27/10/2017 House of Lords

support for granted. Cross the

crossbenchers at your peril.

Second reading of the asset freezing

compensation Bill.

I beg to move

that this Bill be read a second

time. During the last session of

Parliament I introduced a similar

Bill into this House. While the Bill

was passed by your Lordships and

went to the other place, a

combination of obstruction and lack

of time brought about by the snap

general election earlier this year

resulted in it being lost. This Bill

is put forward on behalf of an all

Parliament party support group that

is trying to help the men in victims

of Gaddafi and sponsored terrorism.

Many of you will be familiar with

the circumstances that have led to

these proceedings. It is worth

reminding yourselves of the

background to this case. The Libyan

dictator was a long-term supporter

of violent groups in many countries

from the 1970s. But nowhere was his

support for terrorism more apparent

than with his unprecedented support

for the provisional IRA. Gaddafi

abided training on his territory,

Finance as well as a massive amount

of weaponry over many years.

Literally shiploads were sent to the

IRA in the 1980s. It is estimated

that four or five major shipments

were made with only one being

intercepted. That being by the

French navy in the Bay of Biscay on

the 1st of November 19 87. Large

quantities of the explosive Semtex

were included in the shipments. And

this explosive which is hard to

detect and has a long shelf life

with the IRA's weapon of choice for

many years. It was following the

bombing of Libya authorised by

President Reagan in 1986 that he

intensified his smuggling. Some of

this explosive linked to the supply

of Semtex, they argue that as a

result of UK Government action in

committing the raid, retaliation was

made against them and their

families. Gaddafi was looking for a

spectacular response made on his

behalf and arguably this came at

Enniskillen nearly 30 years ago next

month. These victims believe that

Her Majesty's. And therefore has a

responsibility to them, but unlike

the case of US citizens, Her

Majesty's Government did not pursue

in the courts or bringing that

country to the attention of the

Security Council. Any objective

observer would conclude that had the

IRA not had access to Semtex in

particular, this campaign would have

fizzled out much earlier than it did

and many lives would have been saved

as a result. The finger of guilt for

sustaining the IRA with this

campaign of terror within and

without this country points

territory to the Gaddafi regime.

This regime waged a proxy war in

this country and any... Of Libya

under law has responsibly key to

take actions for its former head of

state. There has been a perception

that deduct the sponsored terrorism

was primarily a Northern Ireland

issue. But this is not the case.

Victims are located all around our

nation. The number of great British

-based soldiers killed and injured

is substantial as have been a

significant number of high-profile

attacks. For example, we had the

Harrod's bombing, the Baltic

exchange and the notorious Hyde Park

bombing. The last example I'm

mentioned is notorious because

insult was added to injury by the

disclosure that when a suspect was

arrested and brought to court

charged with four counts of murder

relating to the incidents of 20th of

July 1982 he was able to wave a

piece of paper at the judge on the

24th of debris 2014 and claim that

he was promised that he could come

to the UK as he was not wanted in

connection with any ongoing police

enquiry. This on the run letter from

the suspect from John Downie remains

a toxic example of the way a

potential terrorist was treated and

the way the former members of the

security forces are treated.

Successive governments have failed

to resolve the issue of compensation

for victims. There has been no

sustained attempt by Her Majesty's

Government to secure compensation

from the Libyan either from frozen

assets or by agreement with the

Libyan gottman, when one was

functioning of course. Hence the

need to look again at the

legislative options open to us to

resolve this matter. Before

referring to the clause in the

Bill... And inconsistent approach by

the Government. While I have been

ranking in Government since 2002 in

these matters, I wish to draw the

House attention to more recent

interventions. I wrote to the former

Prime Minister David Cameron on the

30th of August 2011 asking it was

possible to withhold some of the

frozen assets the benefit of Libyan

sponsored terror. The then Prime

Minister replied on the 15th of

November 2011 and he repeated what

he said any other place in September

of that year in the following terms.

I quote, the issue of compensation

UK victims of IRA terrorism will be

a important priority for a

revitalised relationship between

Britain and the new Libyan

authorities. That response filled me

with hope that things were indeed

moving in the right direction. But

fast forward to the 21st of January

2014 when I received an handset to a

written question from the then

Foreign Office minister, Baroness

Farsi. I asked if there were still

with Libyan Government for people

killed or injured by the former

Gaddafi regime. Her response was as

follows. The Government is not

involved with any negotiations with

the Libyan Government on securing

compensation payments for Britons

from Gaddafi sponsored terrorism.

They went on to say that the

Government went on to consider such

claims to be a private matter

between the victims and the Libyan

Government. I was horrified by this

reply which was completely at odds

with the response of David Cameron

on the 15th of November 2000 and 11.

Naturally, I got in touch with

ministers again to find out what was

going on. Despite a flurry of

letters in 2014 involving David

Cameron and other ministers, the

introduction of a similar Bill to

parliament last year, meetings with

officials in the Foreign Office and

the Treasury, and an enquiry by the

Northern Ireland affairs select

committee in the other place, the

present Government indicated in

response to that recently that

claims to victims were still in

their view was still a private

matter for individuals. My Lords,

this is not exclusively a private

matter and never was. This country

was attacked by proxy for over 20

years and thousands were killed and

injured. It is her duty of Her

Majesty's Government to protect

their citizens and ensure that

justice is done. The Bill has a

straightforward game. While provoked

by the Libyan situation it is not

confined to it. It seeks to make

provision for the imposing of

restrictions on assets owned by

persons involved in conduct that

gives support and assistance to

terrorist organisations in the

United Kingdom for the purpose of

securing compensation for the

citizens of the UK affected by such

conduct. Clause one, subsection one,

states that Her Majesty's Government

must take all necessary actions to

protect assets that have been frozen

under EU Council regulations until

circumstances described in

subsection five have been met.

Subsection two states that these

actions may include imposing

domestic asset freezing measures

under the terrorist asset

Subsection three covers those

already covered. Parties who have

been involved in support to

terrorist organisations in the

United Kingdom. Subsection four sets

out when a person has spent -- been

in touch with... Her Majesty's

Treasury reasonably believes that

the person is or has been involved

in conduct that effect. Subsection

five describes the circumstances

referred to in subsection one. Under

this provision and the frozen assets

could only be released if a

settlement to compensate UK victims

of terrorism was reached. Subsection

six outlines the definitions used by

the bill. It defines terrorist

organisations in the UK as

organisations which are based in the

UK and that the Treasury believes or

have been involved in the recent

terrorist activity, well the meaning

of their terrorist asset freezing

act. It says that UK citizens has

the same meaning as their British

nationality act of 1981. My Lords, I

think it is clear from this that the

support group which I am

representing today, is fully aware

of commitments to the United Nations

and to the European Union which

govern and control the Libyan frozen

assets here in London. They consist

of approximately £9.5 billion.

