17 Dec 2015 : Column 119WS

Council tax referendum principles

As announced as part of the spending review, additional flexibility will be given to the 10 PCCs in England with the lowest precept levels each year (the lower quartile), so that they can raise their precept by up to £5 per year per band D household. Other PCCs in England will face a 2.0% referendum threshold each year.

The PCCs to receive this £5 flexibility in 2016-17 are Northumbria, West Midlands, West Yorkshire, Sussex, Essex, Kent, Hertfordshire, South Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and Cheshire.

The Communities Secretary will announce the council tax referendum principles for local authorities in England in 2016-17 shortly. After considering any representations, he will set out the final principles in a report to the House and seek approval for these in parallel with the final local government finance report. Council tax in Wales is the responsibility of Welsh Ministers.

Legacy Council Tax Grants

In 2016-17 we will provide council tax freeze grant to PCCs in England relating to the 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 council tax freeze schemes and local council tax support (LCTS) funding previously paid to PCCs in England by DCLG. This will total £507 million in 2016-17.

The Common Council of the City of London (on behalf of the City of London Police) and the Greater London Authority (on behalf of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime) will also receive council tax freeze grant relating to the 2011-12 freeze grant scheme. The Greater London Authority will also receive an amount for the 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 schemes. These sums will continue to be paid from outside of the police funding settlement by DCLG. There will be no new freeze grant schemes in 2016-17.

Police Capital

I still intend to allocate the majority of capital funding directly to local policing bodies. Like last year all local policing bodies will receive the same percentage change in capital grant. I will continue to maintain a capital contingency. Indicative figures are set out in Table 3, and I will consider whether further reallocations are required.

17 Dec 2015 : Column 120WS

17 Dec 2015 : Column 121WS

[HCWS426]

Independent Police Complaints Commission

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May): Today, I am launching a public consultation on reforming the governance structure of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

17 Dec 2015 : Column 122WS

The consultation proposals form part of the Government’s continuing programme of policing reforms, including changes to the police complaints and disciplinary systems.

Public confidence in the police is the basis for our long-established model of policing by consent. The IPCC plays a critical role in securing and maintaining public confidence, providing independent oversight of the police complaints system and investigating the most serious and sensitive matters involving the police. I am committed to ensuring that the IPCC has the resources and powers it needs to perform these vital functions.

In March 2013, I announced that resources would be transferred to the IPCC to enable it to expand to undertake many more independent investigations. This major change programme is progressing well and in 2014-15 the IPCC started more than twice the number of investigations it began in the previous year. The IPCC are taking on more again this year, while concluding more cases than ever before.

On 12 March 2015 I gave a statement to the House in which I set out a number of radical reforms on police integrity which included giving the IPCC new powers and strengthening its role as an independent oversight body. The Government will be legislating for these changes in the forthcoming policing Bill.

As part of this package of reforms, I also asked the IPCC to consider reforms to its governance arrangements and structure to help it, as a significantly larger organisation, to deliver more cases and to increase public confidence in the reformed police complaints system.

Following the publication of the IPCC’s proposals in August, I invited Sheila Drew Smith OBE, a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, to undertake an independent review of the IPCC’s proposals, in particular to consider their likely impact on public confidence and, as appropriate, provide recommendations for alternative reforms to governance structures.

Today I am publishing Sheila Drew Smith’s report alongside the public consultation on the Government’s proposed reforms to the IPCC’s governance. I am proposing that the existing commission model should be replaced by a single Crown appointee, supported by a unitary board, providing one single, clear line of decision-making in the organisation from top to bottom. These changes, and others set out in the consultation, are designed to deliver a more capable, more resilient IPCC, with clear lines of accountability and decision-making, and will help ensure that complaints made against the police are responded to in a way that builds trust and public confidence, and allows lessons to be learned.

I would like to record my thanks to the IPCC and to Sheila Drew Smith for their efforts in considering these important changes.

