26/04/2016 House of Commons

difficult for such claims to succeed? We will have a proper

consultation in due course and I would imagine that is the kind of

issue we can consider at length. Urgent question. Mr Alistair

Carmichael. To ask for the home Department if she will make a

statement on the UK's membership of the European Convention on Human

Rights? I am answering this urgent question today on behalf of the Home

Secretary but my right honourable friend will be making a statement to

this house on the Hillsborough inquest findings tomorrow. I hope it

would be in order for me to make a brief comment on that subject before

I turned to the right honourable gentleman's question. As the House

will know, the inquest jury have now returned their verdicts. I am sure

the whole house would wish to join me in thanking them for the

considerable public service that they have performed. As a result, I

have this morning written to members advising that care be exercised when

making public statements to ensure that nothing is said that suggests

that any individual or organisation has been found to be criminally

liable. Ultimately, a jury in a criminal trial may need to decide

this issue and it is important that nothing is said that may prejudice

the right to a fair trial or make it more difficult to pursue appropriate

prosecutions. On the subjects of this urgent question, the United

Kingdom is a founder member of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Lawyers from the United Kingdom were instrumental in the drafting of the

European can. We are signatories to the convention and we have been

clear throughout that we have no objections to the text of the

convention. It is indeed a fine document and the Government is

firmly of the view that the rights enshrined in the Convention rights

that British citizens and others should continue to hold as part of a

reformed human rights framework. This Government was elected with a

mandate to reform and modernise the UK's human rights framework. The

Conservative Party manifesto said a Conservative Government would scrap

the Human Rights Act and introduce a British Bill of Rights will stop as

with all elements of our manifesto, we intend to meet that commitment in

the course of this Parliament. Honourable members will be aware

that we have set out our intention to consult on the future of the UK's

human rights framework. The consultation will be published in

due course on the future of the UK's membership, on the future of human

rights in this country and abroad. We will fully consult on our

proposals before introducing legislation and in doing so we will

welcome constructive contributions from all sides of the House. The

intention of reform is to protect human rights but also to prevent the

abuse of human rights's law and to restore some common sense to the

system. The premise to has been clear throughout that we were all

out absolutely nothing in getting Matt Done although our preference is

to seek to achieve reforms while remaining in the European

Convention. A reformist world look at their approach to human rights

and under the Human Rights Act. While we want to remain part of

this, we will not stay in at any cost. If we cannot achieve the

satisfactory settlement within the EC HR, we may have no option but to

consider withdrawal. The question before the people of the UK in June,

thanks to this Government, is not about our future membership of the

European Convention on Human Rights but about our future membership of

the European Union. It is important that in taking that significant

decision, people do not conflate the separate questions. Let me make one

thing absolutely clear. The United Kingdom has a proud tradition of

respect the human rights which long predate the Human Rights Act and

indeed the European Convention on Human Rights. Any reforms we make

well maintained that protection. These are not just words. This

Government and the Coalition Government that preceded it have a

strong record on human rights here and abroad. We brought forward the

Modern Slavery Bill act seeking to protect some of the most vulnerable

and exploited people in our society and to punish those responsible for

that exploitation. We have fought to protect and promote human rights

internationally. We are one of the leading members of the United

Nations human rights Council, leading negotiations to set up

investigations into human rights abuses in Syria and elsewhere. We

have transformed the fight against sexual violence and conflict,

persuading over 150 states to agree that the first time that sexual

violence should be recognised as a grave breach of the Geneva

conventions. We have been leading the world on a business and human

rights agenda. We are one of the first states to give the UN's

guiding principles on business and human rights and the third state in

the world to implement them through a national action plan. That is a

track record of which we can be justifiably proud and it is that

track record on which we will build when we set our proposals for the

reform of the human rights framework the UK. I am grateful to the

Attorney General for that answer. I should make it clear that I hold the

attorney in the very highest regard. I enjoyed working with him as a

minister in the previous Government but he is not the Home Secretary. He

shouldn't be making this ancestor day. The Home Secretary was the one

who could make the speech yesterday. She can make a statement tomorrow

and she should be here today. Yesterday she went rogue, today she

has gone missing. The truth of the matter is that there is now total

confusion at the heart of Government policy on this. What the attorney

has just said at the dispatch box contradicts clearly what has been

said previously. Yesterday the Home Secretary said, "The EC HR combined

the hands of Parliament and nothing to our prosperity makes us less

secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals and

does nothing to change the attitudes of Government's like Russia when it

comes to human rights. Regardless of the EU Referendum Bill my view is

this. If we want to reform human rights laws, it is up to the EU that

we should -- it is the EU that we should not lead but the EC HR and

the jurisdiction of our court." That contradicts what the Parliamentary

undersecretary previously told the House had justice questions and also

in a succession of Westminster Hall debates on the 30th of June. He

said, "Our plans do not involve us leaving the convention. That is not

our objective." There has been a major shift in Government policy and

this house should have been the first to hear about it. The Home

Secretary tells us that apparently she wants to remain in the European

Union but leave the convention. The Parliamentary undersecretary was to

leave the European Union but remain in the convention. The Lord

Chancellor wants to leave the European Union, stay in the

convention but ignore the court. Thank goodness we don't have the

instability of a Coalition Government any more. It has been

apparent for some time that everything in the Government

thinking is seen through the prism of the European Union referendum.

Now it seems the Home Secretary has taken that to the next level and she

has got the eye on the next election, namely the Conservative

leadership election. Can the attorney tell us. To be a member of

the European Union now requires us to be a party to the European can.

How is the Home Secretary's speech yesterday consistent with that

policy? The devolved settlements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

all have the European Convention hard-wired into them. They are

required to abide with the convention. How can that be done if

the United Kingdom as a country is no longer a party to the convention?

And does the attorney, a decent man who genuinely respects human rights,

honestly want to see his country and mine stand-alone with Belarus

against the convention? May I start by returning the right honourable

gentleman's confidence. I enjoyed serving in Government with him and I

have the highest regard for him as an individual. He is a little unfair

about Coalition Government. It wasn't unstable much of the time. We

should recognise that what we did in coalition was to produce pieces of

legislation like the Modern Slavery Bill act that recognised the real

actions we could take in pursuit of defending human rights and this

Government will continue that course. It is not right as he

suggested to say there is confusion on this policy. I have set it out

and indeed he was here in the Chamber when my honourable friend

the Minister of human rights to the same. There's no confusion. What has

been said throughout by the Prime Minister and all other ministers is

that we rule nothing out in seeking to achieve the policy objective that

we have set and for which we have a clear mandate from the recent

general election. He asked me about the membership of the European

Union. It is not in any way clear that membership of the European

Union requires membership of the European Convention on Human Rights.

As with most of these things, we are both lawyers and he will understand

there are considerable legal complexities here. It is certainly

not a clear statement that I or he can make.

Let me say this to the right honourable gentleman- what the Home

Secretary was doing yesterday, in a speech with which I suspect he

broadly agrees, and I found to be a persuasive case remaining within the

European union- what she was doing was setting out some of the

difficulties with the human rights landscape as it stands. And we think

that there are considerable difficulties. There is an absence of

common sense. There have been cases which have demonstrated that human

rights law is heading in the wrong direction, and it is restoring that

common sense that is the objective of this entire Government.

Does my right honourable friend agree that I work fight against

terrorism and excessive immigration had been persistently undermined,

not only by the European Court in Strasbourg, but also by the European

Court of Justice, adjudicating on the Charter of Fundamental Rights,

and that the only answer to this is to leave the European Union?

I agree that there have been cases both in Luxembourg and in Strasbourg

with which we have found difficulty. And which we have sought to contest.