However, we have never asked as a

country the United Nations or R E E

colleagues to help with this. Under

EU regulations, there is provision

for a humanitarian help for the

owners of these assets to get access

to them. So why cannot this be

extended to the victims? The UK does

have an ace card to play should that

become necessary and if negotiations

fail. If a new cover of Libya seeks

access to these assets and other

assets around the world, a decision

will have to be taken to unfreeze

them at the UN Security Council. As

a permanent member of that council,

the UK has a veto on all decisions.

We have seen Russia and China using

their veto in their own national

interests recently concerning Syria

and North Korea. Well I hope it can

be avoided, the UK may have to

follow suit if no agreement can be

reached over Libyan assets. My

Lords, I hope the minister when

replying can assure the House that

the idea that these matters are

exclusively private is no longer the

core of government policy. Private

cases can always continue but there

is a national interest here and the

government must pursue it

aggressively. At a recent meeting

with the Foreign Secretary, the

Savoy group was encouraged by a

willingness to consider seriously

what could be done. I look forward

to what the minister will have to

see in reply. I beg to move.

The

question is, will this bill be read

now a second time?

The Lord MPs Bill

continues to have my support. It is

subjective to ensure that

compensation is available for the

victims of a truly terrible period

in our nation's history. The bill

before us gives this has the

opportunity to exercise one of its

primary responsibilities, to ensure

that justice is available to all. As

noble Lords have highlighted in

various debates, terrorism does not

have a place in our society. Terror

and violence is not, and was never

justified in Northern Ireland are in

any other part of the United

Kingdom. Each innocent victim of

ten, be they from Northern Ireland

or the mainland, depreciates the

support and attempts of normal laws

from different parties across this

House. As well as the support of

those in another place. Including

some of my own colleagues who have

long supported this campaign. This

Bill is also one about fairness and

transparency. It would be easy to

assume that this debate about

compensation for the victims of IRA

terrorism and believe instantly that

this is solely and Northern Ireland

issue. My Lords, I can assure you

this is certainly not the case. No

one should doubt the long-term pain

and suffering that has been caused

to so many people across the United

Kingdom by IRA terrorism, sponsored

by Gaddafi's Libya. Over the years,

it has become abundantly clear that

much of the Arsenal used during the

period of maximum IRA activity and

damage, including the guns and the

deadly Semtex used to murder many,

was made available to them as a

direct result of their links with

Gaddafi's Libya. My Lords, we can

never bring the victims of this

terror back, but as an initial step,

we have a duty to do our bit to try

to recognise the vein of their loved

ones and then endeavour to secure

some cleaning -- meaningful

conversation for them. My Lords,

today we owe it to the relatives,

those killed and those who are

injured, as a result of Irish

republican violence, to deal with

this matter in the appropriate

manner. The message should be sent

leading clear from your lordship's

House that this issue is a priority.

I believe that the United Kingdom

government should continue

negotiations to bring about a

compensation package for the

victims. And this Bill outlines the

possible way forward and deserves

careful consideration, especially

when it reaches the committee stage.

My Lords, I am pleased to support

this bill.

My Lords, it is always a

great personal pleasure to speak in

the same debate as my friend.

Particularly when he himself is

initiated. We came into the House at

the same point, nearly seven years

ago. I strongly share his view that

Northern Ireland should be involved

as fully as possible in the national

affairs of the country of which it

is part. At one in believing that

this parliament must keep the

province firmly within its sphere of

work. We are united in detesting the

dread phrase, devolved and forget.

My Lords, for me personally this is

a particularly poignant year. It is

exactly 40 years ago that I left my

job in the Queen 's University of

Belfast to come and assist the

Conservative spokesman on Northern

Ireland. I saw him almost daily

until his murder at the end of March

1979. His murders remain at large.

It was largely thanks to Colonel

Gaddafi and his regime of terror

that the IRA were continuing their

campaign of murder and destruction

in Northern Ireland in Great Britain

until the mid-19 90s. Victims of

that campaign have been seeking

compensation from Gaddafi's frozen

assets, amounting to some £9.5

billion. No modest sum in this

country since 28 -- 2002, 15 long

years ago. Many of them are growing

old, all of them despair of ever

receiving compensation. A huge sense

of frustration exists among slum,

understandably so when you see those

who have suffered as a result of

Libyan terrorism in Germany, France

and above all in the United States,

have gained the compensation they

deserve. The final indignity is that

their own government, here in the

United Kingdom, seems to give little

priority for assisting them in their

plight. As my noble friend explained

so clearly, the government Seaman

willing to go beyond willing to help

their own private efforts to reach

agreement with the Libyan

authorities. How can private

individuals be expected to do that

in a country in a graph of grave and

stability. It is I'll job for

government. -- in the grip. With

tough-minded British governments of

the past, Labour or Conservative,

have left fellow countrymen and

women to their own devices in such

circumstances? I would remind the

government a passage in the election

manifesto, the party made full use

of its full name for the first time

this year since 1959. The section of

the manifesto in question has the

heading, standing up for victims.

Here are a group of victims of whom

the government should surely be

standing up. My noble friend has

long been prominent in the campaign

to secure redress for those who

suffered. As we know, he is a man of

great tenacity, is very important

bill which he has reintroduced in

this session, was passed by this

House before the election and

attracted widespread support in the

Commons before the government

brought it. There can be little

doubt it is the wish of Parliament

that this bill should be Palm --

become law. The government has

served to dip into ill gotten

Gaddafi billions would be breach of

UN Security Council sanctions and

regulations and the European

Convention on human rights. How

strange that organisations and

agreements that exist to promote

justice, international order and

human well-being should in this case

frustrate them. Should a government

committed to standing up to victims

tamely except that state of affairs?

Since my noble friend's last bill

was extinguished, there has been an

important development. The Norman --

Northern Ireland affairs committee

has published a report on this

subject. Six months on, the

government has yet to respond which

comes as no surprise. Prompt

government surprises are as rare as

amicable agreements over Brexit

issues. If nothing has been achieved

for the IRA's victims by the end of

this year, and we will soon be

there, the government should settle

up under its own to finance

committee projects and provide

individuals with compensation. What

is the government's view of this

recommendation? In these deeply

unsatisfactory circumstances, we

must surely show our support for my

noble friend's commitments for

ending a long-standing injustice by

getting his bill a second reading.

My Lords, I support my noble friend

and his bill. We seek to release

these frozen assets. As has been

said before, the Gaddafi regime

supplied the IRA with weaponry in

the early 1970s and the mid-19 80s.