The public consultation will run until 28 January 2015. Following the publication of a response to the consultation, the Government intend to legislate as soon as practicable. Copies of the consultation document and of Sheila Drew Smith’s report will be placed in the Library of the House and also published alongside the public consultation via the Home Office pages on the gov.uk website.

I hope that those with an interest in the IPCC will take the time to respond to the consultation.

[HCWS424]

17 Dec 2015 : Column 123WS

Justice

HMCTS

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara): I will today publish the Government response to the consultation on proposals to increase court and tribunal fees. The consultation paper was published on 22 July 2015 and the consultation closed on 15 September 2015.

The Government announced in the spending review that it will be investing £700 million in reforming the courts and tribunals during the next five years. This crucial investment will allow us to modernise and improve the service we provide to the public.

There remains a need to ensure the courts are not placing too great a burden on the taxpayer. Courts and tribunals in England and Wales cost £1.7 billion in 2014-15, but we only recovered £700 million in income. That is a net cost to the taxpayer of around £1 billion.

It is therefore right that we ask for a greater contribution from court users who can afford to pay more. We have balanced this need alongside the responses we received to our consultation and decided to:

Implement fee increases of 10% across the range of civil proceedings, including enforcement proceedings, determination of costs proceedings, and civil business in the magistrates courts.

Introduce fees for the first time in the General Regulatory Chamber and the tax chamber of the First-tier Tribunal and in the Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber.

Keep the maximum fee cap in money claims at £10,000. A number of consultees were concerned about the proposal to raise the cap to £20,000. We accept that it is too soon to understand the full impact of the first round of fee increases introduced in March this year. We will therefore not implement the further increase at this stage, but keep this option under review.

Introduce a fee of £20 for an appeal against a financial penalty in the tax chamber. Some respondents felt that it was unfair to charge an issue fee of £100 for an appeal against a financial penalty of £100 or less imposed by HM Revenue and Customs, so we have decided to introduce a lower fee than initially proposed.

Introduce fees of £100 to issue proceedings in the Property Chamber and £200 for a hearing. There will be an exception for proceedings relating to rent levels and pitch fee applications, where a lower fee of £20 will apply. This will mean fees are more proportionate to the amount in dispute. We will not implement the higher fees for leasehold enfranchisement proceedings that were proposed in the consultation paper at this stage, so these proceedings will be subject to the standard fees in the chamber.

Defer any decision on whether to introduce a fee for bringing an appeal against a decision of the Information Commissioner until the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information reports next year.

HMCTS’s remissions scheme will apply to all of the new and increased fees, with the exception of those in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal where there is a separate exemptions policy to protect vulnerable users. As proposed in the consultation document, we will introduce an additional exemption for those whose humanitarian protection or refugee status is at risk of being revoked.

Fees are never popular, but they are necessary if we are to reduce the burden of the courts and tribunals on the taxpayer.

17 Dec 2015 : Column 124WS

We have sought to protect the vulnerable at every stage. We have also listened very carefully to concerns raised during the consultation and modified our proposals accordingly.

This balanced package will put the courts and tribunals on a more sustainable footing as we create a modern efficient service, fit for the 21st century.

Full details of how the Government intend to take forward these proposals are set out in the consultation response document which has been published on the gov.uk website.

[HCWS438]

Insolvency Litigation

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab): My noble friend the Minister of State for Civil Justice (Lord Faulks QC) has made the following written statement.

The Government have made a priority of addressing the high costs of civil litigation in England and Wales.

To that end, part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012 reforms the operation of no win no fee conditional fee agreements. Those reforms came into effect generally in April 2013 but were delayed in respect of insolvency proceedings.

After further consideration the Government have decided that the no win no fee reforms should now be applied to insolvency proceedings. The provisions will come into force for these cases in April 2016.

It has already been announced that there will be a post-implementation review of the LASPO Act part 2 reforms between April 2016 and April 2018. The review will take place towards the end of that period. The review under section 48 of the Act in relation to mesothelioma cases will also take place as part of the post-implementation review.

[HCWS420]

Prisons

The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Michael Gove): I will today publish the Government’s response to the Harris review into self-inflicted deaths in custody of 18 to 24-year-olds.