And it is certainly right that, as he suggests, but everything about

our membership of the European Union is wonderful. I think the Home

Secretary made that point very clearly yesterday. But this is a

question of thinking on whether you think on balance it is right or

wrong to be part of the European Union. Whether it is better worse

for the UK to be there. We have different conclusions on that. He

will know on the matter of the ECHR that covers on whether European law

as applicable, so it is not quite the same as our membership of the

European Convention of human rights. One thing you can say about this

Government is they are not short of a choice of policy on the European

Convention of human rights. The Prime Minister has said he wants to

see reform of the ECHR, not a withdrawal. The former eternal

general -- the former at Henry -- Attorney General call that a pillar

of foreign policy. When they did clarify in favourite this year the

Ministry of Justice line is that our plans to not involved with the

convention. Yesterday, we have heard the Home Secretary the absolutely

clear that we should leave the ECHR whatever the outcome of the EU

referendum. So what's it is to the Home Secretary is remarks have? At

the Government policy, to the bind the Ministry of Justice, or is it

just the Home Office that is coming out of the convention Haass and

while it is always a pleasure to see the right honourable gentleman, this

is rather Hamlet without the Princess. Why could the Home

Secretary or even the home Chancellor -- Lord Chancellor not

clarify policy if they have caused confusion? It would be comical if it

was not tragic. We have a series of legal nonsense is set up by the Home

Secretary. She claims there is no connection between the EU in the

ECHR, where is it is a requirement of membership of the EU that

countries joined the ECHR. She wrongly dismissed the importance of

Britain's membership of the convention as an example to Putin

and his ilk, downplaying both his country's record on human rights and

his influence and Europe. Jose ignores the success of the Human

Rights Act in incorporating the ECHR into UK law and giving a remedy to

vulnerable people scuppering discrimination. I thought the legal,

moral and practical arguments had persuaded Government to abandon

plans to leave the ECHR. We're log in to deal with the legal and

cynical argues today, but will he say when the consultation will be

placed? -- published? Could I pin him down on what the Government

policy as? If the Home Secretary's remarks are not policy, are they

just stump speech? It is an immense pleasure to see the

honourable gentleman too. I pass over what I'm sure my honourable

friends will regard as the supreme irony being lectured by a member of

the Labour Party about unity common purpose. To come to the questions

that he asks, what he will find, I'm saying that the Home Secretary is

saying, that the Lord Chancellor is saying, is that the status quo on

human rights law is not acceptable. And therefore we are bringing

forward proposals for reform. And we will do that when they are ready. If

I may say so, the contrast is marked between what the size of the House

says, which is that there is a deficit in common sense a much of

human rights law, and what that side of the House says, which is that the

status quo is fine, everything is well, and we should leave it all

alone. I have to say that the honourable gentleman will find that

many of his constituents and mine do not think the status quo is

acceptable. They do wish to see reform. That is what we had a

mandate for in the general election, and that is what this Government

will deliver. Doesn't this unholy model

demonstrate the trouble you get into when we contract out our policy to

the tabloid leader writers? At isn't the truth of it that the simpler

cities that suit them actually override an immensely complex issue

here, and the message nation sends out about our commitment to human

rights should be through an unswerving commitment to the

convention? It has been made to work better of the course of the last

four years, not least by my honourable friend in 2012. The court

is learning lessons, let's not undermined it and human rights in

the process. I do that these are not simple

matters. That is complexity here, and it would be quite wrong to

attempt to reduce this debate to sadistic statements. I think it is

also right -- simplistic statements. I think it is also right that our

commitment to human rights is not limited to signatures on a piece of

paper, it is in the actions that we take. I have set out some of those

that we have taken in this Government and the last government.

I have mentioned some of the things we have achieved. There have been

others. We were the Government in coalition with the lead Democrats

that reduce the maximum period you can spend an detention to a maximum

of 28 days. That was the Government that abolished ID cards. These

approaching and rights measures. We demonstrate our commitment to human

rights and what we do. I'm grateful to the Attorney General

and what he has said so far. But his response, and the absence of the

Home Secretary simply will marked do. There is confusion here. Less

than an hour ago, the junior Minister for Human Rights issue to

me that the Government have no plans to withdraw from ECHR. But yesterday

in a speech, the Home Secretary said that withdrawal from ECHR was a

mast. Why is she not here to answer this question? Dish not realise that

what you said yesterday has caused great concern across these islands,

particularly in Scotland is? I can assure her that members on both

sides of the House are with the SNP in terms of their position and union

rights. There are members and the last Scottish Parliament made it

clear they would never make any steps to repeal the Human Rights

Act. As the right honourable gentleman says, the ECHR is

hard-wired into the Scotland act. Everything that the Scottish Roman

does is governed by ECHR. -- Scottish Parliament does. The

composition of the last Scottish Parliament, and the electors

consisting of the next Scottish Parliament, there is no question of

the Scottish Parliament ever giving its consent to the UK were from

ECHR. Does the Home Secretary not realise that if Britain were to

attempt to withdraw from ECHR, it would cause a constitutional crisis

in these islands? On the issue of EU law, it is correct that all EU

states and candidate states are required to be signatories to the

convention. If the Attorney General is in any doubt about that, he could

consult a number of legal academics, including the Professor of European

it Newman writes law who has written extensively on this issue. I suggest

the Attorney General could give the Home Secretary a tutorial on

European law. But if the Attorney General does not accept that

signatories to the EU have to be signatories to the ECHR... Yes,

there is a question. When is this much promised consultation coming

forward? When? Give our occasion when do any longer. When bringing it

will it include withdraw from the ECHR?

I think there is a risk in this discussion that we make a little too

much of what happened yesterday. Let's be clear, I said a number of

times, and she has heard different members of the Government make clear

in number of times what our policy is in relation to human rights

reform. Again, I say, the Prime Minister has been clear, we have all

been clear, we rule nothing out. It follows from that that we do not

rule out withdrawal from the convention should we not be able to

achieve the changes which we all believe are necessary. I accept that

the honourable lady's party at the official opposition do not take the

view that the status queue is unacceptable. We disagree about

that. What I find odd, I have to say, about this position, going to

the last question, is that as far as I can tell what they are saying to

us is, whatever you do only human rights reform, we will oppose it.

There is nothing you can do that we will support. There is no reform you

can bring forward that we would regard as valid. But would you

please get on and bring forward your reforms. That is not a sensible

position for the honourable lady and her colleagues to take. She is

right, of course, that's what ever proposals we make, there will be

significant devolution consequences. And as she has heard me say and I'm

a ministerial colleagues say, when we bring forward proposals, we will

ensure full consultation happens with the devolved administrations to

work through those issues. Those of us who represent this House

in Europe are acutely aware of the fact that the convention on human

rights has been extended way beyond the original documents but was drawn

up in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War. My honourable

friend is right to pursue changes, but will he do so as soon as

possible to get it under control? The difficulty here is not with the

convention, the difficulty is with the interpretation of that

convention, which has been extended well beyond what the original

drafters had intended. Perhaps the most evident result of that is the

issue of extraterritorial jurisdiction. It is simple and not

what was intended that those conduct themselves in making decisions on

the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan should be subject to

European human rights law. It was simply not intended that should

happen. The attorney and the Justice

Secretary say they haven't ruled out leaving the, the UK weaving the

ECHR. The more it sounds to me like a direction of travel that that is

exactly what they are intending to do, and I find that chilling. The

attorney quoted the proud tradition of this country in establishing this

international system of guaranteeing human rights here and abroad. Yet

it's that are very proud tradition that he appears to be about to kick

into the gutter. Will he recognise that you cannot both be a secretary

to the European convention but reject the jurisdiction of the

European Court of Human Rights. It's not just about the substantive

rights, it is about the jurisdiction, the international

court, to enforce those rights. Does he recognise that every Government

in this country needs to have that restraint? All governments get

tempted to abuse their power, and this international system is an

important guarantee. Does he recognise, as honourable members on

his site has said, how important it is with those struggling for human

rights in other countries is that they are part of a system, that we

are part of guaranteeing? I hope they will be enough members in this

House and the other place, that if they drift towards a position of

trying to leave the European convention, that this parliament

will stop them. In terms of the example we sat to

other countries, that is something that should occupy our minds. I

think that the example we set comes from our actions. I don't think that

there is any prospect of this Government or any other likely

British Government moving away from a clear wish to protect human rights

both in this country and abroad. I have set out the ways in which this

Government has done that. She attaches too much significance to

the convention and to be Human Rights Act. I understand why those

in office will that Actaeon and they feel attached to it. She must also

recognise that what it attempted to do for the best of motives has been

tarnished by a number of cases that have followed which have led many of

our constituents to believe that human rights is a term to be

deprecated, not a term to be supported and celebrated. We need to

get back to a plate -- place where human rights and the protection of

human rights is something all our citizens are keen to support all

stop the final point is in terms of restraint and in terms of what we

are prevented from doing as she would put it by our membership of

the Convention of human rights, I am surprised a former law office

overlooks the right of our own courts who are robust in the way in

which they hold Government to account and the way in which they

respect -- restrict the freedom of ministers. I do not believe we need

to rely solely on the exercises of foreign jurisdictions in order to

restrict our Government appropriately. The Attorney General

has been thoughtful in his comments and there is a lot of fuss coming

out at the moment. Would he accept that the commitment of this

Government and our domestic courts is demonstrated by the fact that

only point for percent of places before the EC HR are involved with

the UAE -- are involved with the UK as a state party. He should take

predictions and incorporate them into a British right and still say

they are compliant with those that wish to leave. There are many ways

in which reform might be achieved. I am not going to pre-empt the

proposals that the Chancellor will bring forward. There are many cases

that he fights and wins. One of the difficulties we have is that even

when we fight and win, we spend a good deal of time and effort doing

so. If people are encouraged by Beauvue, then we have to spend a

good deal of time and effort dealing in those cases when it is not

appropriate. The convention on human rights was drawn up by British

lawyers and has been powerful and present -- spreading standards of

human rights. Not just across Europe but much more widely. The Home

Secretary didn't say yesterday that we should have reform and think

about it. She said we must pull out of the convention. Is that the

Government's policy, yes or no? I have been clear about what the

Government's policy is. I say to the lady, what the Home Secretary was

doing yesterday was explaining why the status quo was unacceptable.