The quantities were vast and as a

result the IRA were able to escalate

their campaign. As part of the

shipments and nearly 1980s, the IRA

required -- acquired Semtex from

Libya. A coral -- according to a

journalist, from late 1986 to early

2000, every bomb constructed by the

provisionally IRA, such as the real

IRA has contained Semtex from Libya,

shipment unknown and an Irish port

in 1986. My Lords, as someone who

has lived in Northern Ireland

through that period, it is sobering

to think so much death and

destruction that was unleashed on

nurseries came from one source -

Libya. The biggest arms shipments

arrived in a beach in the late 1986.

It consisted of 80 tonnes of

weaponry, including seven rocket

propelled grenades, ten

surface-to-air missiles and a tonne

of Semtex, plastic explosives. The

shipment was the fourth landed in a

14 month period that would transform

the IRA's ability to conduct its

terrorist campaign. Untold suffering

was caused by the weapons supplied

by Gaddafi. The dead and more to the

state still carried the physical and

mental scars. It is little short of

a national scandal that British

victims of Gaddafi's weaponry should

be reduced to virtually begging the

government for justice. As a result

of Lockerbie, the current averages

the Americans and French all secured

compensation of their victims. And

this situation, really highlights

all the more starkly the failure of

successive British governments to

secure some ideals for our citizens.

Why should our people be left to be

ill treated than the Americans,

French and German citizens? Surely

British governments, what ever

political complexion, should be

standing up for the rights for

British citizens. Suspicions have

been raised that when Tony Blair was

Prime Minister, and Libya was

bringing in from the cold, secret

deal was done whereby the UK would

not pursue compensation. It is also

suggested that... Of course that is

not the only secret deal which Mr

Blair has associated when it comes

to Northern Ireland. You will recall

the shameful letters which were

distributed more than 200 republican

terror suspects in which are

effectively stay out of jail free

cards. These items were part of a

secret deal between Tony Blair and

Sinn Fein IRA. And the fact that

many were handed out by Gerry Kelly,

a man convicted of bombing the Old

Bailey in March 1973, merely

compounds the insults to the

My noble friend has been tenacious

in his pursuit of this issue and he

deserves a great deal of credit for

his efforts to raise the profile of

the Libyan connection to terrorism

and ensure that victims can assure

that the Government has knots

forgotten and have a measure of

justice. As he said, he has been

talking to the Government about

Gaddafi and Libya since 2002. In all

those years he has never heard a

coherent explanation for the failure

of the Government to get

compensation for UK citizens and all

the damage that Gaddafi has done as

a result by applying the IRA with

weapons and training for over 20

years. Last year he bought a private

members Bill before Parliament but

unfortunately it ran out of time.

And he is now reintroduced it and

has my wholehearted support. Quite

simply, the average person in the

street will find it incomprehensible

that Libya has 9.5 billion frozen

assets in London alone. Is it not

unreasonable a position for some of

that to want to go towards to those

who have suffered greatly as a

result of Gadhafi's Semtex and other

weapons that was placed in the hands

of psychopaths. The great and the

good seem excessively reluctant to

lift a finger to people who suffered

terribly as a result of this. Many

of the events took place over 30

years ago and time is running out

for the victims. Soothing words from

Government and officialdom are

simply not enough. We must persevere

to raise the profile of this issue

and continue to seek justice for

individual victims and the UK as a

whole because of the huge damage

done by Gadhafi. For me, is it is

about fairness and justice. And so

doing the right thing. My Lords,

once again I commend him for his

efforts in this regard and I can

assure him and the House that he has

mine and the Unionist parties. .

Speaking briefly in the gap can

adversely congratulate the noble

lord for the persistence he is shown

on this issue. I wish to express

support for this Bill despite the

fact that I do not necessarily agree

with everything that has been said

in the course of the proposal and

support. It would be wrong of me not

to put on the record a correction to

the caricature that was given of the

letters that were sent to the

so-called on the runs. They did

nothing more than inform those

people who were not being pursued by

the police, that they were not being

pursued by the police. In the case

of Downey mistake was made and that

is why he can use that.

Notwithstanding that correction, I

support this Bill, and I supported

for a reason that hasn't yet been

outlined. It is this, when I was

Secretary of State for Northern

Ireland, like everyone else who held

that position I was extremely aware

of the number of victims on all

sides of the community. Some people

call that the Troubles, it was a

war. It was a war against the best,

most effective gorilla army in

Western Europe at the time. There

were victims on all sides. However

there was an imbalance in the

opportunities that some of the

victims had to claim compensation.

For this reason. That if you claim

you are the victim of a state there

is a whole plethora apparatus system

and process of laws that allow you a

great more opportunity to claim

compensation against the state then

if you were the victim of a

terrorist organisation. By virtue of

the fact that they do not have the

status that a state hires and

therefore that anyone claimed they

suffered as a victim of British

pilots had opportunities to claim

compensation that was denied to many

other than. In this case as has been

pointed out, they were actually the

victims, indirectly and directly of

the state, the state of Libya. So

for the first time the victims of

terrorism in Northern Ireland would

have, if supported by the British

Government, the opportunity to use

the very laws that those who have

claimed to be the victims of British

state violence have never had

previously. I therefore think that

this House should therefore support

this Bill because I do believe that

where the state of Libya has been

involved through the head of their

state, Gadhafi, there was a direct

relationship between the finance and

the resources that they used for

terrorism and the effects in

Northern Ireland. Having said that,

I merely want to say that the

persistence of the Lord has shown is

commendable and the House should

support him in his endeavours.

May I

be permitted to add a very brief

grace note in the gap. The day

before I was sworn in as a High

Court judge, and under car booby

trap bomb was left under my car. By

the grace of God I saw it and I

escaped myself. A very brave

ammunition technical officer risked

his life to disk use it and was only

partially successful. An explosion

took place and there was an immense

amount of damage to my car, which

was a write-off, my house, contents,

and by way of after-effects to my

wife's health. I had to get on with

my job, thankfully I was able to do

so. She was badly affected and for a

long time. A couple of years later,

my very close friend and colleague,

Maurice Gibson was blown up in his

car by a roadside bomb when he

crossed the border with his wife.

The car and its occupants were

incinerated. This is distress to his

family which opens in close-up can

never be compensated sufficiently,

but it should be registered and an

attempt made. I really produce these

remarks for the simple reason that

showing the distress and effect are

real and personal foot very many

people. Many far more than I have,

but I can appreciate their feelings

and their wishes that this Bill

should go through. I have pleasure

in supporting it.

My Lords, I join

what is so far the unanimous voices

of all who are spoken in this House

and I am very grateful to the

additional noble Lords who spoke in

the gap. In particular of course

grateful to my noble friend Lord

Reed who identified just wide this

is an issue which the Government

needs to address. The Lord is to be

greatly applauded for his

persistence in regard to this issue.