The Government are grateful to Lord Harris of Haringey and the Harris review panel for their report on this important review.

We must never simply accept self-harm and self-inflicted deaths as an inevitable feature of prison life. Reducing the rates of violence, self-harm and deaths in custody is a priority for the National Offender Management Service. I have already made clear that our prison system needs urgent reform. I have also asked Charlie Taylor to review the current system of youth justice. We will be setting out more detail on our plans for reform in due course.

The Government’s response to the Harris review sets out the wide range of action we are taking to reduce self-harm and self-inflicted deaths in custody, including giving greater support to those with mental health vulnerabilities who come into contact with the criminal justice system and improving the management of “safer cells” in prisons. We are also increasing the number of prison staff. Over the last year we recruited 2,340 prison officers, a net increase of 540.

The Harris review, and our response, will help to address the serious problems of self-harm and self-inflicted deaths as we develop our wider reforms to make prisons places of decency, hope and rehabilitation.

17 Dec 2015 : Column 125WS

The response will be laid today and copies will be available in the Vote and Printed Paper Offices. The response will also be published online at: www.gov.uk

[HCWS419]

Ex-armed Services Personnel and the Criminal Justice System

The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning): I am today publishing an update on the progress that has been made in addressing the rehabilitation needs of ex-armed services personnel in the criminal justice system (CJS), as agreed by the Ministry of Justice in the Government response to the independent review into former service personnel in the CJS by Stephen Phillips QC MP, published in December 2014.

I reiterate my belief that we have an obligation to ensure those who serve in the armed forces are not disadvantaged as a result of their service. We are clear that all offenders, including those with a military history, should have the support they need to turn their lives around and stop offending.

The key to providing better services to ex-service personnel who find themselves in the CJS is to make sure that we identify them. I am pleased to see that the early data collected by the liaison and diversion services programme and the basic custody screening tool at prison reception, show that the number of ex-service personnel in the criminal justice system continues to remain small.

We are also working to consolidate our understanding of the needs of this group of offenders. We published two pieces of analyses last year, which found that, in general, the needs of ex-service personnel are broadly similar to those of other offenders, although specific areas of need may be more prevalent. For example, ex-service personnel had similar levels of reported general mental health problems to other prisoners, but may have greater levels of need in depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. A fully rolled-out liaison and diversion service will provide a real opportunity to meet the mental health needs, as well as other vulnerabilities, of ex-service personnel, and we will continue to drive this.

I am pleased that the covenant reference group identified support to ex-service personnel in the CJS as one of the funding priorities for the £10 million armed forces covenant fund 2015-16. The Government have also awarded £1 million to Care after Combat and £1.6 million to Skillforce to support their work with ex-service personnel in prisons and police custody.

The full update can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/former-members-of-the-armed-forces-and-the-criminal-justice-system and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS412]

Prime Minister

Muslim Brotherhood Review

The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron): I have today laid before both Houses the main findings of the internal review I commissioned in the last Parliament, to improve the Government’s understanding of the Muslim

17 Dec 2015 : Column 126WS

Brotherhood; establish whether the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology or activities, or those of individual members or affiliates, put at risk, damaged, or risked damaging the UK’s national interests; and where appropriate inform policy.

The review involved substantial research and wide consultation, including Muslim Brotherhood representatives in the UK and overseas, and an open invitation to other interested parties to submit written contributions.

It is a complex subject: the Muslim Brotherhood comprises both a transnational network, with links in the UK, and national organisations in and outside the Islamic world. The movement is deliberately opaque, and habitually secretive.

Since the authors completed their initial research in 2014, and during the course of the Government’s examination of the findings, further allegations of violence carried out by supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood have surfaced, which the Government will continue to investigate, taking action as appropriate.

As the Muslim Brotherhood continues to evolve so must our understanding of it. The findings have revealed much that we did not know but work will continue to ensure we keep up to date with developments.