There is a difference between the convention drawn up in the 1950s and

the interpretation given to it by judges in Strasbourg since that

time. It is with the letter we have an issue and not with the former.

One of the great advantages of the attorney coming here on behalf of

the Home Secretary is not in their reticence that normally applies to a

law officer. Given that freedom that the Home Secretary has kindly given

to him, would he invite the Home Secretary next time he has eight

conversation with her to explain to the Turkish journalists to explain

to the Turkish police and the judges all of whom who have been the

subject of some revolting treatment by the current Turkish Government

and who look to the convention and to the court for the protection that

they cannot get in their domestic courts. Can he looked the people in

the face and say our leaving the convention would not affect their

rights and would not undermine their proper reliance upon the standards

of civilised behaviour that I thought we agreed to? There is

little doubt that I have advocated my vows. The point he makes is

crucial. There are real human rights abuses in the world today and this

country should stand against those abuses. We should do so regardless

of what international convention we may be part of, regardless of what

actually have passed. We should make these positions clear as responsible

governments will in this country both now and in the future I have no

doubt. It is important that the Foreign Office under the parts of

Government do their part to enhance human rights both here and abroad.

Post-1945 Europe should be proud to have such a convention which has

existed now for so many years. If the argument is that from time to

time the judge was faulty, what about judgments in this country? The

Birmingham six, Guildford four, there was hardly an argument for

changing the judicial system we have. The reason the minister is

putting forward this, whether or not it is for political views is because

of an extreme element in the party opposite that have resented having

the convention on the first place. No court system is perfect and all

systems are capable of making mistakes. We should be grateful that

our judicial system permits those to be corrected. I don't think that is

comparable to the exercise that has been conducted by Strasbourg

prudence on the European Convention of human rights which is to move

that document's intentions from where the founders had intended they

should go. That is a different thing and something which this side of the

House is content to allow to proceed. It is not something we are

content to let go. A rule of thumb in life when you throw a grenade it

usually -- you'd usually rotate to cover. It is under the pressure of

concerns over criminals and borders that this has come up. Conflating

the two issues has been fundamentally wrong and I would like

to know if the Home Secretary has discussed her views before she made

them because bringing them up now has made it look as if our

Government is in disarray over this matter and this is not acceptable.

The Home Secretary should make it very clear as to whether or not she

does support being EC age or not. I respect my honourable friend views

on this matter. It is not helpful in the debate of us are happening.

Having about the control of our borders and criminals coming and

going. If she reads the speech that my right honourable friend made

yesterday, she will see there was no conflating of the European

Convention of human rights and ownership of the European Union. She

made it clear they are two different things to be approached in different

ways. I don't think there is conflation there and we should be

cautious to make sure that we understand clearly what our

colleagues are saying before we comment upon them. Following on from

those comments made by the eternal General, does he accept there is a

parallel that many members of this Chamber accepted the sincerity of

Government when they said they rule nothing out but would seek

substantial and meaningful reform of the European Union? If the point

yesterday was that the European Court of Human Rights is binding on

this country and that is a problem, why should members accept the

voracity of reform for leaving today? Is it not the case that in

making the speech yesterday it approves the fundamental principle

that when you try to please everyone, in the end you please no

one? Can I say that I think in relation to this question, there is

no doubt that as far as the European question is concerned, the

Government's position is clear and we have secured substantial and

meaningful reform. The Government can recommend to the British public

that we should remain within the European Union. We are entitled to

our own views about whether that judgment is right or wrong that that

is the Government's judgment. It hasn't made the same judgment yet

about the European Convention on Human Rights because we have not yet

brought forward a proposal is not indeed negotiated a different

settlement. That issue is yet to be determined and why it is in a

different category to the European Union question. In making the case

for sensible reform of our domestic human rights architecture, is it not

the case that whether these human rights are upheld in a supranational

courts or by our own courts and Parliament, there is an doubt that

there will always be respect for fundamental human rights in this

country? Many of which have been guarded and promoted by Parliament

itself. By contrast, is it not the case that the most egregious rights

are found abroad as spam by the brutal murder of the editor of funds

-- 18 about the --? We shall stand up against such abuses. He makes the

case very well for what we will do which is to bring forward sensible

reforms to our human rights framework but to maintain our robust

protection of human rights in this country and around the world. The

Minister, can he confirm that if the wish came true that the UK would no

longer have a British judge at the UK court in this dross Borg,

therefore we will be not party to helping make judgments to uphold

international law across the whole of Europe? -- Strauss Borg. I say

that there is more to promoting human rights here and abroad than

our membership of that court or even of that convention. We do a great

deal more to help promote human rights and we should continue to do

so. May I thank my right honourable and learned friend for showing

himself also to be gallant in defending the Home Secretary's

position. There are a couple of errors in his speech. One was that

she said that it was the ECHR that stopped us deporting foreign people

whereas in fact it was the ECJ that stopped Abu Hamza's daughter-in-law

being removed contrary to the Home Secretary's view. On this issue,

whether we have to be in the European Convention whilst in the

EU, I would refer my honourable and right honourable learned friend to

article 63 of the Treaty on the European Union which says

fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention shall

constitute general principles of the union's law. For the more, the

commission when asked what would happen if a member's state left the

convention said it would look at using article seven which allows for

the suspension of a member's voting rights. For once, European treaties

are written in clear language, understandable even to nonlawyers.

On his latter point, if only that were true. I don't think there is

the simplicity that he suggests on this point. EC HR principles

contribute to European Union law via the charter but that is not the same

as putting together the European Convention on Human Rights and

European law in saying they are in distinctions -- indistinguishable

from each other. In relation to the deportation, the difficulty we often

face is the interpretation of article eight of the convention

which deals with the Right to a family life. It is a good example of

the way in which rights which ostensibly drawn up can be extended

beyond where they were meant to go or whether balancing exercise at the

heart is not conducted in a sensible way. In an earlier mention, the

minister conceded there would be substantial matters in respect of

devolution that that there would be full consultation. Will he accept it

is not a matter of full consultation but fundamental change to the way

the Welsh Assembly operates? How will they do it? We will have to

wait for the proposals to be brought forward before it is sensible to

discuss them in detail. He has my undertaking as he had back

undertaking of the governments that when those proposals are bought

forward, they will be a consultation about how the devolution aspects of

such proposals will be managed. I have given evidence at four trials

at the International criminal Tribunal for the former Republic of

Yugoslavia. The ICT why judges told me that the UK had a superb record

on upholding human rights, which I must say with a pleasant for my

Mennonite, having to go through four trials. -- men and I. Can I ask my

learned friend whether he believes that such a verdict could be applied

to all other members of the European Convention on Human Rights?

I certainly agree that being a member of the Council of Europe and

is signatory to the convention is no guarantee that your human rights

record will be spotless. It follows logically from that that is not

being such a secretary does not mean you cannot have a hugely impressive

record in the protection of human rights, and there are many other

countries around the world, not signatories to the documents,

demonstrate exactly that. The attorney has made a number of

references since the question began to the UK polls Government cos

and... The UK Government voted yesterday against the human rights

of child refugees requiring cells are in this country? -- cell shelter

in this country? I'll do not wish to rehash arguments

from yesterday. But the honourable lady should recognise that the

donations of aid given not only to Syria but also around the world

demonstrates that we do not only care, but that we act. Human rights

is only one aspect, there are very real needs we need to support. The

fact that this Government, against considerable opposition in many

areas of opinion, has maintained our commitment to spend 1.5% of GDP on

foreign aid shows that as clearly as anything.

