House of Commons

Monday 7th March 2011 Commons Chamber

Monday 7 March 2011

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 7th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 7th March 2011 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

1. What steps she plans to take to decouple temporary residence from permanent settlement in the immigration system.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The Government have pledged to break the link between temporary migration and permanent settlement. Settling in Britain should be a privilege to be earned, not an automatic add-on to a temporary way in. We have already announced that we will introduce a new permanent limit on non-EU economic migrants, with a reduction in the number of visas in the next financial year from 28,000 to 21,700, a fall of over 20%. The Government will consult later this year on breaking the link between work and settlement.

[Dr Coffey]

My constituents are largely concerned not about people who work here temporarily, but about people who work here for a short time and then can settle permanently. Is there not a case for a review of the criteria for permanent settlement, to try to avoid this kind of practice?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her supplementary question. We will review the entire question of permanent settlement including the criteria for it as part of our review of the whole immigration system. We will make announcements on that shortly, but I can tell my hon. Friend that we have already tightened the settlement criteria in April, by introducing, for example, a new criminality threshold so all applicants must be clear of unspent convictions when applying, a new income requirement for skilled and highly skilled migrants applying for settlement, and reform of the English language requirements.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Regardless of whether applicants are applying for temporary or permanent residence, and of whether they have friends in high places, should we not restrict the admission of foreigners convicted of paedophilia offences?

[Mrs May]

I understand where the hon. Gentleman is trying to lead his question. Of course there are rules on that offence in relation to exclusions from the United Kingdom. Decisions on exclusions are taken by the Home Secretary on the basis of evidence put forward by the UK Border Agency.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

On temporary residence, is it not clear that under the Government’s plans students are welcome to come and study in this country, and, indeed, should be made welcome? However, is it not part of the inheritance of this Government that large numbers of people have used the study route as a means of coming to the country to work, rather than to study? Will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that this Government will bear down on bogus students and bogus colleges who abuse the system?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and I am happy to give him precisely that assurance in relation to the stance this Government are taking. It is perfectly clear from the figures that, sadly, all too many people have used the student visa route as a means simply of coming to the UK to work. There are some very good examples of colleges that exist in name only, such as the college that had two lecturers covering 940 students. I hope there is cross-House agreement that that sort of abuse must be stopped, but we do want to ensure that legitimate students wanting to study legitimate courses at legitimate institutions come here.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Is it the Home Secretary’s intention to scrap identity cards for foreign nationals, and if so, how will that assist in preventing individuals who are here on visas from overstaying?

[Mrs May]

The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is no: the biometric residence permits will continue.

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

3. What representations she has received from members of the public on the local crime and policing website.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

Since its launch on 31 January, our street level crime mapping website police.uk has received almost 400 million hits. The website is a strong example of this Government’s commitment to greater transparency in public services, by giving communities the information they need to hold their local police to account.

[Oliver Colvile]

I have received a number of positive comments on the crime website maps. Does my right hon. Friend have any plans or initiatives to add anything more to them?

[Nick Herbert]

Yes, the Government intend to build on the information currently given. There are six trailblazing police forces looking at how this can be done, including Lincolnshire police and West Yorkshire police, who are looking at how we might supply sentencing outcome information so the public know not only that the crime was committed, but what happened afterwards in the criminal justice system.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

In the interest of transparency, will the Minister consider adding to the value of the mapping crimes website by including figures on the dozens of police who will not be on the streets because of the huge cuts his Government are imposing on our police forces?

[Nick Herbert]

Oh dear, the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. If he looks at the website police.uk, he will see that the neighbourhood policing teams are shown alongside the area in which the individual lives. Every force up and down the country is committed to protecting neighbourhood policing, and those officers will remain on the streets for the public as savings are made in the back and middle offices.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

4. What plans she has to assist police forces to tackle antisocial behaviour.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

15. What plans she has to assist police forces to tackle antisocial behaviour.

[Lorraine Fullbrook (South Ribble) (Con)]

18. What plans she has to assist police forces to tackle antisocial behaviour.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

The Government recently launched a consultation on reforming the toolkit for dealing with antisocial behaviour. The proposals will reduce the bureaucracy, delay and cost that hamper the police and their partners. We are also working to help police forces improve their service to victims by, for example, supporting eight police forces in trialling a new approach to handling calls on antisocial behaviour.

[Mrs Grant]

Does my hon. Friend agree that community partnerships and statutory partnerships are key in dealing with antisocial behaviour?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The nature of antisocial behaviour means that the main emphasis in tackling it lies with the police, because much of this behaviour is crime, but other partners, such as community safety partnerships, play an essential role. We support that and it is recognised in the toolkit for civil orders. We have stripped away some of the bureaucracy that got in the way of getting those partners to do the job that they are needed to do.

[Gavin Barwell]

May I encourage my hon. Friend to liaise with police authorities about deploying safer neighbourhood teams on the basis of places, not artificial ward boundaries, as such an approach would allow coverage to extend into the crucial evening period, when a lot of antisocial behaviour takes place?