The previous Bill which he extended

in this second Bill now and make it

even more clear exactly what ought

to be achieved. The previous Bill of

course fell foul of those practices

in the Commons which result in the

exhaustion of time. An awful lot of

members of Parliament, and let me

say as a former member of Parliament

myself, in the category of others,

have suffered the loss of a Bill

directed towards an exceptional

cause but the waywardness of

Parliamentary procedure sees that

the Bill does not get the progress

which it deserves. Most of this I

think, at that point, give up on the

endeavours. The Lord should be

greatly congratulated on the fact

that he is persisting with these

issues and has brought this Bill

before the House. My Lords, he may

beginning to think that he's

somewhat resembles Sisyphus who

constantly had a burden to Bill and

roll up the hill. Sisyphus was never

successful of course, and we do hope

that the Lord will be successful

with with this measure or the very

least that the Bill itself can't be

commended that the Minister will

indicate progressive action by the

Government which will give effect to

its most crucial propositions. My

Lords, we have no doubt about the

justice of his cause and we wish the

Bill well. In the House of Commons

of course, we have a considerable

number of members who are giving

support to this issue. My right

honourable friend Jim Fitzpatrick

who represents the constituency of

Canary Wharf which was one of the

horror stories in that period not as

when Northern Ireland suffered, but

the great cities of Birmingham and

Manchester, and London with several

attacks, and other tax my Lords

Frosty think that in fact -- attacks

that it was difficult to sustain

normal life in the capital,...

Public transport. When Jim fix

Patrick pursues these issues he is

actually representing his

constituents in a way which they

have the right to expect. And of

course noble Lords speaking from

Northern Ireland have reflected

exactly that consideration with

regard to people who they used to

represent in the Commons. So my

Lords, what we have learnt through

all of this is that dreaded word

Semtex, which I think very few of us

knew anything about until the Libyan

government began to obtain supplies

from the authorities and then begin

to disseminate Semtex into

particularly Northern Ireland, the

IRA. It is the case that other

governments have made more progress

than ours. We all recognise that the

law is different in other countries,

and the Americans are certainly able

to take executive action in a way in

which it is not open to the British

Government to pursue in the same

way. At I hope the noble lord the

Minister will be able to indicate

that the Government which has now

had several years of opportunity for

real thought on this issue, and

pressure that is represented by

noble Lords here and members in the

other place that the Government is

coming up with some constructive

proposals. Now I recognise the

Minister has drawn the short straw,

the first debate on Friday is bad

enough. The first debate on a Friday

when he has got a fairly thin case

to deploy, or has had in the past,

is even more of an owner is

burdening, but he is a competent and

capable when Mr who we all respect

and I know that Will he will have

pressed his servants that he has an

element of constructive response

today. Because I don't think the

House will take kindly to the

forestalling which has gone on in

the past by Government in response

to the arguments contained in these

issues. That's why it will mean that

the Government needs to give some

encouragement. I am not expecting

them to say that the noble lord's

Bill will sail through both houses

without contention. I'm not even

going to ask him to say that is

bound to succeed. What I am asking

him to say is that from the elements

of the Bill there are demands for

constructive action to which the

Government has got a duty to

respond.

My Lords, first of all, in

thanking the noble lord and

everyone's contribution we can

reflect on the issue in front of us.

The issue is one of victims and

victims are at the heart of what is

the crux of intent behind the Bill

and that is something that the

Ottoman does not take lightly. In

congratulating the noble lord in

securing the second reading of the

Bill, I congratulate all noble Lords

who have contributed, and I assure

you that I do not regard this as

drawing a short straw on a Friday. I

know on a light moment that it is

half term and children who have not

seen daddy much this week it is a

challenge, it underlines the

important that I myself, as Minister

for State at the Foreign Office for

the human rights, for the UN, along

with the Foreign Secretary, along

with my colleague responsible for

the Middle East are now giving to

this issue.

The issue continues to be highly

relevant as Lord Davis and others

have said, which continues to be

highly relevant in Parliament, not

just in our House, but in Another

Place as well. In doing so, I would

like to acknowledge the valuable

work of the Northern Ireland affairs

committee in the Other Place. This

includes the Government support for

UK victims of IRA attacks that use

Semtex and weapons supplied by the

former Libyan leader. On that note,

if I may say to my noble friend that

the Government has responded in

September to the report and perhaps

if there are specific matters

relating to the Government's

response it will be happy to take

that up with him outside the

chamber.

If I may just, to again, reit thor

rate, that the Government re--

reiterate, that the Government

regards this as a long-standing

issue. It is complex and emotive. It

is complicated by the further

economic and security circumstances

that we see prevailing in Libya

today. Only yesterday I talked

specifically about the humanitarian

assistance to the people within

Libya. And my Lords, I don't hide

from the fact, as someone who the PM

special representative on preventing

sexual violence, what we are seeing

in Libya today lends great horror to

the situation on the ground.

However, in reassuring noble Lord's,

let me make it sure that the

Government remains focused on

finding a way forward. In this

regard I would like to highlight for

noble Lords a few recent events

which have taken place. Firstly,

over the last few weeks my Right

Honourable friend the Foreign

Secretary and the minister for the

Middle East have hosted meetings

with victims' groups and

parliamentarians. I believe the lobl

Lord MP was present at these

meeting. They were held in a

positive and progressive way. Let me

also assure Noble Lord's,

particularly Lord Davis and others

the Government has raised the bar.

We continue to raise these issues

with the Libyan authorities and

directly with the Libyan

authorities. I've heard very

carefully and listened very

carefully to the concerns expressed

that victims' groups alone can now

represent the tragedy they have

suffered, they continue to suffer.

Therefore, it is right that the

Foreign Secretary has raised this

issue. Not once, not twice, but

three occasions recently with the

Prime Minister and we will continue

to do so. Let me assure those who

represent, in this chamber and in

the Other scan place, who represent

the victims' groups, they do not go

unheard. Added to the commitment

that my Right Honourable friends

have given in terms of their

continuing meeting victims' groups

and indeed with members across both

Houses, I can assure them that I

will continue to expend my energies

as well, working with the Noble Lord

and others to make sure this

maintains the momentum it deserves.

Equally, I do accept the criticism

that can be levelled, that whilst we

are doing this, we need to ensure we

are communicating what efforts are

being undertaken. As I was listening

very carefully to the history of the

IRA bombings, in particular I heard

the words and the poignant words of

my noble friend when he talked of

it, it struck a tone. We heard from

Lord. Consider arswell as well on

this

-- Lord Carswell as well on this

particular issue. It was strange for

a young man out of university, who

started with NatWest that the place

near his place of work, Bishop gate,

had been hit. I remember it well. It

was 24th April. It remains engraved

in my memory. It was a place I

commuted to day, in, day out.