Surely the test is how Irish human rights work. Without this Government

passed a modern slavery act led the way in Europe. And largely thanks to

the intervention of the Prime Minister shows we have an excellent

human rights record. One thing I would like to know in legal terms,

it is confusing from what has been said, can the UK remain in the EU

and leave the convention? Watters is is legal opinion?

That legal position is not clear. We do not have the time to go through

all the ins and outs of that question just now, but I would say

that it is wrong to suggest it is clear in the opposite direction. It

is not clear at all that if the UK was to lead the ECHR ill be unable

to remain as a member of the EU. I will take the opportunity, as he is

mentioned is the modern slavery act, to pay tribute to his own part in

that process. He paid a leading part in making arguments and securing a

remarkable piece of legislation. May I make it absolutely clear that

I hold the Home Secretary and the highest regard. However, I am

horrified, absolutely horrified, yesterday at the suggestion that

this country would leave the ECHR. After 30 plus years of appalling

violence in Northern Ireland, the Belfast agreement, signed on Good

Friday, was part of negotiations, and the ECHR was an integral part of

that agreement. It was voted on in two referendums in the UK and in

Northern Ireland by thousands of people. I want the Attorney General

to tell me what consideration the Home Secretary gave to the

applications for the peace settlement in Northern Ireland,

particularly the applications for the Belfast agreement, before she

made her statement yesterday? I know the Home Secretary is clearly

aware of this complexity is, as is my honourable friend the Lord

Chancellor. It is difficult to me to discuss the details of proposals

that are not yet brought forward. The best thing I can do is again

assure her that there will be an opportunity to discuss these things

in more detail. That is the best I can say at this point.

The Government's in something of a pickle, this European project

involves human rights frameworks. This data confusion laid out by a

report of session... How will the Government ensure that any bill of

rights is able to survive the European Court of Justice?

My honourable friend tempts me to talk about proposals that are not

yet before us. I cannot you do that. He is right to reinforce the point

that these matters are exceptional complex. And anyone who's Jess they

are simple is wrong. We will have the opportunity to pursue these in

detail. In contrast to the position that existed when the human rights

was brought forward when there was very little opportunity for

consultation. There is clearly some confusion and

discomfort on the Government benches about human rights. But there should

be no confusion in the minds of voters on June the 23rd about these

matters. The ECHR was a creation of the Council of Europe that I

absolutely support. The European Charter of Fundamental Rights is a

very different matter, a creation of the EU, and has not been so useful

in employment rights, when it is found in favour of employers rather

than trade unions. Kennedy made clear that leaving the EU will not

mean leaving the ECHR on June the 23rd, and Woody also agree that the

way to guarantee worker rights in this country estate select a Labour

Government next time? Nearly all the way there with the

honourable gentleman, can get with the last part I'm afraid. --

couldn't get the last part. I hope they have made it clear in my

earlier remarks the guv boss Mike position. -- the Government's

position. We are all in favour of human rights and will fight hard to

defend them. In relation to the charter, he will know that the

treaties negotiated by the last Labour Government make it clear that

the commission creates no new rights within this country.

I'm grateful for the statement of the Government's position for

support of the human rights. Will he confirm that in the light of the

1950s document drafted which contains derogations for national

security and other matters, that it is right and the circumstances to

update the Human Rights Act to reflect changes.

I'm grateful, she is correct that the document is a separate document.

She is also right to talk about how things may develop. Those who

support the status quo can't have it both ways. If they think it is

probably reasonable for the court in Strasbourg and extend the scope of

the convention on the way they have, they should also recognise we should

keep up with the times in other too. The Ukip us withdraw from ECHR would

represent the most unwelcome set of incentives. -- UK's withdrawal.

I understand the points, but I think he's wrong to suggest that despots

and Arabs around the world don't fully understand what view the UK

Government takes of human rights. -- despots and tyrants. As I say, we

have not just spoken, we have also acted, domestic and internationally,

support protect human rights. In the European Court of Human

Rights we have shoot or judges rather than proper judges. -- studio

judges. They make ridiculous decisions. Why should this House

vote for something we do not believe in, which are constituents do not

believe in, after something which makes the Prime Minister physically

sick, just because some ludicrous judge in Strasbourg went way beyond

their remit? If we are not repaired to accept such rulings, which I am

not, isn't the only acceptable course of action to leave?

As always, I wish my honourable friend would say what he thinks. He

is right in that the status quo he describes is unacceptable to a lot

of people in this country. I think the case for reform is unanswerable,

and that is what was Government is going to do.

The Minister will know that the Foreign Office has downgraded the

global abolition of the death penalty from its top priority to the

bottom bullet point. Does he agree with me that taken together with the

possible withdrawal from the convention of human rights, this

could be seen as a green light to Saudi Arabia, China and other

countries that use the death penalty, alongside Russia and

Turkey, who abuse such rights, as a way of dividing and ruling the

European Union's human rights record?

I do not think that follows. Whenever ministers travel aboard we

discuss and oppose the use of the death penalty in all circumstances.

Does the most agree with me that if we are to stay in ECHR, and if we're

to rehabilitate the reputation of human rights the UK, it is important

that the European Court curtails its reach and does not intrude into

matters such as prisoner voting, which is a matter for this House?

Yes. Originally proposed by Winston

Churchill, the European Convention on Human Rights is an important part

of our post for history. In essence, a British Bill of Rights. How are

the public to trust the Government that the hard-won advances to

quality, privacy and justice and that long-time legacy will not be at

risk from their cruel agenda? Two points - first it's important to

distinguish the Human Rights Act and even the convention from the

promotion and protection of human rights. These are two different

things, and a record of this Government is very clear. In terms

of reform of the framework, we have a clear mandate for that. We set out

what we want to do in our manifesto at the general election. As it

happens, parties that support reform of human rights law received more

than 50% of the vote in that election. So the mandate is clear.

I'm sure the Attorney General would share my surprise and comments on

the idea of Britain having a system similar to other countries of having

our human rights and overseen by a Supreme Court, such as Germany does.

Will the Mr outline how it has protected the rights of people in

eastern Ukraine, given that Russia is a signatory to ECHR?

I agree that it is no guarantee that a country well have a spotless human

rights record of it as a signatory to the convection. We are clear that

we support the protection of human rights, and we continue to take that

position. Had it not been for the Strasbourg

court, in this country, gay men and women would not be serving in our

Armed Forces. But because of the judgment in 1999, there has been a

rainbow revolution in our Armed Forces. Is that not just one of the

many reasons why we should stick with ECHR?

The honourable gentleman draws attention to a positive change, and

have been others. But I think he is wrong to minimise the role in our

courts in making changes of this nature. And in democratically

elected Government is doing the same. The only way we can achieve

the outcomes such as the one he described is to issue the status quo

is not correct. My constituents are fed up with the

Europeans lecturing us on human rights when were it not for this

country, our dominion and our empire who stood alone in 1940, there would

be no human rights at all on the continent of Europe let alone the

convention. Can I say that many of us on these benches don't seem to

recognise the conflict that many members of the Cabinet are

struggling with between membership of the European Union and membership

of the convention and we would be happy to leave both. I understand

his position clearly. He is right that the record of protection of

human rights, respect the human rights and fighting on behalf of

those queues human rights may be infringed is a proud and a

long-standing one. That will not change. Protocol one article three

of the ECHR states the parties undertake to elections at reasonable

intervals by secret ballot under conditions which will ensure the

opinion of the people in the choice of the legislator. That given their

majority of legislators are unelected, is he satisfied that UK

Government complies with this protocol or is this another reason

why they want to withdraw? He wants me to get legal advice but I am

going for this. What he has read out is part of the convention relied

upon to suggest that prisoners should have the vote. I didn't tack

-- I didn't detect prisoners having the vote. That is for this

Parliament to decide. The Attorney General is quite correct to say this

country has a long and proud record of human rights as he is also

correct to point out that it is our actions that count more than just

mere signatories. Does he agree that it also follows that the

international community looks to this country for our reform agenda,

such as issues like abolishing slavery? He makes a very good point.

