, by unnecessary movement while the animal is still conscious.

Although there are no standstill rules as such for poultry, there are still a number of national rules that aim to minimise pain, suffering and distress. Following the neck cut, no further dressing procedure can be carried out on the bird until it is unconscious and at least two minutes have elapsed, in the case of turkeys and geese; for all other birds it is 90 seconds.

I set those regulations out in detail because it is important to recognise that there are special, strict requirements where religious slaughter is carried out. However, hon. Members should recognise another important point: none of the exemptions we have for religious slaughter exempt any operator from their obligations under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It is the role of the official veterinarians in the abattoirs to decide when it may be necessary to go in, as required under the regulations, and use a bolt gun where something goes wrong. I shall return to that point later.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering pointed out, there are also differing requirements right across Europe, as provided for in the European regulations. In Germany, for example, abattoirs have to prove the religious needs and the number of animals to be slaughtered to satisfy the needs of the religious community concerned before being granted a licence. My hon. Friend asked whether we could look at that further, as did the shadow Minister. It is an interesting area and following this debate, given the apparent support from hon. Members, I would be willing to look at it. However, the existing standstill times are already a powerful disincentive for the mainstreaming of religious slaughter, because they make the process much slower. It is therefore not really in the interests of any abattoir to conduct religious slaughter in accordance with the regulations unless it is for a specific need.

[Mr David Jones]

Why are such a high proportion of sheep and goats being killed by the non-stun method? The figure is 15%, as we have heard, whereas the Jewish and Muslim population of this country accounts for only some 5% of the total population.

[George Eustice]

I am not sure. I will have to check those particular figures. We know, for instance, that around 73% of all halal meat slaughtered is already stunned before it is slaughtered, and as many hon. Members pointed out, the amount of kosher meat on the market is a very small proportion. However, this is an interesting area, and it is something that I have looked at. I do not think that it gets away from the broader dilemma of the debate, but nevertheless, it is worthy of further consideration.

In the Netherlands, all animals must be stunned if they have not lost consciousness within 40 seconds of the cut. In France, there must be a post-cut stun if cattle are still conscious after 90 seconds. Other countries—notably Finland, Austria, Estonia and Slovakia—go further in requiring immediate post-cut stunning, whereas Denmark requires post-cut stunning in bovines only.

Further afield, as several hon. Members have pointed out, under Australian law, stunning at slaughter is required, but there is an option for a state or meat inspection authority to provide an exemption and approve an abattoir for ritual slaughter without prior stunning for the domestic market, but post-cut stunning is still a requirement for those animals.

As we have plenty of time, I want to move on to other points that hon. Members have raised. Having discussed this issue with my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), who was one of my predecessors in this role, I know that this is something he has looked at. I can tell him that I have looked at it in equal detail since and that finding a consensus among the various parties concerned is no easier than it ever was. However, I want to pick up on a few issues that he highlighted.

My right hon. Friend described a situation in an abattoir in which several sheep were in a V restrainer conveyor simultaneously. That would be a breach of the existing regulations. There should never be more than one sheep in a sheep restrainer for the purposes of religious slaughter, because, as I have pointed out, the requirement is very clear that they cannot go into the slaughter pen—in this case, the V restrainer—until they are ready to be slaughtered. That is very important, because sheep have a natural tendency to want to flock, and putting them in a restrainer where they are held firm, while there are the standstill times and other sheep taking 15 or 20 seconds ahead of them, is not right. That is a breach of the existing regulations.

My right hon. Friend raised valid points on the time to unconsciousness. I remember well him describing to me seeing cattle take up to six minutes to lose consciousness. I hear various ranges for the time to loss of consciousness. There is a consensus that chickens are normally unconscious within 15 to 20 seconds. Likewise, I am told that 10 to 15 seconds is typical in the case of sheep, as he pointed out, and sometimes it is a little longer. However, when it comes to cattle, it is clear that there can be quite wide variances. He says that he witnessed cattle taking between four and six minutes to lose consciousness. I have discussed the matter with our veterinary advisers, some of whom have worked as OVs in abattoirs, and they tell me that it is more typical that, after around 40 seconds, the animal will collapse and go off its legs, and be supported by the restraining pen, and that it will typically then lose consciousness after 1 minute 20 seconds. That is still quite a lot of time, but it is why France has a cut-off point of 1 minute 30 seconds, after which a post-cut stun is required. At the other extreme, I have met former staff of the FSA who have told me that they have seen shechita abattoirs do this particularly effectively, with the animal collapsing within 10 seconds.