Thankfully, on that occasion, the

victims very limited by the fact it

was on a Saturday. This issue is not

just and the point was made by the

Noble Lord and others, we cannot

regard this for victims in one

particular region. This, as he

rightly articulated, is something

for the whole of the United Kingdom.

And in doing so, let me turn to the

contents of the bill itself. Its aim

is to secure compensation for

victims of terrorist organisations

in the UK. It seeks to restrict

assets on those owned by persons who

assist those organisations. It

proposes where those assets have,

assets of those who have supported

terrorist organisations in the UK

are currently frozen, in accordance

with UN Security Council Resolutions

and under the EU council

regulations, the Government should

ensure those assets are not released

until agreement is reached on the

compensation settlement for victims.

The intention behind the bill is

both honourable and clearly seeks to

right a wrong perpetrated on

innocent people. Weapon, as we have

heard, from various Noble Lords,

including the be important

intervention, weapons funding,

training, explosives provided by

Gaddafi to the Provisional IRA

exacerbated the troubles. We have

heard the word Semtex become regular

in the minds of people, which was

previously unheard of. It

contributed to great human suffering

in both Northern Ireland, but also

across the rest of Great Britain. I

fully understand that the bill is

designed to secure compensation to

victims. As has been acknowledged by

several Noble Lords, we currently

have around £9.5 billion of Libyan

assets frozen throughout the UK.

Noble Lords have acknowledged these

under Security Council Resolution

9.1.73 at the time of the rev

lulings in 2011, at the request of

those toppling Colonel Gaddafi's

regime. They belong to the state or

their ownership is claimed by the

Libyan state itself. Of course there

are, and Noble Lords acknowledge

this point, there are obligations on

the part of the UK which affect what

can and cannot happen to Libyan

assets frozen in the UK.

My Noble Lords will be aware of the

difficulties that can be posed by

freezing assets, particularly with

relevance to the property rights

protected under the European

Convention on Human Rights. There

were questions raised on the issue

of our obligations under

international law. We continue to

focus on these specifically. And

retain these obligations of this

particular issue in front of us. It

is important to remember that the

ownership of some of theses a sets

is also still in dispute. Until

those disputes are settled, we

cannot say for certain to whom they

belong. The UN Security Council

Resolutions Governing the Libyan

sanctions regime provide that frozen

assets, when they are determined to

belong to the Libyan state, are to

be made available to the Libyan

people for their benefit. If the UK

were to act, so as to interfere with

this purpose we would be in breach

of our obligations under

international a law. That said, my

Lords, I totally understand and I

hope I have made the point clearly

that we continue to raise this issue

at the highest level with the

administration in Libya, including

the Prime Minister. There are

practical difficulties with the bill

currently as drafted around the

proposed use of powers under the

terrorist asset freezing act, 2010.

That said, my Lords, there are

practical steps which the Government

is taking. In recent meetings with

parliamentarians and victims with

both the Foreign Secretary and Mr

Burt and made clear the Government's

intention to make sure we

communicate effectively and step up

engagement on this issue directly

with the Libyan authorities to

ensure those efforts are visible and

the momentum continues.

Because it is important we do that

in the interests of the victims and

their representatives.

We need to recognise, of course,

that the political situation in

Libya remains extremely fragile. The

UK Government, I assure all Noble

Lords is currently working to

support the UN-led political process

in Libya in order to create a

Government which is better able to

deliver for the Libyan people and

better able to take forward the work

on a wide range of issue, including

legacy issues. Let me assure you

that the Foreign Office will remain

activity engaged in supporting

victims and their representatives.

We will seek redress from the Libyan

authorities. We will continue to

press the Libyan Government to meet

victims' groups and facilitate such

meetings to ensure their

representatives can discuss their

campaign directly as well.

Nothing, my Lords, and that has been

cleared by sentiments across the

board in the contributions this

morning, nothing, my Lords, can

compensate for the suffering of the

victims and their families. Lets me

assure all Noble Lords, I as a

Minister of State in the Foreign

Office and my colleagues, both the

Minister of State for the Middle

East and the Foreign Secretary,

remain determined to play our part

to support the victims and their

families as part of the Government's

wider efforts to address the legacy

of the troubles in Northern Ireland.

And as I finally, in my closing

remarks, thank the Noble Lord for

securing this important date, let me

do that with the reassurance that we

will continue to raise this issue

directly with the Libyan Government

and certainly whatever I can extend

in terms of support in strengthening

that effort I will certainly make

Miss Available in that respect.

My Lords, I would like to thank

those who have participated in

today's debate and I just wanted to

go over a few points. First of all

Lord Rogan told, referred to the

Semtex and the escalation of the

campaign and also the fact that

citizens from other countries did

achieve a degree of compensation and

we acknowledged that and I think

that is one of the things that has

been, like salt in the wound to many

of the victims of this. I've also

appreciated the intervention of the

Noble Lord. He makes a technical

point about the letters, which I

understand. But I to say to him that

of all the things that have happened

over the years, the production of a

piece of paper in a court - the

existence of which was not known to

anybody out with the Government of

the day. And the terrorists who held

it.

Was a big shock, to put it mildly.

And the truth of the matter is that

when all is said and done, a person

who is charged with four counts of

murder and charged with contributing

to an explosion in this country,

where this was the intirs t person

to be brought before the courts

between 1982-2014 on this matter,

was able to leave the court a free

man.

You You can look at all the

technicalities which surround that,

but that is what happened. That has

been an absolute shock to the core

of many people. Now, we know there

were mistakes made, perhaps at

police level and so on. And I accept

all of that.

But the very fact is pieces of paper

existed that were not known about

and that, I know theish shoo shoe

was a very sensitive issue. I am

very well aware of that through all

the negotiations and it wasn't a

matter that could be left hanging

completely in the wind.

Nevertheless; people were shocked.

It wasn't done in a way, and it is

also the fact that the people who

were in position of some of these

letters are the same people who were

trying to hound members of the

security forces who were acting on

our behalf at the same time. So they

were having their cake and eating it

as well. Nevertheless, he, Lord Reid

did make the point about the

imbalance and I think that is at the

core of why people are so upset.

Lord Carswell, with his personal

experiences, I am well aware of my

late aunt and uncle Louvred across

the road from where he lived and

someone as conscientious as he was,

to find the device, there would be

very few people who get get under

their vehicles would, like a

mechanic would, to search the

vehicles for the device and I thank

God that he and his family escaped

vehicles for the device and I thank

God that he and his family escaped.

I think in that context it must be

worth reminding that it killed one

of Margaret Thatcher's ministers...