[James Brokenshire]

There are certainly operational issues associated with the tasking of safer neighbourhood teams. I know from my hon. Friend’s constituency the importance and emphasis that the Mayor of London places on those teams. I am sure that he will have heard clearly the message that my hon. Friend has sent about the importance of discretion at the operational level.

[Lorraine Fullbrook]

What can be done to engage young people early in order to prevent their engaging in antisocial behaviour?

[James Brokenshire]

The issue relating to young people and antisocial behaviour is important. It is also worth recognising that most victims of antisocial behaviour are young people themselves. The Government are focused on intervening early: the early intervention grant, which is worth about £2.2 billion, will support activities to help young people start off in a positive way. Clearly, young people can be victims of antisocial behaviour, which is why it is important that we take action early to prevent it in their communities.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister accept that in dealing with adults involved in neighbourhood nuisance, low-level violence and intimidation, antisocial behaviour orders have been an invaluable part of the toolkit? Will he give an assurance that they will continue to be available to police and local authorities seeking to reduce antisocial behaviour?

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are consulting on a new toolkit, whereby the tools are reduced in number to five core ones. The problem is that ASBOs have been used less and less and the number of breaches has increased. We are clear about the need for civil orders, which is why we are consulting on the new powers. They are better tailored and will ensure that the civil standard of proof is used to make the orders easier to obtain. They will also be able to put in place positive requirements to break patterns that may lead to antisocial behaviour and crime.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

In Bristol, the police have made very good use of the antisocial behaviour legislation—the acceptable behaviour contracts and ASBOs—to tackle kerb crawling and on-street prostitution, which blights the lives of many residents of the Eastville area of my constituency. Can the Minister assure the House that any replacement for the current antisocial behaviour legislation will continue to give the police the powers to tackle this problem?

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting that specific example and I hope that her community will take part in the ongoing consultation on the new toolkit, which will last until the middle of May. We are clear that the existing powers remain in place until such time as a new regime is introduced, but we are very focused on it being practical, supporting communities and having the effect that people want it to have in bearing down on antisocial behaviour and the crime that can lead from it.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Can the Minister confirm that more than 10,000 police officers, many of whom are in neighbourhood teams tackling antisocial behaviour, will be cut over the next two years? The Thames Valley police force, which covers the constituencies of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, said the following about possible local youth centre closures:

“the loss of those services would mean more opportunities for young people to get involved in crime and antisocial behaviour”.

So with cuts to front-line policing and youth services across the country, how exactly does the Minister expect his rebranded, weaker version of the ASBO to maintain progress in combating antisocial behaviour?

[James Brokenshire]

I do not accept that this is some sort of weaker tool. There is going to be a more effective suite of tools with which to bear down on antisocial behaviour. Let us not forget that it was the last Labour Home Secretary who suggested that the previous Government had in some way been coasting on antisocial behaviour. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has reminded me that Thames Valley police has said that it will be protecting neighbourhood response teams. It is also worth highlighting that the Mayor of London recognises the importance of safer neighbourhood and community teams and of delivering on the antisocial behaviour agenda.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I do not know whether the Minister has seen “Minority Report” in which precogs predict where and when serious crimes are going to occur, but will he assess a less futuristic and more practical technique that has been advocated by Peter Neyroud, the ex-chief of the National Policing Improvement Agency, and by the Cambridge Institute of Criminology, which could cut reoffending and antisocial behaviour? The technique flags up the criminals who are most likely to reoffend, thereby allowing resources to be concentrated on them and halving prisoner numbers, saving money and improving public safety in the process.

[James Brokenshire]

I am not sure whether Philip K. Dick is bedtime reading for Peter Neyroud, but certainly the whole idea of prevention and acting earlier is very much at the heart of the consultation in which we are engaged on antisocial behaviour. I am certainly clear about the role of prevention and the need to act early in breaking patterns of offending before people become too engaged. I will certainly look at the research to which he refers.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Rachel Reeves. Not here.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

6. What further steps she plans to take to control illegal immigration; and if she will make a statement.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

UK Border Agency enforcement officers are continuing to crack down on immigration crime and remove illegal migrants. Our proposals to tackle abuse by foreign nationals using student visas to gain work in the UK, alongside new plans to toughen up marriage and family routes, will further tackle illegal migration into the UK.

[Mr Leigh]

As Members of Parliament, we are approached all the time by constituents who want to marry somebody from abroad and it is only humane and right that we should try to help them, but our job is made doubly, even trebly, difficult by the existence of sham marriages. What is my hon. Friend doing to tackle the problem without making the system so bureaucratic for everyone else?