It is also clear that in many of these abattoirs, both halal and shechita—the best ones—where anything goes wrong, they are in quickly with the bolt gun to put the animal out of any pain. That is why I want again to talk about the Animal Welfare Act 2006, under which there is a requirement on an abattoir operator not to cause any unnecessary suffering to an animal. Where something goes wrong—where, for example, it takes up to five or six minutes for the animal to lose consciousness—there is a clear rationale for an official veterinarian to intervene earlier to say that something had gone wrong and that, as required under the regulations, the animal should be dispatched with a bolt gun.

Further to the fact that I have never been able to get a clear answer on exactly how long it takes for bovines in particular to lose consciousness, some months ago I asked our deputy chief veterinary officer to conduct a piece of work with the FSA to look at the matter afresh and see whether we can, without changing any laws, ensure that we have consistent application of the existing laws and consistent understanding of when it is appropriate for an OV to require that post-cut shot to be taken.

Let me move on to other points. Various hon. Members questioned the science of whether it is better for the welfare of the animals for them to be stunned prior to slaughter. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) made the good point, which I will concede, that at the time when halal and kosher were designed, they were very much about respect for the animal and sparing it any unnecessary pain. The genesis of both halal and kosher was about animal welfare, albeit that was some time ago.

I also completely accept that there can be good and bad abattoirs. It may be that conventional abattoirs would also mistreat the animals. I completely recognise the point that there are big differences. The only thing that I would say—this is where there is strong cross-party consensus—is that we have to look at the scientific evidence that we have, and the argument that says that the cut itself is equivalent to a stun is not borne out by the scientific evidence. As the shadow Minister pointed out, we had in 2003 the Farm Animal Welfare Committee report, which concluded that non-stun slaughter could cause distress and suffering. In 2004, we had the European Food Safety Authority report, which also concluded that it was preferable to have stunning of all animals. In 2009, the EU DIALREL report reached the same conclusion. It looked at neurological surveys of animals that were being slaughtered in order to establish scientifically whether they were experiencing pain. More recently, work in New Zealand has confirmed the same. It is therefore important that we recognise the basis on which the exemption exists. It is not because we think that somehow religious slaughter, be it halal or shechita, is a more humane way to slaughter animals than what mainstream abattoirs do today. It is because we respect the religious rights of those communities and we have accommodated them in the long-standing derogations that we have in place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) raised the issue of CCTV, on which we have recently had a report from the Farm Animal Welfare Committee. It stops short of saying that there should be compulsory use of CCTV in slaughterhouses. We should recognise that the place in her constituency about which concerns were raised did have CCTV, so it is no panacea on its own. However, the FAWC report does conclude that many advantages come with CCTV. It can also help business managers to manage their operation. For instance, it can reveal lameness in sheep in the lairage pens that would not otherwise be detected. If used correctly, CCTV can be a very useful tool to help business managers to ensure that they are compliant with the regulation and to manage their business operations.

My hon. Friend also mentioned enforcement. I will come to that at the end. Labelling was the other issue that a number of hon. Members raised, and I want to deal with that. There is a European Commission working group. The shadow Minister asked about the timing of the report. It is one of those EU reports that has been delayed and delayed. We initially expected it last summer, then we expected it in the new year, and the latest update that I have had is that it is still some months away, which I think reflects the fact that this is a difficult issue to get right.

Let me give some general pointers. First, there is a very clear legal definition, both in our own law and in European law, of what stunned means for the purposes of abattoirs. It is rendering an animal insensitive to pain instantly or almost instantly, so I think that we can be clear that we could have “Stunned” or “Unstunned” as a form of labelling. My right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire made a very good point about the inability to enforce that sometimes. It would not be easy and it would not necessarily protect all those people who were buying their food from catering establishments, either. There are difficulties in labelling things just as “Halal” or “Kosher”. As a number of hon. Members pointed out, not all parts of the carcase are deemed kosher, even though the animal may have been slaughtered by kosher methods, and there is no single, uniform interpretation of what halal means. Different imams have different interpretations of the rules. We therefore await the report from the European Commission. I have heard it said that there could be labelling that just said “Unstunned” if the animal had not been stunned, but again this, like other issues, is not easy.