By what we have done in the past and by what we are doing now, we do send

the kind of signal to other countries that other members of said

they would wish us to do. We have a proud record not just of acting in

the past but of acting now to encourage others to do better also.

The statement by the Secretary of State has undermined the remaining

campaign. You stated that this is a complex legal matter. How will the

Minister Mari to different points of view? It is a complex matter. Can I

say in relation to his first point, I don't agree that what they Home

Secretary did yesterday was undermining the case for remaining

within the EU. When he reached the speech, she makes a powerful case

for remaining within the European Union and it sets out the arguments

with a great deal of clarity. After all is said and done, does my right

honourable friend agree that there are real issues with Strauss Borg --

Strasbourg and to address that? Did Earl of rights will seek to address

this and we will scrutinise it carefully when it comes forward. In

1997, the then British Government placed before this house with the

eventual agreement with both sides a proposal to place before the

sovereign people of Scotland a position based on the referendum

which reconstituted the Scottish parliament and at its core is the

European convention will stop now this Government seeks to undermine

that very settlement and the Government has been rejected

fundamentally at the last general election, how does the attorney John

-- Attorney General... The sovereign will of the Scottish people was

expressed in the independence referendum in 2014. When they

expressed their view, they concluded they wished to remain part of the

United Kingdom. Much as I know the honourable gentleman doesn't like

that outcome. That was the outcome and the UK Government will consider

this matter for the future. Ten Minute Rule Motion. I beg leave to

move to bring in a bill to amend the House of Lords act 1999 to remove

section two under which 90 persons have the right to speak in the House

of Lords by virtue of hereditary peerage and for connected purposes.

Last week a member was elected to a world reviewed Parliament in a

by-election following the death of a sitting member. Once elected they

will be able to make laws hold the Government to account can have

influence on make a difference upon the lives of households up and down

this country. Nominations closed on Monday 11th of April and those

nominated, of which there were seven, had to convince the

electorate of their merits to secure its simple majority which .1 of the

seven candidates were elected. This should sound familiar to honourable

members. Any democracy has the same pathway for gaining a seat in

Parliament, win the argument and get elected. This election was

different. This election was not modern, it was not open and it was

certainly not democratic because this election was for a hereditary

peer in the House of Lords. An peer in the House of Lords. An

election for a place as one of the last remaining 92 members to sit in

the unelected Chamber. Member should be aware of last week's process in

more detail as it deserves full scrutiny. To be nominated for this

seat in Parliament, normally had to be a form hereditary peer or be a

hereditary peer of the party of the previous member. The electrode power

to elect the noble peer was in this case three people. This is the

21st-century. The three remaining Lib Dem peers were the sole

electorate in this house. This house will remember the great fights on

the 1832 reform format that abolished the constituency of an

area that used to be able to send two members of Parliament to this

house. It had 11 voters. Positively huge, almost the Isle of Wight in

comparison with the noble Lord's election last week. The election

last week for the Chamber of the noble Lord was three Liberal

Democrat peers, all hereditary peers. Baron Addington's peerage

dates back to 19 87 when his ancestor was granted the title. The

10th Earl of Glasgow can trace his title back to 1703 when it was

created for his -- his ancestor. The third Earl of Oxford is a more new

entree to the House of Lords has been the grounds of the pro --

former Prime Minister. Each hopeful in this election had to write 75

words on why this should be trusted with a seat in the mother of

Parliament. The eventual winner was excellent. Excellent to the

environment and it was a blank piece of paper. For the three people who

voted for him there were no words saying what he would do or why he

would do it. I'm pleased to tell the House that unlike the national

trend, the voter declined, there was a 100% turnout on this election of

three. No spoiled ballot papers and miraculously all three votes went to

Viscount in the first round. The count took 24 hours, which is not

quite Washington self but resulted in a member of Parliament. The

Viscount who was the member of parliament elected in the Lords last

week was a member of the Lord is to 1999. He subsequently removed

himself from a membership and got elected as the member of Parliament

the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross for ten years until last May.

When he lost his seat, somebody else was chosen to be elected to this

of democratic elections in this of democratic elections in this

House of Commons. He got a return route to the Lords threw the sad

death of Lord Heytesbury. I worked with him in the House of Commons and

bear him no ill will but even he must be embarrassed by his blue

blood transfusion in this election last week. The purpose of my bill is

to make sure that that election is the last of this type in this

21st-century. Hereditary peers have existed for hundreds of years,

through patronage, favours and through who they knew. Laws were

elected and made by an elite not by those accountable or elected. In

1999, the Lords reform act reduced in number of hereditary peers from

over 1300 292 today. That act was brought into office by the Labour

Government to make the Lords more democratic and more representative.

The first stage was a removal of the 92 hereditary peers as a temporary

measure. We are now 17 years on and that temporary measure needs to be

terminated. The lawmakers will -- were retired while being able to

keep their title devote. Speaking in Government was last -- lost forever.

90 to remain and the question is what legitimacy do they have for the

future? Their legitimacy is based on one example, Lord Fairfax. He sits

there because his ancestor, Thomas Fairfax, was given a seat because he

was the first Englishman to travel to Scotland to swear allegiance to

the new King James the first. I don't know about you but I do happen

to think that lawmaking ability should not be based on the skill of

an ancestor catching a coach to Edinburgh in the 17th century.

Another ridiculous example is the current Conservative peer. It

beggars belief that Bill Ackley, the grandson of a Labour Prime Minister

who had a dramatic reform history would be set in the House of Lords

and be voting the same way now as his grandson is going to be doing

today. The real act would not curtail trade union legislation or

vote for the most vulnerable in our society yet through the hereditary

principle, his grandson takes the Conservative whip in a peerage that

was granted to a Labour peer. To make things worse, we have ministers

of the Crown who remain hereditary peers. There was a Parliamentary

Secretary of State for business and he is a whip. This is simply not

acceptable in the 21st-century. The purpose of my bill is to finally

removed those who have their place in Parliament by birth rather than

by merit. Why is this important? We need to have change and win the --

we will not agree on what that would be. Surely the abolition of the

hereditary principle will be a move towards a more equitable Parliament,

Chamber where people are not excluded because of their place of

birth and not given a place in Parliament because of their

parentage. We all have our views on the Lords reform and we want to see

different positions. I have always voted for total abolition. Others

want an appointed second Chamber, others want a fully elected Senedd.

The key thing is we need to ensure we make some change. If this

election last week where the method of electing a trade union general

secretary, this Conservative Government would have cracked down

on it years ago. If this method of election of a member of the House of

Lords last week, with the election of a housing association board this

Conservative Government would have sold off the housing and abolished

the board. If this were the method of electing an air or a leader of

the local council, this Government would have abolished that local

council or reformed and election years ago. -- Mayor. It is the

forgotten election. Let me give the Government another reason to act.

The House of Commons is going to face dramatic change. Members will

be reduced from 650 to 600. It is time the Lords took a share. The

review of this legislation could potentially be a signal to the

taxpayer. The current position of this review could well be ?12.2

million saved in terms of allowances and costs. It is important we keep

our political banter is fair but it is important that we have proper

elected Government because we are all in this together. I have had a

number of responses but I would like to thank those who I could list

including the members for Bootle, Bassetlaw, North Durham, Stockton,

Liverpool, Scunthorpe, Worsley and Eccles, Cardiff South, Westminster

North, Bolton South East, Sunderland, Middlesbrough, Walsall.

Let me end this farce. Let us ensure we have an elected House of Commons

and we do not have a House of Lords based on the hereditary prison --

principle. I beg to move. The question is that the member has

leapt to bring in the bill. As many as are of the opinion, say aye. To

the contrary, no.. The ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring in the

Bill? House of Lords reform, exclusion of

pedantry peers Bill. Friday the 13th of May.

-- hereditary peers Bill. We now come to the police and crime

Bill, programme number two. The programme motion. Minister to move,

Mr Mike Penny. I have no intention of delaying the House more than a

few minutes. I would just say we are committed in most parts of the Bill.

I thought it was very important that when the business managers started

discussing how long we have for the report that we have time to bring

the measures forward. That is why I have suggested 4-2 days on report

before we come to third reading. The question is an the order paper.

We will come shortly to the substantive issues for the day, but

we agree the proposed procedure, we agree what will be undertaken today

and on the second day. Following the Queen's speech we will return to the

issues outlined. But the members are clear today for a point of

particular focus on the proposals for fire and volunteers.