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend identifies one of the key loopholes that did exist in the immigration system. Last summer, I asked our enforcement teams to focus on sham marriages, and 53 sham marriage operations were undertaken, resulting in 126 arrests. Between November and January, a further 86 operations followed that up, focusing on sham marriages, with an additional 29 arrests. This has been one of the big loopholes in our immigration system, but we are becoming ever more effective in closing it.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

In seeking to strike the right balance on student visas, will the Minister and the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that they will listen carefully to the representations of universities in the UK, including mine in Exeter, and of our reputable language schools, which say that the current proposals would be devastating to their sector and to the economy as a whole?

[Damian Green]

We are indeed speaking to many universities and listening to their representations, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has met the vice-chancellor of Exeter university. I am sure that when our proposals are put forward, universities will discover that they defend the rights of legitimate students to come here to study legitimately at legitimate institutions. At the same time, we will also crack down on the huge and widespread abuse of the student visa.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Which three countries are responsible for the largest number of illegal immigrants into Britain and what specific steps are being taken with those countries to take those people back when they are caught?

[Damian Green]

By definition, illegal immigrants do not go through the system, so it is quite difficult to give accurate figures about where they come from, but we know the main routes by which people come into the country, one of which is from Asia, through Turkey into Greece. We are working very hard with both the Greek and Turkish Governments to stop that route and minimise the problem. One of the most effective things we are doing is improving our border controls at Calais, which mean that the number of people who are identified as coming across illegally into Britain is now running at about a third of the level it was 18 months ago. That is a significant strengthening of our border defences.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

Any action to control illegal immigration depends upon a properly staffed and effective border agency which can both detect and remove illegal immigrants. With cuts of 20% and job losses of 5,200 for the UK Border Agency, detection and enforcement officers are already warning that their work is being undermined. The Government are talking tough on illegal immigration. Is the Minister sure that the Home Secretary has given him the resources to deliver?

[Damian Green]

Yes, absolutely. The hon. Lady will, of course, recognise that the reason there must be cuts in public services is the appalling state of the public finances that her Government left us with. We are confident that by using technology, better intelligence and flexible working, we can maintain and improve levels of border security with fewer staff. I invite her to consider the example of Calais. We can now check 1.5 million lorries a year, and in the past year we have found just over 9,700 individuals trying to cross illegally, compared to just over 29,000 in 2009, so the new system that we are operating does work.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

8. What steps she is taking to reduce the burden of paperwork on police forces.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

9. What steps she is taking to reduce the burden of paperwork on police forces.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The Government are committed to reducing bureaucracy. We are scrapping the stop-and- account form, and reducing the amount of information to be recorded on the stop-and-search form. Doing those two things saves up to 800,000 man-hours a year. We are returning certain charging decisions to the police. That will save up to a further 50,000 man-hours per year. We are working with the police to sweep away a further range of the red tape that prevents officers doing what they and the public want them to do—getting out on the streets and cutting crime.

[Claire Perry]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the past 14 months the Wiltshire police force has undergone four separate inspections by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary lasting three working weeks and costing the force £60,000, and no meaningful recommendations have been made as a result? Does she intend to reform this box-ticking regime to cut the burdens of police bureaucracy and paperwork still further?

[Mrs May]

I was not aware of the specific figures for Wiltshire. I realise that this is an issue. That is why the Policing Minister has been working with HMIC on reducing the bureaucratic burdens of the inspection regime by ensuring that we maintain an effective inspection regime, and he will inform the House on this matter in due course.

[Mark Lancaster]

I commend my right hon. Friend on her efforts to improve on the just 11% of time that the police are visible to the general public, but may I press her on what actions she will take to reduce the unnecessary amount of time that police officers spend in court, especially as delays continue to be endemic?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important issue. In looking at saving police time so that they can do the job that we want them to do, we need to look across the whole of the criminal justice system. That is what I am doing, together with the Justice Secretary, the Attorney-General and the Policing Minister, who is also a Minister in the Ministry of Justice.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to reducing police bureaucracy. As she knows, in October last year Jan Berry published her report and made 32 recommendations. How many of those recommendations have now been implemented? Will the Home Secretary continue Jan Berry’s term of office so that this is not just a one-off piece of research, but a continuing monitoring of the bureaucracy in our police service?

[Mrs May]

Jan Berry did a valuable piece of work looking at bureaucracy in policing. We have already implemented a number of the recommendations that came out of that. I have referred to the restoration of some charging decisions down to local police, the more proportionate approach to inspections, and revising the police performance development reviews. We are taking the work forward in a slightly different way. There is a programme board led by Chris Sims, the chief constable of west midlands, which is working with the Home Office and identifying further areas of bureaucracy that can be scrapped.

[Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab/Co-op)]

11. What estimate she has made of the likely number of police officers in Greater Manchester in March 2015.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

It is a matter for the chief constable and the police authority to determine the number of police officers that are deployed by Greater Manchester police within the available resource.

[Jim Dobbin]

Crime levels went down under the previous Government. That is a well known fact. The chief constable of Greater Manchester estimates that around 1,500 officers will be lost because of the cuts. Can the Government justify that?