[Ms Abbott]

I am always gripped by discussions about the European Commission, but will the Minister comment on the point that concerns my constituents, which is that for some of the people involved in the push against halal and shechita, animal welfare is merely a flag of convenience? That is what concerns my constituents. They are very happy to make slaughter safer and more humane, but they are worried about the motivation of some of the people who are pushing this issue and who keep coming back to it.

[George Eustice]

I know that the hon. Lady made that point previously. I do not think that there has been anything in the debate today to suggest that that is the case among hon. Members taking part in it, and indeed the motion itself makes it absolutely clear that it is looking just at the animal welfare issue, so I am not sure that we should go down that route.

In conclusion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) pointed out, the Government have no plans at all to ban religious slaughter. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that there is no intention to ban religious slaughter. However, everyone agrees that we need good enforcement of our existing legislation.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Does the Minister see any scope for progress on post-cut stunning, which would be a real step forward? Several hon. Members raised that.

[George Eustice]

Yes, and I am going to come to that, but my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned enforcement and I can confirm that today, following a number of incidents, the FSA has begun a series of unannounced inspections of GB slaughterhouses, and by the end of March all approved slaughterhouses will have been subject to an unannounced inspection.

On the shadow Minister’s point, in the longer term, we may be able to learn lessons from other countries. Some other countries have managed to accommodate or reconcile the beliefs of Jewish and Muslim communities while having a slightly different approach from us. A number of countries, including Holland and France, do have a requirement for a post-cut stun in a particular time scale. It is not easy to get consensus among the religious communities for that, but we should also recognise, as I said at the beginning, that in many respects our national rules are better than those elsewhere in Europe, especially on the issue of inversion, which is, according to all advice, quite serious.

We have had a very good, informative debate, covering a wide range of issues. It has been a pleasure to be here to debate this issue again.

19:27

[Mr Hollobone]

It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the conclusion of the debate, Mr Havard. We must all thank the petitioners—the people who signed the petition to allow us to have the debate. Should any of the 116,000 be watching—some very good people have come along to the Public Gallery—I hope that they will have been impressed by the range of views and the way in which the debate was conducted.

A former DEFRA Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), made extremely informative remarks. The Chairman of the EFRA Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), expressed her constituents’ shock at affairs at Bowood abattoir. The Chairman of another Select Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), represented the Jewish community extremely well. A practising Muslim, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), expressed the views of those who consume halal products. A Jewish MP who does not eat kosher food, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), has beaten the rest of us, because he has already taken the case to No. 10 and got the Prime Minister on board. The representative of one of the largest Jewish communities in the UK, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), stressed the high standards of training in shechita abattoirs. Indeed, three Members have visited abattoirs, and there is nothing like seeing things at first hand. The chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for beef and lamb, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), made an excellent contribution. A former Cabinet member from north Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), also gave us his views and stressed the need to look at the German system.

This issue is not going to go away. No doubt we will be back in a few weeks’ time with the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) representing the 125,000 people who have signed the e-petition in favour of religious slaughter. Labelling is a key issue. The extent of mis-stunning has shocked us all. I have not heard anyone speak out against CCTV in all slaughterhouses, and a very strong case was made for post-cut stunning.

I hope the Minister has been impressed by the strength and variety of contributions made to him. I am sure that he will stick to his commitment to look at these issues in greater detail, because the public out there want Parliament —our Parliament—to do something about this.

Question put and agreed to.

19:30

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Monday 23rd February 2015 Written Statements

Monday 23 February 2015

Competitiveness Council (Pre-Council Statement)

Monday 23rd February 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister for Universities, Science and Cities (Greg Clark)]

My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Minister with responsibility for intellectual property (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) will today make the following statement:

The European Competitiveness Council will take place on Monday 2 March and Tuesday 3 March. I will represent the UK on day one (industry and internal market) and representation on day two (research, innovation and space) is to be confirmed.