The question is the Policing and Crime Bill is on the order paper. As

many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no". The

ayes habit. -- have it. The clerk will now read the orders of the day.

The Policing and Crime Bill to be considered.

We begin with a new clause 20, with which it will be convenient to

consider amendments 21, 354, 20, and six.

I am delighted that you are here for me to serve under your chairmanship.

I advise amendments three, four, five, six, 20. We oppose the

Government's proposals to allow the PCC is to overtake Fire And Rescue

Services. That is why an amendments three, four and five delete the

sections in the Bill would enable them to do so. We have also tabled

amendments to mitigate against the risks if the Government proposals

are enacted. Amendment six with insurer that where a PCC does take

over a Fire and Rescue Service, they can only do so with local support.

Which can be expressed by elected councillors, with the unanimous

agreement of all the local authorities affected or directly

through a referendum. Amendment 20 would require the Home Secretary to

review the level of funding that is needed at the fire servers to secure

public safety. And new clause 20 would give Fire Services in England

a statutory responsibility to deal with flooding. I know that the

Minister said that during committee stage he was minded to consider this

particular new clause. I notice that he has not jumped to his feet saying

he wants to take this new clause as the golf course, but I live in hope.

-- Government clause. When the minister response, I hope he will

take the opportunity to set out for us today what he believes the

benefits are that PCCs will bring to the Fire and Rescue Service. What

skills and expertise do they have that is not possessed by our current

Fire and rescue authorities? How will they help the Fire Service cope

with the challenges it faces when it deals with major incidents such as

flooding and terrorist attack. And what implication is there that the

Government believes that the Fire Service is broken and needs to be

replaced? The Government has not begun to answer these questions or

begin to make a case for these reforms. I give way.

Would she agree with me that the reason the governance of the Fire

Service needs to be changed is that very few of our constituents would

know the name of every single person on the local authority fire aboard?

I wonder whether she herself could name every person on her local

authority fire aboard? My Fire Service is through the GLA.

I know that if I should speak to anyone about London's Fire Service I

could speak to those GLA members. I do the names. Indeed, I could also

talk to the mayor. When people and my local authority want it impact on

the local service, we tend to approach the local councillors. I

think that's not a bad root for them. This, in fact, would change

that. They would not be able to go to the local town hall to talk about

the service which impacts on them. Members reminds me that it was a

fairly low voice when they reminded me, that they will be elected. I

know it might be an usual, but new councillors are elected to two, and

cancers of the GLA are elected as well. -- councillors are elected.

People who vote for police enquiry commissioners know they can hold

them to account for policing, that will be extended to the Fire

Service. I say to the honourable gentleman

that the turnout last time for PCC mops was dismal. And really hope

this time that the significant outturn will be better. When I was

on the doorstep last year, people and other parts of the country,

other than my own patch in London, very few knew who their PCC was. I

say, when our constituents go to the parliamentary, they are not going to

know they are going to be electing a PCC who might or might not be taking

over their Fire Service. Because actually, this will will not be

enacted at that point. I think the timing of that is wrong, and I think

the way in which we have brought it about has been wrongly done as well.

The consultation exercise that preceded this Bill did not seek the

views of experts and specialists on the substance of the proposals. It

set out how a PCC had issuing control of a Fire and Rescue

Service, and then asked Consul Tees what they thought of the process. It

did not ask those consulted what they thought of the proposals

themselves. It did not ask whether the proposals would increase public

safety or whether they would lead to better governance. The review into

the future of the Fire Service recommended- and this is not any

impact assessment that members will have read, I'm sure, who have sat on

the Bill - summoned me say what the review said about PCC takeovers. It

said that PCC takeovers should only be attempted if a rigorous pilot

could identify tangible and clearly set out benefits. The Government

chose to ignore this Keira and Asian. And this instead preceding.

It is a full Iraq worse. The impact assessment -- it is utterly

reckless. The impact assessment is threadbare. The intervention offered

is that the Government believes there should be critical operation

between the emergency services. No-one thinks otherwise. But the

Government has not provided any justification as to why this is more

likely to occur under a PCCs or any analysis of the current barriers to

collaboration. It is policy without evidence or clear rationale.

I agree with absolutely everything she's saying. This question

Corporation- she knows, it surely the Government benchers note, how

much corporation already goes on. It does not have to be prescribed in a

way that is top down, it works organically and works very well.

That is absolutely right. There is really good collaboration going on

now between all parts of the public service armour between fire, police

and ambulance. And I do understand the Government wanting to make that

agenda on further and Seymour collaboration. It is just that this

Bill does not do that. I honestly believe, as I will come to later in

my remarks, I believe it will deter some boundary and order mergers from

happening. And I think that would be a massive problem. The Government's

cavalier approach to this public service of people as completely

indefensible given the significant risks that the proposals represent

to the Fire and Rescue Service. PCCs are still a nascent institution. The

home affairs Select Committee has said, it is too early to say whether

it is the introduction of police and crime commissioners has been a

success. We don't know whether they have been a success in their core

duties, so why is this Government proposing they expand their

portfolios by giving them control of the Fire Service too? I think the

Government wants to bolster the powers and budgets of PCCs to help

them through their difficult inception. And I also think that

this is a step towards PCCs becoming many mayors. But a vital public

service like fire should not be pond out to save Whitehall inventions or

overturn the public vote against the creation of variance. And unlike

mayors, the mess we have in combined authorities, the PCCs will be

completely free from the democratic scrutiny provided by local

government and the creation of the extended office would have been

approved by local people. The most important risk of all is that fire,

with its much smaller budget and media attention than policing, will

be, none loved secondary concern of this new management. A Cinderella

service. I have raised this point repeatedly with a minister in

committee. But I don't think he has indicated what he might do to

mitigate against it. And that's not just me who thinks this. Peter

Murphy, the Director of Public policy research at Nottingham

business school, has argued that slipping into the status of a

Cinderella service would only be a repeat of what happened the last

time fire had to share an agenda with policing. I will quit him in

full, because I think it gets to the heart of the matter. -- put him in

full. He says, if the proposals are implemented, there is a very strong

chance that Fire And Rescue Services would go back to the benign neglect

that characterised the servers from 1974- 2001, when the Home Office was

last responsible for Fire Service. Police, civil disobedience,

immigration and criminal justice dominated the Home Office agenda, as

well as its time and resources. If the Fire Service becomes the lesser

partner in a merged service, the long-term implications will include

smaller fire crews, and fewer appliances and older equipment

arriving at incidents. Protection and prevention work will

significantly fall. This will result in fewer school visits and fire

alarm checks for the elderly. What a chilling vision for the future of

our Fire Service. Would she agree with me that this

proposal, if you combine it with the 17% cuts that have already been seen

in the service across the country, could lead to quite a risky

situation for many vulnerable households? She is absolutely right,

and I will come to that substantially in my speech a little

later. I will give way. I listened to the quotations and I would be

chilled if any part of what was said there was actually factually true.

If there was an attempt to combine the emergency services, fire and

police, we would have moved to one funding stream. I categorically rule

that out. This sort of scaremongering is actually flawed.

There was a separate funding stream from the police and the only piece

that will be amalgamated, should the PCCs be doing, is in the

administrative, back office side. But should a PCC take over the Fire

Service, we will have a person whose main attention is on policing, and

all that policing is, because policing is something that the media

does focus on more than does the Fire Service. The Fire Service will

be secondary, and although the Minister rightly says, and I do not

doubt him, that the two funding streams will be different, I do not

know how long that will last. And nor does he, in truth, because

things do move on. We have had Police and Crime Commissioners in

the last Government, this Government is proposing police and crime and

Fire Commissioners. What happens in a couple of years' time? I don't

know, for I efficiency, budgets may well be merged. I just don't think

that these proposals make any sense. A further risk is that these

proposals will make mergers between Fire Services more difficult, which

would be a real setback, as inter-fire mergers increase

resilience and achieve significant savings. The 2007 merger of the

Devon and Somerset Fire Services was supposed to deliver ?3 million of

savings in the first five years. It actually bettered that target by

?600,000. The Minister will no that Martin and hell, the independent PCC

for Dorset, I have had -- tried to keep this politically neutral, has

said that he has no interest in running the Fire Service. Why?