The noble lord is absolutely right

and if you look inside the chamber

of the House of Commons you will

see, above the door, representatives

of those members of the House of

Commons who were killed, and those

are represented, those names are

over the door, I think that was a

very poignant intervention. I

appreciate the talks about

Parliamentary procedure and as a

hand in the sings I'm sure over the

years he has been happy to use the

odd bit of procedure himself as we

all have, but nevertheless he does

make the point, and chinos and

everybody knows, that a private

member is not able and doesn't have

the resources to draft all the

technicalities that I needed in a

private members Bill, although I do

thank the public Bill offers for

their assistance, I am well aware

that without the backing it is

difficult to make progress. But what

it does do, is it create a platform

for members to bring issues to the

public, into the public domain. I

make no excuse whatsoever, that is

what we're trying to do here, I

thank the noble lord for

contribution and support, when we

discuss the Bill last time, there

was a contribution on behalf of the

Labour Party. We appreciate all of

those matters. Lord Browne and

mention the two words fairness and

transparency, these are two things

that have been sorely lacking over

the years. Of course, my noble

friend use the phrase devolved and

forget with the reference to

devolution and I suspect the

circumstances we find in dull fast

at the moment, forgetting doesn't

work -- Belfast. What happened in

March 1979, I am standing offer

victims, and I have to say that it

years been one of the most

consistent and persistent supporters

of Northern Ireland over his

lifetime and we greatly appreciated.

The minister in his response, let me

put it to him in this way. The quote

I made in my speech quoting what

David Cameron said in 2011 and what

ironist Farsi said in 2014 were

totally inconsistent. -- Baroness.

The Minister did use a phrase which

I welcome when he said they would

now be prepared to pursue more

openly and communicate more

effectively with people who are the

victims. In other words, he used the

phrase seat redress. That is an

improvement for the Government in

2014 there were saying they were

having no involvement whatsoever. I

think the Foreign Secretary who

hosted the meeting with Alistair

Burt, he had the ambassador to Libya

present and a number of officials

say he was taking the matter

seriously. I believe his approach is

beginning to focus the Government on

doing something about this. We all

know the people of Libya where the

principal sufferers over the regime

of Gaddafi. It was a personal

fiefdom, it was brutalised, people

disappeared and were treated

appallingly. We are not seeking to

ignore those or or put those people

aside. Those people of Libya had to

understand that they are not alone.

The people of this country have to

be taken into this account. It is

the duty of the Government, is first

duty is to protect its citizens.

That is the important and first duty

of Government. The fact of the

matter is that I did attend hearings

of the Northern Ireland affairs

committee when a number of other

persons were present including Jack

Straw, former Foreign Secretary, and

when the question of compensation

was raised, he said they have orally

received compensation. Many of them

may have from the British taxpayer,

but it is not the British taxpayer

who should be paying, it is the

people who perpetrated and provided

the material so the terrorists could

operate in this country. Therefore

there is a state to state issue

here. That is the one thing that the

Government, and I think we can claim

today that they have moved from the

position saying that it is purely a

private matter, to the position

where there has to be state to state

involvement. Which are not mutually

exclusive. That represents a step

forward and I welcome that.

Reference was made to Jim

Fitzpatrick on the other place, he

has been a stalwart campaigner and I

attended a debate that he had in

Westminster Hall last year, and he

was one of those present when we met

the Foreign Secretary at a few weeks

ago. Along with the group chair, we

have also had quite a substantial

amount of support and it does meet

from time to time. This is not a

party issue. This is a Parliamentary

issue, it is a national issue. We do

not know the politics of the people

involved and it is none of our

business. The fact is that a group

of our citizens have suffered

directly as a result of the actions

of the state of Libya under the

Gaddafi regime. While people will be

free to take private cases against

individuals who they know or think

or believe were involved, the fact

is that this is not a matter that

the Government can sit on its hands

over. I hope that the contribution

that the Minister has made today

when he says that the Government

will seek redress, that implies it

will actually do some in. I hope

that the noble lord Minister will

anticipate the fact that if we do

not seek this redress being sought

in an active way, I am quite certain

that following what all members have

said following their remarks, we

will be back to ensure that this

matter does not fall down through

the cracks. We have brought bills to

years running, we will bring them

every year if we have to. This is

not coming we will give up on, if it

takes letters, if it takes

delegations, whatever it takes, we

will persist. I think the Government

have to realise that they will not

be able to, that this is not

something that can be put on the

back burner any more. It is not

going to happen, I think there is

unanimity on this matter in the

House, and I hope this message can

be brought back to the Foreign

Secretary is saying that we

appreciate you taking the matter

seriously, but to coin a phrase, we

are not going away, you know. With

that, I asked the House to give this

Bill a second reading.

The question

is that this Bill now be read a

second time. As many as are of the

opinion, say "aye". To the contrary,

"no". The content is habit.

I beg to

move that this Bill be moved to the

committee the whole house.

This

movie is that it be moved to the

whole house, As many as are of the

opinion, say "aye". To the contrary,

"no". The contents have it.

I beg to move at this Bill be read a

second time. I thank you all so

visit of signed up to read this

morning. I look forward to their

insides and news as we progress

through the debate. Can I also say

to all members inside the chamber

and all those watching on the

broadcast during the debate and

beyond, that if you get involved on

social media, using the... Who want

to keep the pressure on this House

right across social media on this

issue. Can I thank all the

organisations who've helped in

preparing this Bill and indeed

briefings for myself and for other

noble lords, not least the public

Bill office in preparation of the

Bill itself. It also in particular

the social mobility commission,

Sutton trust, and the fabulous in

turn aware started by young people,

not least Ben Lyons, one of the

founders, who at that stage in their

life felt incredulous that people

could be asked to do work for no pay

in 21st-century Britain. I would

also like to offer particular thanks

to my honourable friend Alex Shell

on this issue over several years is

no mean part of how we are now able

to bring this Bill today. So, in

many ways as is often the case in

this legislative process I am

standing on the shoulders of many,

many individuals both within

Parliament and far beyond. Why do we

need is Bill? In 2017 employment is

at record levels, unemployment is

similarly at record low levels.

Good. Not so good, we are currently

seeing a boom in unpaid internships.

Asking young people and indeed

people of all ages to work, to give

of their labour than no

remuneration. The Prime Minister has

said in various speeches that we

want to be a nation that works for

everyone. I agree. But that nation

will in no sense be working for

everybody while we still have the

perpetuation of pathways of

privilege, having nothing to do with

merit, nothing to do with talent,

pathways of privilege where people

are able to get unpaid work

opportunities on the basis of being

fortunate enough through family

funding or indeed the family Black

book. And if noble lords doubt this,

research clearly shows that only 4%

of those polled said they would be

able to take on unpaid internships

with no financial difficulties. 4%.