The internal market and industry substantive agenda items are the EU single market and EU industrial competitiveness. Under the EU single market item the Commission will present on single market aspects of the “Annual Growth Survey 2015”, there will be a policy debate on the investment plan for Europe and the presidency is planning to present single market conclusions for adoption.

Under the EU industrial competitiveness item there will be a presentation from the Commission on the industrial policy aspects of the annual growth survey and a policy debate on industrial policy within future digital single market strategy.

There is one legislative proposal on the agenda presented for public deliberation—the trade mark package. This is an update on the proposal for amendment of the Regulation on the Community Trade Mark and a proposal to recast the directive approximating the laws of member states relating to trade marks.

Our objectives for the internal market and industry day are to:

Agree conclusions on the single market that reflect UK priorities;

Set out the UK’s position regarding industrial policy and the digital single market; and

Highlight our continued priorities for the trade mark dossier.

The research, innovation and space day has two substantial policy discussions. There will be a presentation by the Commission on the research and innovation aspects of the annual growth survey 2015 followed by a policy debate on fostering innovation and unlocking Europe’s potential for growth in the European research area.

The second discussion is on unlocking Europe’s digital potential, based on a communication from the Commission on “Towards a thriving data-driven economy”.

Our objectives for the research, innovation and space day are to:

Intervene to emphasise the importance of co-ordination of policies and investments to promote innovation and growth.

To emphasise the importance of issues such as open data and a dynamic and flexible digital single market to an innovative EU data-driven economy.

[HCWS293]

Protecting Public Money

Monday 23rd February 2015 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

I would like to update the House on steps that my Department is taking to protect taxpayers’ money.

Government Lobbying Government

Under the last Administration, there was an endemic practice of Government bodies hiring lobbyists to lobby the Government and political parties, as illustrated in the answer of 10 October 2013, Official Report, column 395W. In 2010, I instructed all our arms length bodies to cancel such contracts.

Reflecting commitments made by the Conservative party in opposition, the Cabinet Office also subsequently published clear guidance to non-departmental public bodies to stop payments being made to lobby. This includes firms and consultants engaged in the enthusiasms of “political consultancy”, “stakeholder management”, “strategic communications”, “public affairs”, “policy tracking”, “advocacy”, “strategic counsel” and “engagement with public policy makers and opinion formers”.

In 2011, my Department issued a revised Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity making it clear that local authorities should not incur any expenditure in retaining the services of lobbyists for the purpose of the publication of any material designed to influence public officials, Members of Parliament, political parties or the Government to take a particular view on any issue.

There is nothing wrong with private organisations using their own money to hire commercial firms for advice, provided it is done in an open and transparent manner; and this Government have legislated to put such transparency on a statutory footing.

But “lobbying on the rates” is a wasteful, corrosive and zero sum game for the public sector. The public sector never lobbies for lower taxes and less state spending —and is a prime example of “public choice” theory in action—state bureaucracies using public funds to expand their state empires.

Lobbying by “Sock Puppets”

However, the practice of Government lobbying Government is not just confined to quangos. The Institute of Economic Affairs has undertaken extensive research on so-called “sock puppets”; they have exposed the extensive practice of taxpayers’ money being given to pressure groups and supposed charities, in turn being used to lobby the Government and Parliament for more money and more regulation. This is an issue which needs to be addressed.

My Department has set an example to the rest of Whitehall by amending our standard grant agreements to impose a new anti-lobbying, anti-sock puppet clause. The simple, short but effective clause says:

“The following costs are not Eligible Expenditure:- Payments that support activity intended to influence or attempt to influence Parliament, Government or political parties, or attempting to influence the awarding or renewal of contracts and grants, or attempting to influence legislative or regulatory action”.

We hope this can and will be rolled out more widely across the public sector.

Lobbying by Local Enterprise Partnerships

It has come to the Government’s attention that a small number of local enterprise partnerships have been hiring public affair consultancies to lobby the Government and Parliament.

BBC “Look East” has recently investigated how Hertfordshire local enterprise partnership used the lobbyists to bid for Government cash and set up meetings with MPs, MEPs and civil servants. I am aware of at least another five local enterprise partnerships which have been paying for lobbyists.

Using taxpayers’ funds to lobby Government wastes public money and undermines transparency. Such lobbying will not expand the quantum of public funding available to local enterprise partnerships. Unless action is taken, more local enterprise partnerships may feel pressured to follow suit, diverting taxpayers’ money away from enterprise and regeneration.