[Nick Herbert]

I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that there are also 4,000 police staff working in Greater Manchester police. There was a huge increase in the number of police staff employed by police forces under the previous Government. The chief constable of Greater Manchester police said in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee that

“there was already a recognition, certainly in Greater Manchester Police, that some of our headquarters operations had got too big.”

Forces can and must make savings in back and middle offices while protecting the front line.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

The Minister has not really responded to the real issue on this. Will he tell the House unequivocally—and repeat his view—that when we see the number of police officers reduced in Greater Manchester, as we will, it will have no impact on crime?

[Nick Herbert]

We are absolutely determined to maintain efficient and effective forces, and every chief constable I meet, including the chief constable of Greater Manchester, makes the same point. The chief constable said last week, after being misquoted on the matter:

“We need to have an intelligent debate about the cuts and see the opportunities, not just the threats.”

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Government insist that it is possible to cut 10,000 police posts nationally, and up to 1,500 in Manchester. I should point out to the Minister that they also plan to cut nearly 1,600 back-office staff. We know from an answer that Baroness Neville-Jones gave in the House of Lords that there is no formally agreed definition of front-line police services. If those are not cuts to front-line police services, we would like to know what they are. Can the Minister get to the Dispatch Box and tell us exactly what the definition of police front-line service is, because if he cannot, how can he protect them?

[Nick Herbert]

I have defined it on a number of occasions, including in a written answer. Let me repeat it for the hon. Gentleman: front-line policing

“includes neighbourhood policing, response policing and criminal investigation.”—[Official Report, 8 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 194W.]

There can be savings in the back and middle offices, as at least a third of all spending is in those areas. If he thinks that there is no definition of front-line policing, how can he be so confident that there will be cuts in the front line? His position is nonsense.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

12. If she will bring forward proposals to change immigration bail conditions to make them consistent with proposed conditions for control orders.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

The Government see no need to review the range of bail conditions that may be imposed in immigration cases. We will continue to seek bail conditions that enable us to manage the threat posed by the individual. These will vary from case to case.

[Richard Fuller]

I hear that answer, but how can it be right that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission is able to impose conditions on people, perhaps those who have been granted indefinite leave to remain, on charges that are not disclosed to them, that restrict their communications and movement and force relocation, conditions that the Government say are unacceptable in control orders? How can that be right for people in those circumstances?

[Damian Green]

SIAC deals primarily with cases where an individual poses a threat to national security, so we must take all the issues surrounding those individual cases extremely seriously. As such, SIAC sets bail conditions that it considers necessary to control any risk of absconding and the threat posed to national security, whether or not the individual absconds. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that SIAC has enormous responsibilities and takes them very seriously in each individual case.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I agree with the question from the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). Will the Minister go one step further than is being suggested and make both immigration bail conditions and the conditions for control orders more like regular bail conditions?

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend will recognise what I have just said about SIAC, which you will be pleased to hear that I will not repeat, Mr Speaker. The conditions for immigration bail and for control orders, and for the regime that will replace control orders, have rather different surrounding contexts than the setting of normal bail conditions, so it is entirely reasonable for SIAC to come to different conclusions and have different powers.

[Mr Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

13. What plans she has for the future of the student visa entry system.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

We are considering the responses we received following closure of the recent consultation on reform of the student immigration system, which closed on 31 January. We are concluding our analysis of responses and will announce future plans for the student system in due course.

[Mr Brine]

I thank the Minister for his reply. May I press him to reassure legitimate English language schools, such as the Winchester School of English in my constituency, which he has visited, and higher education institutions, including the university of Winchester, that new B2 English entry level requirements will not wipe out a critical source of their respective revenues?

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend is right: I have visited that language school in his constituency and admired its work. One proposal in the consultation was to raise the English language requirement from B1 to B2, because we believe it is right that students should have a good command of English to complete their course. In responses to the consultation, universities and others have expressed concern about that proposal, and we are considering those representations as well as the many others that we have received.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Does the Minister recognise that, if the changes to student visa entry requirements are wrong, it will have a devastating impact on our universities and other educational institutions?

[Damian Green]

I recognise, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman does, that we need to strike the right balance so that the brightest and best students can come to this country and benefit it both in the short and the long term. At the same time, however, we recognise that we need to crack down on the many abuses of the student visa system under the previous Government, which have led to the widespread lack of confidence in our immigration system. Of course we need to strike a balance between those two demands, and we are confident that we will do so.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

May I suggest to the Minister that all he has to do to deal with the unintended consequences of the proposals is to look at the findings and recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee in the previous Parliament? All problems would be dealt with.

[Damian Green]

It is a universal truth that reading Home Affairs Committee reports always leads to greater enlightenment. I have read the relevant report, and I always absorb the Committee’s reports, but I will redouble my efforts to ensure that I am familiar with every last detail of every report.