The Government consider the following the most important findings.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s foundational texts call for the progressive moral purification of individuals and Muslim societies and their eventual political unification in a caliphate under Sharia law. To this day the Muslim Brotherhood characterises western societies and liberal Muslims as decadent and immoral. It can be seen primarily as a political project.

Parts of the Muslim Brotherhood have a highly ambiguous relationship with violent extremism. Both as an ideology and as a network it has been a rite of passage for some individuals and groups who have gone on to engage in violence and terrorism. It has stated its opposition to al-Qaeda (AQ) but it has never credibly denounced the use made by terrorist organisations of the work of Sayyid Qutb, one of the Brotherhood’s most prominent ideologues. Individuals closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK have supported suicide bombing and other attacks in Israel by Hamas, an organisation whose military wing has been proscribed in the UK since 2001 as a terrorist organisation, and which describes itself as the Palestinian chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood. Moreover, despite the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s public condemnation of violence in 2012-13 and afterwards, some of their supporters have been involved in violent exchanges with the security forces and other groups. Media reports and credible academic studies indicate that in the past 12 months a minority of Muslim Brotherhood supporters in Egypt have engaged alongside other Islamists in violent acts. Some senior leaders have publicly reiterated the Muslim Brotherhood’s commitment to non-violence, but others have failed to renounce the calls for retribution in some recent Muslim Brotherhood statements.

Muslim Brotherhood-associated and influenced groups in the UK have at times had a significant influence on national organisations which have claimed to represent Muslim communities—and on that basis have had a dialogue with Government—charities and some mosques.

17 Dec 2015 : Column 127WS

But they have also sometimes characterised the UK as fundamentally hostile to Muslim faith and identity; and expressed support for terrorist attacks conducted by Hamas.

Aspects of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology and activities therefore run counter to British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, equality and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. The Muslim Brotherhood is not the only movement that promotes values which appear intolerant of equality and freedom of faith and belief. Nor is it the only movement or group dedicated in theory to revolutionising societies and changing existing ways of life. But I have made clear this Government’s determination to reject intolerance, and to counter not just violent Islamist extremism, but also to tackle those who create the conditions for it to flourish.

The main findings of the review support the conclusion that membership of, association with, or influence by the Muslim Brotherhood should be considered as a possible indicator of extremism.

We will therefore keep under review the views that are promoted and activities that are undertaken by Muslim Brotherhood associates in the UK, in Arabic as well as English. We will consider whether any action under the counter-extremism strategy or as part of our wider work may be appropriate, including action in line with the new engagement policy the Government will develop to ensure central and local government do not inadvertently provide legitimacy or a platform for extremists. We will challenge extremists’ poisonous narratives and promote positive alternatives that show vulnerable people that there are better ways to get on in life.

We will continue to:

refuse visas to members and associates of the Muslim Brotherhood who are on record as having made extremist comments, where this would be conducive to the public good and in line with our existing policy guidelines and approach to extremism in all forms;

seek to ensure charities that have links to the Muslim Brotherhood are not misused to support or finance the Muslim Brotherhood instead of their lawful charitable purpose;

strengthen liaison arrangements with international partners to ensure that allegations of illicit funding or other misuse of charities are robustly investigated and appropriate action taken;

enforce the EU asset freeze on Hamas; and

keep under review whether the views and activities of the Muslim Brotherhood meet the legal test for proscription.

We will also intensify scrutiny of the views and activities that Muslim Brotherhood members, associates and affiliates—whether based in the UK or elsewhere—promote overseas. As our counter-extremism strategy makes clear, insights from our overseas posts will help the Government better understand drivers, networks and ideologies. We will continue to consult, and share information and analysis with, Governments in the middle east and north Africa as appropriate. We will then take further decisions and actions as needed.

[HCWS418]

Transport

Transport Council

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill): I attended the final formal Transport Council meeting under the Luxembourg presidency (the presidency) on 10 December 2015.