Because Dorset and Wiltshire Fire Service have undergone a merger that

proposes to bring significant savings and increase resilience in

that area. He does not want to interfere with the process, and he

is really wary that his office does not have responsibility for

Wiltshire. I admire this decision, made by Mr Underhill. But how many

potential mergers between Fire Services will not even be considered

as a result of BCC takeovers and the need for coal terminal city? -- PCC.

Mergers, which I remind them Minister, until a few months ago,

this Government trumpeted as key to the future of the Fire Service. They

are now going to, sadly, slip off the agenda. And I know this

particular argument I'm about to make does not have much sympathy

with the Minister, but I am a brave soul! A large proportion of the work

carried out by the Fire Service is preventative. There is a danger that

these proposals will make this preventative work a little more

difficult. It is a humanitarian service. We need to be honest. The

Police Service is not a humanitarian service. The two services are seen

differently by some communities, and these proposals could make the Fire

Service's preventative work more difficult. There are some people who

would not welcome a policeman into their home without a warrant. Police

officers turning up at your door can be a scary experience. Firefighters

go into people's homes and work spaces and check that smoke alarms

and electrical appliances are safe. They fit sprinklers and even look

for worrying signs that might concern other services, like the NHS

and cancel Care Services Minister up this preventative work is not an

add-on to the Fire Service's work, it is at the core of what they do,

keeping people safe. So they do not have to rescue them further down the

line. I give way. I do not quite understand, well, I think I do but I

do not think it is there, why she is completing operational work that the

police do, with operational work that the Fire Service do. Of course

we do a lot of work together, particularly at RTCs, but there is

nothing within this bill that would conflict the two. -- conflict. First

of all, we will not have equal partners, because we do have a big

service and a small service. But secondly, in the minds of some of

our communities, the police and the Fire Service will become one and the

same. They have one boss. There will be an anxiety that coming through

the door to fix a smoke alarm might have a different... What is the I'm

looking for? Over Troon? Agenda, that will do! Thank you. --

overtone. In London, which has a Mayor, the mayoral system will be

taking over far, there is the same concern in London and Manchester,

because the Labour candidate for Manchester once the powers as a

Metro member. -- Metro Mayor. In London, the service is run by a

Mayor and elected councillors. It is not run by an individual whose other

job is to be the Police Commissioner. I do think that there

is a difference and I think our communities will think there is a

difference. We cannot proscribe for how people think and worry about,

but this is a concern that has been raised with me. And let's face it,

if we move on from this contentious paragraph... OK. Would the

honourable lady not accept that her comments could be interpreted by the

police as quite insulting, because they do a lot of preventative and

humanitarian work, and this admission she has made is something

that she knows comes right of the FBU's consultation document, which I

also thought was quite insulting to the great work our police officers

do in the very areas she highlighted. The police I meet on my

doorstep sand on is our very pragmatic. They do understand the

sensitivity is that some communities have, they do treat some of my

refugee communities with extraordinary sensitivity in order

to overcome the natural barrier that is there. But that -- what I am

saying is that there is a natural barrier, this is no slur on our

police force, they are an enforcement agency, it is not really

a humanitarian service. They are there to implement the law. Let's

move on. And the Minister is not passing over a service that does not

have some difficulties. The Fire and Rescue Service has been subject to a

cumulative cash cut of 200 bed is it million pounds since 2010. 12.5%.

And of course, there is more to come. Does the whip want to

intervene? I think not. I thought I would give him a chance. I think my

college was time to say that perhaps we should not wash over the debacle

and the huge costs of the regional fire control centres like the

previous Labour administration forced on the Fire Service. Is it?

Because when I was a whip, I was told that I should be seen and not

heard. I'm sure he didn't really want to intervene on me at all. The

issue about fire centres, regional fire control centres, is a well

crashed out one in this chamber. There were a myriad of reasons why

it did not work, but it did not work and I will accept that. But let us

go back to what this Government has been doing. We are in 2006... 26 --

2016, it feels like they have been there forever. The Fire Service has

been subject to a tumour that of cash cut, of ?236 million since

2010. 12.5%. And of course, there is more to come. We know from the local

government funding settlement that Fire and Rescue Services are

expected to cut spending by a further ?135 million by the end of

the Parliament. A stretched service is going to be squeezed even

further. 7600 firefighters have already been lost as a result of

these cuts. The Government has repeatedly ignored warnings that

these cuts might be putting services at risk. These proposals will not

protect a single firefighter's job, or put a single pirate --

firefighter back in service. I have been told by fire chiefs that their

services will not be viable under the Government's proposed spending

plans and I am sure they have told the Minister exactly the same thing.