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

We all agree with the Home Secretary that bogus colleges should be closed, and most seem to be in the private sector. She and the Immigration Minister will know that further education colleges’ fee income from foreign students is £42 million, with a contribution to the economy of £80 million. We have 184 colleges that are registered as highly trusted sponsors, with more than 20,000 international students. When can they expect to know what will happen about non-degree courses? It does and will affect the budgets not only of colleges, but of universities.

[Damian Green]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the main abuse that we have found has been in private sector colleges at below-degree level, which is why one principal proposal on which we have consulted is that nobody will be able to offer a course at below-degree level unless they become a highly trusted sponsor. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, on the whole, public sector bodies that apply for highly trusted sponsorship obtain it successfully, but many private sector bodies do not have such status, and that is one key distinction that we need to maintain—that only people whom we can trust to do the job properly should be enabled to bring foreign students to this country.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

16. What assessment she has made of the trends in levels of complaints against police forces in England and Wales in the most recent period for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The police complaints statistics for 2009-10, published by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, show an 8% increase in recorded complaints against the police in England and Wales over the previous year. It is right that citizens should feel able to hold the police to account for the service they provide, and improving police accountability is a top priority of this Government.

[Simon Hughes]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary. May I raise a matter that I have raised with the authorities before, which is about the practice of kettling, first, at the G20 demonstrations, then at the student demonstrations last autumn and, even, on new year’s eve, when dealing with crowd control? Does she have any further thoughts that she can share with the House on how the increasing number of complaints about the practice can be dealt with in an effective and long-term manner?

[Mrs May]

Of course, within the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, we are putting forward some proposals to enhance the complaints procedure against the police, and we have been doing that work in consultation and discussions with the IPCC. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will also be interested to know that the senior officer in the Metropolitan police with responsibility for public order has recently made several announcements about how containment will be dealt with in future, making it clear that, should containment take place, toilets and water will indeed be provided, and that an individual will be available on site to ensure that those who are vulnerable or wish to leave are able to leave such areas.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

19. When she plans to announce the outcome of her review of human trafficking policy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)]

Combating human trafficking, including the sexual exploitation of women and girls, is a key priority for the Government. We are committed to tackling organised crime groups who profit from this human misery, and to protecting victims. We are due to publish our new strategy on human trafficking in the spring.

[Andrew Selous]

Will my hon. Friend make sure that the review deals with trafficked children who are placed in local authority care, where one would hope they would be safe, only to go missing and often to be re-trafficked? That is an appalling state of affairs. I hope that she can give me some reassurance that the review will deal with this very distressing aspect of trafficking in the United Kingdom.

[Lynne Featherstone]

Yes, the Government acknowledge the difficult and important issue of children going missing from local authorities. At a national level, we are strengthening the arrangements in place to support vulnerable young people by placing the national strategic policing responsibility for missing children within the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. In fact, its thematic review deals explicitly with the issue of trafficked children going missing from local authorities.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

But does the Minister agree that if we were to adopt the European directive on human trafficking, which specifically provides for a guardian for trafficked children, that would be a real step in protecting the children to whom the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) referred?

[Lynne Featherstone]

At the moment, local authorities are, in particular, employing good practice around the use of interpreters and making sure that the places where children are placed are kept secret. As I may have mentioned before in this House, we are looking closely at the text of the European directive and considering its merits, and if we conclude that opting into it would benefit the UK, we will apply to do so.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

20. What research her Department has commissioned and evaluated on any relationship between numbers of police officers and levels of crime.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

The Government believe that police forces can make savings while protecting the front line. We do not accept that reducing costs will cause an increase in crime. What matters is how resources are used and how officers are deployed.

[Owen Smith]

The Minister will know that in south Wales we have already seen the announcement that 250 front-line police officers will lose their jobs. When I attended a meeting a couple of weeks ago with our police authority, it warned that a further 320 front-line officers could lose out as a result of the cuts. Is the Minister seriously telling the people of Wales that crime will not increase as a result of that enormous loss in front-line policing capacity?

[Nick Herbert]

I do not accept that the reductions in head count in that police force or in any other will impact on the front line, and I very much doubt that the chief constable would agree with that. I remind the hon. Gentleman of what the Home Affairs Committee concluded in its recent report:

“We accept that there is no simple relationship between numbers of police officers and levels of crime. The reduction in the police workforce need not inevitably lead to a rise in crime.”

That is a cross-party Committee.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that this is about how police forces are deploying their officers. In North Yorkshire, we have a particular problem with rural crime. I would be most grateful if he would meet me and other rural Members to discuss this issue. Farms and farm property, in particular, are being trashed because we simply do not have enough cover in rural areas.

[Nick Herbert]

I would of course be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issue. I understand the importance of dealing with crime in rural areas just as we must deal with crime elsewhere. The police cannot act alone, and it is very important that there are effective partnerships with, for instance, the farming community so that, where possible, there can be a concerted effort to deal with this problem.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

21. When she plans to announce the outcome of her review of human trafficking policy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)]

I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.