17 Dec 2015 : Column 128WS

The Council held a policy debate on social aspects in road transport, which also covered broader market objectives. Several member states made it clear that they could not support further market liberalisation without a greater harmonisation of social conditions. However I joined others in calling for a more balanced framework to ensure that social measures do not create barriers to the freedom to provide services. During the debate two member states called for an extension of existing licensing rules to bring vehicles below 3.5 tonnes into scope, in order to ensure fair competition. I flagged significant reservations on any such extension due to our concerns over the likely rise in enforcement costs and potential negative impact on road safety.

Under any other business, there were several aviation items, including: a presentation from the Commission on its proposed aviation package, published on 7 December, which aims to enhance competitiveness, improve growth and maintain high EU standards in safety, security, environment, social provisions and passenger rights; a presentation from the Netherlands on the investigation into the crash of flight MH17; and information from Bulgaria, together with other member states in the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) central European rotation group, on the 2016 election to the ICAO Council.

The Commission also gave a brief presentation on its state of the energy union report encouraging further member state action, in particular calling on member states to start drafting their national energy and climate plans, and updated member states on transport security following recent tragic events. The presidency encouraged member states to ratify the Luxembourg protocol, relating to the financing and purchasing of rail rolling stock, and finally, the Netherlands outlined their transport priorities for their upcoming presidency which include taking forward negotiations on aviation proposals, opening trilogue discussions with the European Parliament on the ports services regulation and completing them on the fourth railway package, and promoting developments in innovative technology.

Following formal Council business I attended the lunchtime debate on road safety, which discussed ways in which to reduce fatalities and serious injuries across the EU, and held bilateral meetings with my French and Polish counterparts, as well as thanking the Luxembourg Minister for their very competent presidency.

[HCWS414]

Ministerial Cars

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill): I am publishing today details of the charges incurred by Departments for the use of official Government cars provided to Ministers by the Government Car Service (GCS) during the financial years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15.

Charges to Departments have not increased since 2010. The GCS has reduced its running costs by over two thirds since the start of the reform programme and we are committed to continue reducing the cost to the taxpayer of the provision of secure ministerial cars. As a result of a series of changes, including closure of the Government mail service, overall operating costs have fallen from £21.617 million in 2010-11 to £6.325 million in 2014-15.

17 Dec 2015 : Column 129WS

The charges recorded in this statement reflect the service model which came into effect in April 2012. This provides Departmental Pool Cars which are a shared resource for a Department to use as efficiently as possible. In addition, the Car Service offers a small pre-bookable service utilising any spare capacity.

These charges do not necessarily reflect the total spend on car services for Ministers as some Departments have arrangements with other providers. The Chancellor uses the Government Car Service to supply a driver and vehicle for his protection package whereas the Prime Minister, Home, Foreign, Defence and Northern Ireland Secretaries of State use the Metropolitan Police.

Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/writtenstatements

[HCWS436]

Walking and Cycling Investment Strategy

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill): I am today publishing the Government’s timetable for the development of the first cycling and walking investment strategy (CWIS).

In February 2015, the Government introduced a duty through the Infrastructure Act 2015 for the Secretary of State for Transport to bring forward a cycling and

17 Dec 2015 : Column 130WS

walking investment strategy in England. In July, part 2 of the Infrastructure Act (cycling and walking investment strategies) was enacted.

The document, setting the first cycling and walking investment strategy, sets a long-term vision for walking and cycling to 2040 through a series of consecutive five-year strategies. Our starting principle for the development of the investment strategy is a desire for cycling and walking to become the norm for short journeys or as part of a longer journey in places that are designed first and foremost for people on foot or bicycle.

The document also sets out the elements that will form the first investment strategy, which will be a step towards delivering our manifesto commitment to double cycling—an ambition document and statement of funds available, governance structures, a performance monitoring framework, and a national walking and cycling infrastructure plan study. I plan to undertake public consultation on the draft first CWIS next spring with publication following in the summer.

I will be placing a copy of this statement and the document “Setting the First Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy” in the Libraries of both Houses.

Attachments can be viewed online at http://www. parliament.uk/writtenstatements.

[HCWS413]