The national audit of this calculated that there was a 30%

reduction -- National Audit Office in the at a time spent on home far

checks. That is huge. -- fire checks. They said the Government

had, and I quote, no idea what impact this reduction would have on

public safety. The National Audit Office also stated that, as the

Government refused to model the risk of cuts, they may only know that a

service has been cut too far after the fact. That is, after public

safety will stop after the lives of the public have been put at risk. I

was not surprised, although I am dismayed, to see the latest in

English by a stats. Stats that cover the period between April and

September 2015. These statistics showed that there were 139 fire

related fatalities during that time. 31 more than during the same period

in 2014. There were 1685 nonfatal fire casualties that resulted in

hospital treatment, a 10% increase from 2014. Fire and Rescue Services

attended around 93,200 fires, 7% higher than in 2014. Madam Deputy

Speaker, this Government has cut the Fire Service, cut firefighters and

seen a massive reduction in the preventative work undertaken. And I

know we are talking about a spike over the course of just a couple of

quarters, but there are statistical signs there that the service might

be feeling the full effects of the cuts that have occurred. So, what

does this Government du? Does it stop the cuts while they undertake a

proper risk assessment? Does it begin to develop minimum standards

for the numbers of stations, firefighters and four preventative

work? No, this Government wants to pass the responsibility to PCCs, who

have had to deal with similar cuts to police budgets, and who have lost

12,000 front line police officers. The Government is not even assessing

what level of funding PCCs would need to maintain resilience and keep

the public safe. This is a good line. By passing the buck with out

the box, the Government would be asking PCCs, who will be new to the

Fire Service, and its complexity, to undertake further potentially

dangerous cutbacks. -- without the backs. They will not know what the

risks are, because the Government has refused to model it. That is why

we have laid Amendment 20, which would require the Home Secretary to

carry out an assessment of the funding, the level of funding Fire

Services need to keep the public safe. Our fire and rescue

authorities are trusted experts on the Fire Service. The councillors

who served often have years of experience and a genuine, deep

knowledge and judgment gained by overseeing the strategic direction

of Fire Services in their area. Given the Trust and respect the

local Fire authorities have, allowing PCCs to take over a Fire

and Rescue Service without their support runs a clear risk of

employees and the public purse eating newly empowered PCCs as a

central imposition. Our amendment would ensure we're a

PCC state or a pie and rescue service they can only do so with the

approval of the elected representatives or alternatively by

local people through a referendum. The Government is presenting their

reforms as part of the local list agenda. But what sort of localism is

it that allows the secretary of state to impose her well against

local objections? I guess it is the same sort of localism that is

driving the forced a capitalisation of schools. The localism that

portrays an utter distrust and content for local government and

elected councillors. If the Government does not trust local

authorities, and it seems clear they do not, perhaps they would be

pleased our amendment allowed the decision to go directly to the

people via a referendum. I presume the Government does trust of the

electorate? It is a very interesting point she is raising about this

local referendum and I wonder if she could tell the house what the cost

would be for each fire and rescue authority and who would pay? She has

expressed concerns about budgets for Fire and rescue authorities and if

they were the ones to beat it would seem more firefighters removed from

the front line? The referendum would take place on the same day as any

local council election. We would not want to see an election prohibited

by costs. As for where those costs should lie they should lie with the

Government. They are the proposal of these changes. If the honourable

gentleman wanted someone else to pay, then maybe the Government's

arm, the PCC, might be as their budgets are larger than any Fire

authority. I wonder if you could sell the house what the amendment

would do, who would actually pay for this amendment. And the second point

is what estimate has she made on the cost? One of the joys of being in

opposition is that one must do one's wok oneself, one does not have a

phalanx of Wellington employees to do their work for them. I would need

to rely on the Government and its civil servants to help us to work

out the cost. If the cost beer became prohibitive I could suggest

they drop this silly idea altogether and save the money. The gentleman

over here. I have sat patiently in number of times when she has

referred to elected councillors on to fire authorities. Can she clarify

that there are no elected councillors who are elected on to

the fire authority in London, which covers her constituency, or indeed

in the vast majority of Fire authorities around the country, not

one? Do you know, I am wondering what kind of the benches opposite

are having with their local councillors. I can only imagine it

angered. Every time I raised this issue there are anxieties about the

genuine nature of locally elected members. I can only say I have a

much better relationship, not only with my councillors, but with a GLA

councillors. They are elected, they face the electorate, they are

elected on to a body that places them up on a body that is

responsible for Fire, just like the place then, give them

responsibilities for social services, education etc. It is the

same process. I support democracy and my democratically elected

councillors who are doing a jolly good job in difficult times to keep

services going and I do think the benches opposite should not

denigrate their local councillors quite so much. I assume it is

entirely my mistake and I probably did not make my question clear

enough and take full responsibility for that. Can she name which members

were the local councillors or assembly members who are elected by

the people of Newham, to sit on the fire authority? And a London the

people of Newham elect GLA councillor, the GLA councillors then

determine which part of the work they undertake. I don't see that

there's a problem, it is the same as a new ham when we elect 60 Labour

councillors, zero anybody else councillors and we then get them

jobs to look after social services, education, recreation etc. It is the

same issue and I can tell you the name of the councillor who has got

the fire we met in my counsel. House name is Brian Collier. A wonderful

blog and has been doing it for decades. Lots of knowledge. I thank

the Shadow Minister for giving way. As someone who was the councillor

until this point last month I know the appreciation of local government

what it is a strange understanding of democracy when the shadow

minister seemed to prefer the patronage of local council group

leaders to the direct mandate being elected to a body by voters. I am

bemused by the benches opposite and the contempt in which they show to

local councils. I hope, for his own sake, he does not have a Tory lead

local authority waiting for him to come back on Thursday. If I was a

member of his Council I would be sitting on his doorstep with

thinking that the word because it is really not on. -- waiting to have

the word. I don't even know where I've got two. Rights, if the

Government doesn't trust local councillors, and it seemed clear

they do not, perhaps they will be pleased to accept our amendment,

which gives the decision about whether to place PCCs in control of

Fire Services directly to the electorate. These reforms are

fundamentally about the transfer of power from the collective democratic

representation of local councils to a single individual. The creation of

many mailers across England. The minister knows best to be true, he

knows there is no democratic mandate for it, none at all if the accept

our amendment he can write that wrong and make sure each local

community can decide for themselves what is in the best interest of

their Fire and Rescue Service, a real localism agenda. Clause 20 will

never Fire Services in England a statutory responsibility to deal

with flooding. As is already the case in Scotland and Northern

Ireland. In December we sought much of the north of England devastated

by flooding. Many homes were flooded, bridges connecting

communities were washed away, major roads are blocked and in Lancaster,

a substation was flooded, leaving tens of thousands of homes without

power. In December alone firefighters responded to more than

1400 for across the North West. On Boxing Day 1000 people were rescued

in greater Manchester. The work of our fire fighters was brilliant

during those typical days and I am sure both sides of the house would

agree with that, if nothing else. However, Fire Services have

expressed concern they were not properly equipped to deal with that

situation and the lack the basic kits like boats and dry suits. It is

not good enough and I think it stems from the fact it is currently

unclear who holds the primary responsibility to respond to floods.

When a flooding is not formally the responsibility of any service it

will not be given the priority it deserves and budgeting and planning.

If we are going to continue to ask the Fire Service to deal with major

incidents like flooding we should say so in this place is so proper

provisions have been made for them to comprehensively prepare for

incidents. Stories of volunteers and the Army being brought them might be

a part one week but it is no substitute for it properly organised

and funded rescue service. Before I punished, I would like to -- before

I finish, I would like to touch on privatisation. The minister Des...

What can I say? The minister Des did give us -- did give us their

categorical assurances there would not be any movement on this issue

and that is why we have not put down any amendments on privatisation at

all. I am going to hold the Minister to this word but I am sure possibly

people who are in other place might want to just do a bit of digging

make sure I am right and he is right that there can be no privatisation

of our Fire Service under this legislation. Thank you, Madam Deputy

Speaker. Statutory duty on flooding. The question is new clause 28 read a

second time. -- new clause 20. I would like to speak amendment two,

table in my name and several other than honourable and right honourable

members. Part one set of measures being taken to encourage greater

collaboration between emergency services. Specifically, closes at

six and seven give police and crime commission is the opportunity to

extend their responsibilities to include Fire And Rescue Services.

This is an extension I have been calling for some time and security

debate in Westminster Hall last year. As I said, I welcome the

inclusion of these clauses within the bill. The introduction of police

and crime commissioners and 2012 has created greater transparency and

democratic accountability in policing. With police and crime

commissioners replacing what were unelected and unaccountable police

authorities. Extending the responsibilities of Police and Crime

Commissioners to include that of Fire and rescue authorities will

mirror these benefits. Whilst Fire and rescue authorities are made up

of elected councillors, they are not directly accountable to the public.

But the specific roles as they are appointed to these positions. As I

have said before in this house that is very different and should not be

confused with democratic accountability. The introduction of

directly elected Police and Crime Commissioners mean the public can

scrutinise their performance and priorities and they can exercise

their approval or disapproval at the ballot box. The public will get

their chance to decide on the performance of the first batch of

Police and Crime Commissioners on the mess that it might 1st of May.

It is absolutely right in the guardianship of the Fire And Rescue

Services should be directly accountable to the public and I

believe that given the synergies of the two services it is logical

Police and Crime Commissioners take on this responsibility as well. I

will happily give way. Which she agreed with me that far from

overlooking the attributes of our firefighters, would it not be the

case that it would be an advantage to local communities if the highly

trusted and experienced firefighter was given the opportunity to extend

their prevented the remit do things like crime prevention advice as well

as fire prevention advice? I thank my friend for his intervention as

this is about the extension of collaboration and prevention does

extend across our emergency services. Amendment to is designed

to provide greater clarification for the public in front of the role of

the police and crime commissioners. If they take on the responsibility

of Fire And Rescue Services I believe it is important the public

are clear that this intervention is responsible for the police service

and Fire and Rescue Service. I have called for this type of change

before and I believe this will help to address some of the concerns that

were raised at second reading and income committee stage. But this is

a police take. Under the legislation the services will remain

operationally distinct and precepts distinct. To be clear, there is no

suggestion that police officers will be fighting fires or firefighters

arresting criminals. The legislation simply reforms the

governments of the two services and ensures one democratically

accountable individual has responsibility for the two services.

Whilst the bill is designed to be flexible and does not mandate the

lease and crime commission is taking on responsibility for Fire and

Rescue Services -- Police and Crime Commissioner, but only where a local

case is made, I do believe there is a need to ensure the new title is

one that is nationally recognised. It is for this reason that amendment

two gives the Secretary of State the power to make this title change in

secondary legislation at a future point in time. The danger of leaving

the decision in the hands of individual Police and Crime

Commissioners who have taken on the extended responsibilities, is that

we could find in the future a patchwork of different titles used

across the country. Which would create real conflict -- confusion

for the public at future election. In order to continue to increase the

profile of these nationwide roles, and elections, we need to ensure

clarity in the title, and hence this amendment. The amendment does not

state what the title should be. It leaves it in the hands of the

Secretary of State. There are many different titles that could be used

and I have mentioned several myself in previous debates in the House.

But I am sure the Secretary of State would like to consult on the title

to ensure that it is appropriate and clear and not misleading in any way.

This would also give various different organisations and

individuals the opportunity to make their representations. This

amendment might not be brought into the bill at this stage, as it is

meant in a way that when the Minister does come to the dispatch

box, it would be for him to provide clarity as to what discussions he

has had with his department regarding a title change, his views

and intentions as the bill continues to progress through the House. Thank

you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Kate Hoey. I Reister support in

particular new clause 20, which I think has been something that we

have had discussions after discussion about over the years and

I declare my interest as chairing the FBU group in Parliament, that is

one of the issues this statutory duty giving the Fire and Rescue

Service a statutory responsibility for leading the emergency services

in response to flooding, we have had meeting over -- after meeting with

DEFRA ministers who all said they supported it, with ministers from

different departments, then it goes so far, then suddenly it stops.

Clearly, there is a Treasury argument here somewhere. But I just

feel very strongly, and we have seen increasingly over the past few