Wilberforce slammed the door on

slavery and the 19th century. We

have a national minimum wage

legislation in the 20th century. How

can it be that in the fifth richest

economy on the planet in the 21st

century that we are still asking

people to give of their labour for

no financial return. What does the

current law say? It says, if you

have a relationship between an

individual and the firm and clear

obligations, that worker will be

entitled to the national minimum

wage. Clear. Why are we even having

this debate? Because in fact, not so

clear, not so easy necessary to

prove that you are a worker and to

get the national minimum wage. Quite

easy in fact for businesses and

employers to get around this

legislation in a whole series of

ways. And it's getting worse. Since

2010 underpaid internships are up,

internships in general up 50%. More

and more professions, trades, jobs

now requiring not just a degree, not

just a vacation scheme, but

underpaid work experience to enable

somebody to have any hope of getting

that job. Time and time again

adverts ask at least for six months

waiting periods. Never mind the

quality of the individual, the

quality of the degree that they have

ready attained. Getting worse, 50%

increase since 2010. At a time when

successive prime ministers have

talked about social mobility and

enabling talent. Further research

shows that graduates report that 30%

of them had had to do unpaid work

experience with their current

employer. A figure which rises to

50% in some professions. Half the

people in that profession having to

have done unpaid internships to get

across the threshold. 4% say there

is no financial barrier to them.

That is 96% who clearly it is. And

40% of people have reported that

they have sought internships and

then had to turn down that

opportunity through lack of

financial means to be able to take

it on.

It can be summed up by these

practises. If you want pay, go away

and worse than that, some

organisations representing

businesses offer templates to offer

businesses have have the route to

the national wage legislation. As

Noble Lords will be aware,

particularly those who are noble and

learned, all contracts are

agreements but not all agreements

are contracts.

As the current law is set out, there

are many, many ways to avoid an

evade the regulations. But perhaps

even more problematic, it puts all

of the onus on the individual, on

the victim, if you will, to pursue

that claim. How likely is that, my

Lords that somebody who is

undertaking this intern ship to try

and increase their social ability to

undertake this internship to build a

career for the rest of their lives?

How likely is it that they will

bring a case against that

organisation? Possible, yes. As

Sony, Harrods and others found out,

possible, yes, but probable. And

even if probable, likely to put an

end to these practises. So to the

bill itself, what am I seeking to

achieve with this short private

Private Member's Bill? Simple - a

prohibition on all unpaid work

experience and note the use work

experience. A prohibition on all

unpaid work experience exceeding

four weeks, to bring clarity to this

whole arena. I am a massive fan of

work experience, seen not least in

the Select Committee report I was

part of, published in 2016. Work

experience has a fabulous impact for

young people to enable them to have

their first experience of the

workplace, to learn skills, to learn

the rhythm, the routine of work. But

are we honestly saying that a period

beyond four weeks, unpaid, is in any

sense acceptable? When I started the

preparation of this bill, my start

point was zero weeks. I felt if

somebody was doing something of

benefit for a business, they should

receive remuneration for their

labours. Having undertaken extensive

consultation, four weeks seems to be

a place where we can agree on across

the sector. Acceptable, so as not to

have any adverse impact on work

experience, but also to put a clear

stake in the to have clarity that

post that four-week period,

unequivocally that individual will

be entitled to the national minimum

wage and indeed, just for

clarification, they are entitled to

that pay during thal work experience

period as well. If they are seen as

an intern, if it is not clear work

experience or a shadowing scheme or

something of that nature. The bill

reverses that onus. No longer on the

individual to bring the case, but on

the employer to prove that that

individual isn't a worker rather

than the reverse. It eliminates so

many of the difficulties in terms of

bringing claims and the whole

prosecution process. And crucially

it provides this clarity to

employers, in terms of how to treat

internals. The clarity is this - how

should you treat them? Pay them. And

it also gives empowerment, I

believe, interns to talk about pay,

whereas as the present time it

cannot be raised. It's not, in my

sense, within their grasp to bring

it to bear because of the nature,

the power relationship which they

find themselves in. I think it is

fair for me to consider some of the

arguments against which have been

raised.

Small businesses perhaps believe

they would not be able to afford to

pay interns. We have a four-week p

erd in the bill. Work experience -

that person can get to know the

employer, that person can get to

know that person after four weeks.

Why should not that person be paid?

Or is that business saying, we are

unable to survive without those

labours of that young person given

for free? If that is indeed the

argument, I think we'd all draw some

significant conclusions as to the

nature of that business, both

economically and ethically.

But the real point is, it's not so

much about small businesses. It's

more about larger, more prestigious

organisations who are offering some

of these schemes. And possibly most

concerning of all is that some of

these so-called prestigious unpaid

internships are seen as better, as

more prestigious for the individual

than if they'd undertaken paid work

experience, paid internships and a

different employer. So, that is the

reasoning. That's an argument

against. What about bigger

businesses and what their view is?

66%, two-thirds say they are in

favour of this four-week limit there

are many that I could cite, but

perhaps one at random KPMG say we

have a culture that respects hard

work. Clearly part of that respect

is in remunerating that hard work.

Some argue that this won't increase

opportunities, it will simply mean

that all of these internships will

disappear. Well, if there are only

able to survive on the basis of

people working for free and only 4%

of the population of that age say

that they could take them, with 40%

having to take them down, I don't

think that is a great loss and

certainly no drag on social mobility

or advancement or economic growth

for this country. To turn to perhaps

a more interesting claim around

volunteering. I've had a lot of

reputations from volunteer

organisations. The bill is currently

drafted will have no impact on the

great work that volunteers do for so

many different organisations, in so

many different parts of our society.

But what I hope it will do is stop

long-term unpaid internships that

some chartibility organisations and

third sector organisations

undertake. Because just because the

aim, the end of that charity may be

incredibly laudable, that end is

never justified by the means of

having somebody as an unpaid intern.

Often for many, many months, if not

years, working for no pay. Quite

separate from those who volunteer

and freely give up their time to

great charitable causes. So, it's

about fairness. It's about equality.

But even if neither of those two

things float your boat, it's simply

about talent.

4% can undertake unpaid internships

without difficulties. Why would a

business want to exclude 96% of the

potential talent pool from that

organisation? Surely any business

would want to try and attract the

brightest and the best to their

business.

I would ask my Noble friend, the

minister, would the Government

support this bill? If not this bill,

what action will the Government take

to end this pernicious practise.