It is the firm view of the Government that the same principles should apply to local enterprise partnerships, as councils and quangos. Local enterprise partnerships should not be hiring lobbyists to influence the awarding or renewal of contracts and grants, or to attempt to influence legislative or regulatory action. This covers lobbying in the broadest sense, as defined in the Cabinet Office guidance. Any local enterprise partnerships which currently have hired lobbyists should terminate their contracts. They should pick up the phone instead.

The Minister for Universities, Science and Cities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) will be writing to local enterprise partnerships shortly.

Lobbying by Local Authorities

Thanks to the transparency agenda which this Government have championed, it has also come to my attention that a number of local authorities may be paying for lobbyists in potential non-compliance with the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity. Ministers are prepared to use our powers under the Local Government Act 1986, as amended by the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, to stop such practices.

I hope this sends a clear signal on how this Government will stand up and protect the interests of taxpayers, and rein in the spendthrift practices of state bureaucracy.

[HCWS292]

Type 26 Global Combat Ship

Monday 23rd February 2015 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)]

Today I am providing an update on our plans for taking forward the Type 26 Global Combat Ship programme.

Good progress has been made during the assessment phase on all aspects of the programme, and this work is now sufficiently mature to conclude this phase and move forward into the demonstration phase with effect from 1 April 2015.

In the demonstration phase, under a contract worth £859 million, we will continue detailed design work and invest in shore-based testing facilities. We will also provide certainty to suppliers by purchasing key initial equipment for three Type 26 GCS vessels. Careful negotiations have secured the best possible deal for this equipment, ensuring that it represents a good investment for the taxpayer.

In parallel, we will continue to work better to understand programme schedule, cost and risk. This approach draws on key lessons from the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier programme by ensuring that the ship design is sufficiently mature, the supply chain is fully mobilised early in the programme to de-risk material supply, and a full joint analysis of programme risk is completed before awarding a build contract.

On current planning, and subject to a main gate decision, this will allow the manufacture phase to commence in 2016 and maintain scheduled delivery of this new capability to the Royal Navy in 2022.

[HCWS289]

Logistics Commodities and Services Transformation Programme

Monday 23rd February 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)]

In July 2012, my predecessor, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Sir Peter Luff), informed the House about a transformation programme within Logistic Commodities and Services (LCS), part of Defence Equipment and Support.

The primary role for LCS is to provide support to military operations by undertaking procurement and inventory management of commodity items (including food, clothing, packed fuel, general supplies and medical supplies), and the storage and distribution of these commodity items, together with other non-explosive stock across Defence.

LCS(T) will provide significant operational effectiveness by delivering improved responsiveness and agility. It will also improve efficiency in storage infrastructure; commodity procurement and logistic processes and rationalise inventory management and stock control for commodity products. It is also expected to deliver financial savings of around £0.5 billion over the next 13 years ensuring that we continue to meet the needs of the Armed Forces of the future.

The programme has now completed a very comprehensive and detailed assessment phase and following a strong and rigorous competition I was pleased to announce last week that Leidos has been selected as the preferred bidder. While I would ordinarily have made such an announcement to the House first, in order to avoid delaying the commercial process it was necessary to do so during recess. I will make a further statement to the House with final details of the transaction next month once contract negotiations have concluded.

[HCWS294]

Double Taxation Convention : United Kingdom-Algeria

Monday 23rd February 2015 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

A Double Taxation Convention with Algeria was signed on 18 February 2015. The text of the Convention has been deposited in the Library of both Houses and made available on the GOV.UK website. The text will be scheduled to a draft Order in Council and laid before the House of Commons in due course.

It is also available online at http://www.parliament.uk/writtenstatements.

[HCWS291]

Chief Inspector Probation

Monday 23rd February 2015 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

I wish to inform the House that an interim Chief Inspector of Probation started on 19 February 2015.

Paul Wilson has been appointed for an initial six months while we are recruiting for the permanent Chief Inspector.

Mr Wilson has a track record of senior management within the probation field. He was previously Chief Executive of London Probation Trust.

The Justice Select Committee will be involved in the appointment of a permanent successor in the usual way.

[HCWS290]