[Emma Reynolds]

In September, in defending the Government’s failure to opt into the European Union directive, the Prime Minister said:

“We have put everything that is in the directive in place.”—[Official Report, 15 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 873.]

At the same time, he implied that the directive is not in our national interest. Is it not the case that it is both squarely in our national interest and goes beyond the measures that we already have in place? Will she therefore take the opportunity of the 100th anniversary of international women’s day to commit to this House that the Government will sign up to the European directive when they get the opportunity?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I thank the hon. Lady, but not for the first time I repeat that we are looking at the directive’s text and considering its merits. If we conclude that opting into the directive will benefit the UK, we will consider doing so.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The question refers to the date on which the new policy on human trafficking will be announced. I congratulate the Government on recognising the need to change the policy, but may I urge a big society solution? While the policy is being considered and drafted, perhaps the key non-governmental organisations could be involved in co-operating—not just consulted—so that the overall policy is a big-society solution.

[Lynne Featherstone]

I thank my hon. Friend. Indeed, the Minister for Immigration met those organisations recently and I have no doubt that we will take that forward. Our common-sense and extensive strategy will try to prevent trafficking in the country of origin, do more on the border to stop it coming in and, if it is in this country, do more with policing.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

22. What recent discussions she has had with stakeholders on the asylum improvement project.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

The Home Secretary and I, and our officials, have discussed aspects of the asylum improvement project with a number of corporate partners. The National Asylum Stakeholder Forum, the Scottish Asylum Stakeholder Forum and the Still Human Still Here coalition have also discussed the project recently.

[Mr Cunningham]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he establish pilot schemes and where exactly are they likely to be?

[Damian Green]

We have established a number of pilot schemes already. There is one in the north-west concentrating on using early intervention to help asylum claimants. We have set up the early legal advice project in the west midlands, and a project to attempt to improve the flow of decision making in London. If those pilots are successful, we will of course move them on to a national scale.

[Mr Speaker]

Angela Smith is not here so I call Tony Baldry.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

25. What plans she has for the future of the student visa entry system.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

[Tony Baldry]

This morning, I met a young Chevening scholar from Iraq who is studying for an MSc in engineering and robotics at Sussex university. He is hoping to go back to his country to make a contribution when he has completed his degree course. Will my hon. Friend confirm that we want as many overseas students like that young man as possible to come to the UK, because they enrich our university life and take the skills and knowledge that they acquire back to their home countries when they complete their courses? Will he confirm that while seeking to achieve that, we also want to bear down on the abuses of sham institutions that have been set up to bring about immigration abuses?

[Mr Speaker]

I think the hon. Gentleman is gearing up for an Adjournment debate on this subject. I do not know why he gave such a full question, but it was very helpful and we are grateful to him.

[Damian Green]

As ever, I agree completely about the helpfulness of my hon. Friend’s question. He presents the House with an extremely good example of what should happen, in that a foreign student came here to learn on a high-quality course and to develop skills that he can take back to his country. As is crucial, he is planning to leave at the end of his course. That is precisely the sort of thing that benefits our university system and brings confidence in the immigration system. What does not do that is students coming here and simply staying. Published information shows that of the students who came here in 2004, more than 20% were still here five years later in 2009. That is the kind of thing that we must investigate, to establish whether those people are still genuine students or are just exploiting the system to work in this country.

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

Last week, the Minister for Universities and Science told the Home Affairs Committee that he wanted foreign students to come to this country, but admitted that he found Government policy in the area “fuzzy”. The Select Committee was told on the same day by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), that he wanted a cut in immigration but an increase in the number of students coming from Latin America. What exactly is the Government’s policy on the future of the student visa entry system?

[Damian Green]

Under the student visa scheme, we want good students to come here to study genuine courses at genuine institutions. Under the previous Government, of whom the hon. Gentleman was such a distinguished supporter for so long, the student visa system became the single biggest loophole in an already chaotic immigration system. That is why we are having to deal with it. It is significantly the biggest route of immigration into this country—about 60% of visas are issued for students. That is why it is so important that this Government get a grip on the failures of the previous Government.

[Mr Speaker]

We are immensely grateful to the Minister.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The Home Office is committed to protecting the public and to freeing up the police to fight crime more effectively and efficiently. The House will shortly consider the remaining stages of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, which is aimed at empowering the public to hold the police to account for their role in cutting crime, before it moves to consideration in another place. Tomorrow, Tom Winsor will publish the first part of his independent review of police pay and conditions, which will help to ensure that police forces can protect jobs and keep officers on the streets.

[Simon Danczuk]

Will the Secretary of State join me in praising Greater Manchester police, Rochdale council staff and community mediators who managed an English Defence League demonstration in Rochdale this weekend extremely effectively? It was clearly shown that Rochdale residents stayed away from the protest and that our town has no appetite for the EDL.