This pathway of privilege of unpaid

internships and routes into some of

the best jobs and brightest

professions of our time? Because

surely the role of Government is to

empower. Surely if we want the best

businesses, the best third sector,

we, as a society, we as a Parliament

need to state very clearly that we

are calling time on any

organisation, on any business that

asks people to give up their time

for no remuneration in return. There

are a number of other issues alive

to the bill. In no sense am I

offering these as alternatives. I

believe the Government should

consider all these issues alongside,

as well as the bill, not instead of

and if the bill were passed, these

next items which I will raise would

need fair less Government

intervention. Firstly, to massively

increase awareness amongst

employers, not just of the current

legislation, but of the Government's

view that this is no longer

acceptable to have unpaid

internships. To the higher

education, the university sector to

do much, much more to educate to

inform graduates as to their rights.

The current law states if you are a

worker you are entitled to the

national minimum wage. You should

not feel you have to and you should

not accept unpaid internships

because even if you can, you are

standing on the shoulders of others

and holding this nation back.

To the reporting and regulatory

sector, I believe there needs to be

a massive increase and widening of

reporting in this area. Not least

enabling third parties to report.

Having HMRC looking across all of

the advertising websites, newspapers

and outlets, so many of these

adverts are in plain sight - ready,

willing, right there for HMRC to go

after and put an end to. This was

brought up in Matthew Taylor's

review earlier this year, where he

clearly highlighted that he felt

HMRC powers when it came to unpaid

internships were not satisfactory.

Would my Noble Friend agree and say

when if Government will respond to

the Taylor Review and whether they

believe whether the review, as

published, went anywhere far enough?

There's the whole question of

penalties, at a time when we are

looking to increase penalties in a

series of areas, this would be seem

pertinent to do so, in that if you

fall foul of the current legislation

you'll be compelled to pay back the

salary, the wages. Merely doing what

you should do in the first place.

Would the minister look at this and

how a dramatic increase would be

appropriate, it would be a positive

step in ending this practise. I

believe as a role for business,

small, medium and multi--ation

national to -- multinational, to

reel lie use their power, influence

and state categorically in all of

their communications that not only

did they not engage unpaid interns,

but they have no truck with the

practise whatsoever. A key way they

could do this is through procurement

saying we will not procure from you

if you used unpaid interns. I

believe naming and shaming could be

incredibly positive in this area

across all sectors and my Lords,

that naming and shaming should start

right here, right now, today n this

chamber, to Conservative members at

both ends of the corridor. Labour

members, Liberal Democrats members.

Crossbenchers, Scottish

nationalists. If you use unpaid

internships you have no comment to

make in terms of progress, merit,

talent or social mobility. We have

to lead on this. Can I ask my Nobble

friend to comment on what has been

happening in Whitehall, where there

have been illustrations of how

progress can be made when commitment

is put to this matter?

To conclude, not my words, not the

words of briefing, not the words of

ministers or previous members, but

the words of perhaps the people we

should be listening to the most on

this. People who have suffered

unpaid internships. Somebody from

the broadcast sector, you can't pay

the rent with a glowing CV. You

can't buy food with exposure.

Somebody else from television

describing the practises as cruel

and pointless.

You do it yourself and your

self-worth. That is the impact,

many, many more are feeling the

shame and embarrassment of having

been engaged in these unpaid

internships, having the feeling they

had no choice, and Judy, not wanting

to talk about that shameful episode

in their lives. My Lords, this is

about empowerment and enablement,

fairness, equality, dignity,

respect, talent. For the hundreds of

thousands of individuals in the past

who have suffered the shame of

unpaid internships. The tens of

thousands of people who currently

find themselves in that same

situation today, and for a better

Britain for tomorrow. Let's not just

get this Bill second reading, when

the time comes, let's give it safe,

swift passage into statute. My

Lords, I beg to move.

The question

is that this bill be now read a

second time.

I applaud him for

bringing forward this bill and for

his brilliant speech. I draw

attention to my interests on the

register and I probably should add a

personal interest that is not on the

register. I have somewhat led the

subject, since my son set up the

campaign group In Turn Where when he

was at university. He's now 27 and

still campaigning. What's

interesting is the type of

legislation needed has become

crystal clear. My interests are

these, I advise the education

charity Arc, which advises schools

serving disadvantaged communities. I

also chair a charity which trains

and develops hundreds of school

readers each year, from heads of

departments to senior leaders,

heads, executive heads and CEOs of

multi-Academy trusts. All in

challenging schools, all serving

poorer communities, all working with

disadvantaged young people. So I do

understand why this bill is dated

and how tough it really is to raise

the aspirations of young people and

many of these communities and open

up opportunities in a proper and

fair way. At times, it almost feels

as if every time progress is made,

barriers are broken, a new barrier

is erected, to make progress with

disadvantaged students more

difficult again. The new one in the

last decade or so is unpaid

internships. About a third of

graduate internships are still

unpaid, and as we know very well,

some sectors are a particularly bad,

for example, creative industries and

the media. 62% of businesses take on

interns. Many of these are in

London, Moorer in London than

anywhere else. What does that mean

if you live outside London, if you

have no contacts or family or family

friendly can help? We've all had

briefings from the social mobility

commission and the Sutton trust and

others under it would repeat them.

As a country, we need all the talent

we can develop. What I really love

about this bill as it is simple, it

is practical, it is pragmatic. I

know those are not things that are

popular at the moment, but often the

best legislation really does take

those boxes. And what is very clear

about this bill we have here today

as it doesn't confuse a couple of

weeks work experience, which all

others in he would support, with an

unpaid internship, that's all we

have to take the action. In July 20

Theresa May said, we will build a

better Britain, not just for the

privileged few. He is a

straightforward chance to do just

that. Mrs Goram on enough. There

have been enough reviews, enough

prevarications. As the government

were to sort this out? In this house

on the 11th of March 2015, the then

Minister Baroness Neville, in

response to Lord Mitchell, who has

been dedicated to sort this issue

out for a long time, said, and I

quote, internships are not formally

defined and therefore, the

government does not collect reliable

information on a consistent basis

that would allow the robust

provision of data sorting this

amendment. The government have

undertaken research on wider issues

that may relate to internships, such

as social mobility. We need to be

properly informed so that we can

maximise flexibility and prevent

exploitation. As part of our

employment status review, the

government are gathering information

through consultation stakeholders to

understand both the current position

of groups and Labour market and

whether future changes are

appropriate. This includes

internships and will no doubt

provide useful information and data

for future discussions. They must be

more the government can do, that is

why we have undertaken a review of

employment status. As we know, that

review has now reported. In the

Taylor Review this year, Matthew

Taylor said there have been calls

for the separate status for

internships, but we believe this is

unnecessary. If someone is obtaining

something from value from an

internship, there are most likely to

be entitled to the national minimum

wage. The government should clarify

the interpretation of the law and

encourage the enforcement action

taken by HM RC in this area. We have

had the clarity and we have had the

research and we have got the data.

This has gone on long enough, there

have been enough reviews. Now that

government doesn't see clearly today