[Mrs May]

I am very happy to join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the work of the Greater Manchester police and the professionalism that they showed in dealing with the EDL march that took place in Rochdale at the weekend. It is in keeping with responses from police forces up and down the country to such marches. I understand that the policing operation was a success and that the demonstration took place with minimum disruption. I also join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the work of not only the local authority but the Rochdale community and the approach it took to ensure that the protest was largely peaceful and that there was co-operation, tolerance and restraint from community leaders.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

T2. With many councils claiming cuts in their Supporting People grants, what action will the Government take to monitor the provision of vital services, and what leadership will they give in providing services nationally?

[The Minister for Equalities (Lynne Featherstone)]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Central Government have sent a clear message about the importance and vulnerability of the sector. To send that message and set an example, we have ring-fenced £28 million of funding for violence against women services. We hope and expect that councils will follow suit.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Last week, the Home Secretary confirmed to the House that under her new arrangements, someone who is barred from working with children could still get a job as a voluntary teaching assistant without the school or the parents knowing that they were barred. Now that she has had a few days to think about it and about how concerned parents will be, has she changed her mind?

[Mrs May]

I think what matters for parents is the decisions that are made about individuals who play any part in dealing with their children, in a school or any other setting. As I made clear to the right hon. Lady last week, information that informs the decisions on barring will be available as part of the check that I would expect employers to make in such circumstances. We have a simple view: employers must take some responsibility for ensuring that they make the appropriate checks and judgments about who should be involved in dealing with children.

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Lady said last week that employers would get “exactly the same information” as the barring authorities. However, Home Office officials have told some people in the charities something rather different. Will she therefore confirm whether employers will be given “exactly the same information” as the barring authorities? If so, why not give them the barring authorities’ expert recommendation about whether someone should be barred? Parents want to know that the teaching assistant in their child’s classroom has not been previously barred by the experts from working with children. Safeguarding children is too important to have such loopholes. I urge her to listen to the experts and think again.

[Mrs May]

Of course safeguarding children is important—we all have that as top priority. Of course, the regime that is in place will in future cover those who deal with vulnerable adults as well as children. That is important. The information that informs a decision on barring will be available as part of the check so that a decision can be made. However, as the right hon. Lady has raised a query about that, I am happy to write to her with the detail on it so that she will have that to inform her questions in future.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

T3. On a similar theme, law-abiding volunteers and employees in Bedford and Kempston are quite fed up with having to get a new Criminal Records Bureau check each time they change jobs. Can the Home Secretary tell me how those checks will change to avoid that ridiculous duplication that so debilitates so many volunteers and employees?

[Lynne Featherstone]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Many people write to me about the problem of having a new CRB check on each occasion. The new system will make the check portable. An employer will be able to go online to see whether an individual, who will have a unique number, ever had any information on them and whether anything has changed since they first had a check. That will make the whole system simple and quick, which will encourage volunteering, which is part of the purpose.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

T4. Given media reports that police patrols are being scaled back because of the price of fuel and that Gwent police spend £4 million on their car fleet, including fuel, what action are the Government taking to help our local police officers to keep their patrols on the road?

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman’s question is about fuel prices, which are not a matter for me, or taxation, or patrols. I repeat, however, that we are committed to working with police forces to maintain, and indeed to improve, the visibility and availability of police officers on patrol by making savings elsewhere in police forces.

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

T8. At this difficult economic time, what steps is the Minister taking to make it as straightforward as possible for British businesses to take on highly skilled foreign workers, albeit under the auspices of the immigration cap?

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

As my hon. Friend knows, we are introducing a new system for tier 1 and tier 2 for work-based visas, and at the same time we are speeding up the visa both for businesses and for more general visitors. The biggest single complaint has been about the delays in the issuing of visas. I am happy to assure him that we are concerned about that. We are already beginning to see improvements, so that in many of the key markets where we need to operate our visa system is working better than ever before, and we are meeting our service standards.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

T5. When responding to an earlier question on the trafficking strategy, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), said that it would include elements of prevention, action on the border and policing. Does she recognise that a very important element of any anti-trafficking strategy is victim care, and that victim care is usually provided by voluntary organisations? The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), the chair of the all-party group on human trafficking, spoke of a big society solution. Can we have a big society participation in the anti-trafficking strategy?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I think we would encourage the big society to get involved at all levels, but as the hon. Lady says, victim care is extremely important. We are providing accommodation and advocacy and all the things that are necessary to help the unfortunate victims of trafficking out of their terrible situation.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

The previous Government’s figures demonstrate that only one hour in seven was spent on patrol by the average patrol officer. Given the Government’s anti-bureaucracy reforms, will the Home Secretary advise us on her view of the number of hours the average patrol officer will spend on the beat?

[Mrs May]

We are absolutely clear, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice said in response to a previous question, that we want the visibility and availability of police officers to increase and improve. The latest figures from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary show that 11% of officers are visible and available at any one time—[Interruption.] Before we get chuntering from Opposition Members, that is not to say that other police officers are wasting their time—of course they are not—but visibility and availability need to improve.

[Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)]

T6. Hundreds of my constituents have signed a petition supporting the reopening to the public of Sowerby Bridge police station. Will the Minister urgently consider the matter, because it is at the very heart of the community and would play a huge role in preventing and tackling crime in the area?

[Nick Herbert]

We do not directly control whether police stations are open—that is a matter for the chief constable and the police authority—but there are other ways in which the police can improve their visibility to the public. For instance, they can set up bases in supermarkets. It is not just about buildings; they can also share facilities with other organisations. However, these are matters for chief constables to decide as they find effective ways to be visible in their communities.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

In the past six weeks, the Minister for Immigration has answered about 50 statistical questions from Members, including me. I say “answered”, but in two thirds of these cases, it was not possible for him to provide sound information, either because the data were not recorded or because they were not quality assured and may not have withstood typical audit scrutiny. What assessment has he made of the quality of management information in the UK Border Agency?

[Damian Green]

I am not sure that my hon. Friend is exactly right. Where an answer makes it clear that the information is management information, it simply means that the data are not Office for National Statistics-quality statistics. However, those answers will include statistical information, even though it might be slightly rough and ready, precisely because I am determined, when we have the information available, to make it available to hon. Members as part of the Government’s commitment to transparency.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

T7. Northumbria police force is losing more than 1,000 jobs, including 300 front-line police. As a result, young recruits promised a job last year have now been told that those jobs are no longer available. What guarantee, therefore, can the Secretary of State offer to the people of the north-east that crime will not rise as a result of the cuts? Furthermore, how can she reassure those who have worked so hard to win a job that they will be prioritised—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. One question must be enough, because other people are waiting.

[Mrs May]

I refer the hon. Lady to the response given by the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice to an earlier question on this matter. The Government have made it absolutely clear that there is no simple link between levels of crime and the number of police officers. Indeed, that view has been supported by a report from the Select Committee on Home Affairs.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

Will the Minister responsible for antisocial behaviour assure me—in relation to the review he will be conducting—that when antisocial behaviour is aggravated by the victim’s disability, it will be taken into account when considering the severity of the disposal?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting this issue, which is at the heart of the call handling pilots launched at the start of the year to identify vulnerability, and to ensure that there is better join-up between the police, local authorities and the health service in order to ensure that where there are specific issues, they are identified more speedily and more effectively. Bullying and intimidation linked to disabilities are utterly reprehensible and unacceptable, and the system needs to improve to identify where these problems are occurring.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

T9. Will the Minister inform the House of when his Department intends to review the current definition of an air weapon under the Firearms Act 1968?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Home Affairs Committee has produced its report on firearms generally. We are still considering the issue and will respond to the report in due course.

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

Residents of Hastings and Rye warmly welcome the additional information from the crime and policing website, but is the Home Secretary aware of the additional service it provides to women who may be coming home late at night and might feel vulnerable? That is particularly important ahead of international women’s day tomorrow.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. I am pleased to tell her that I was able to join the Prime Minister in meeting a group of readers from Company magazine recently who were raising exactly the problems of women walking home at night. I was able to point them to the crime maps as a useful tool.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

T10. Will the Minister confirm that the police officers working in Northumbria force’s public protection units dealing with serious crime such as child abuse and domestic crime are classified as front-line police officers?

[Nick Herbert]

Yes.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

This morning I attended the opening of the Kingswood one-stop shop, which includes a fixed police presence. It is the first time that the police have had a base in Kingswood since the previous Government closed the local police station. Will the Minister commend South Gloucestershire council and Avon and Somerset police for their collaborative working to ensure that front-line services are protected, and further consider how police authorities and local councils can work together to ensure that services are shared for public benefit?

[Nick Herbert]

I thank my hon. Friend. That provides a very good example of innovative ways of working that can increase the visibility of policing, and the co-operation between the police force and other agencies provides a perfect example of the way we need to go.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

When asked to justify the cuts to policing in Greater Manchester, the Minister for Policing, and Criminal Justice said that cuts could be made to the back office. May I tell him that at least 1,600 police staff are being made redundant in Greater Manchester on top of the 1,377 uniformed officers? I ask him again how he can justify that.

[Mrs May]

We are looking to police forces first and foremost to take cuts in the back office, but that is not just about individuals; it is about improving procurement and collaborating with other forces to make savings. Significant sums of money—hundreds of millions of pounds—can be saved by better procurement, better IT services and collaboration between forces.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

It is clear from my own experience of Leeds Rhinos and its legal firm Chadwick Lawrence that the current immigration system for foreign international sports people is inherently biased against rugby league players. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of the Rugby Football League to look at the criteria, so that this problem—

[Mr Speaker]

We would be even more grateful for a reply so that we can move on.

[Damian Green]

I would, of course, be happy to be enlightened about the immigration system as it affects rugby league.

Libya and the Middle East

Monday 7th March 2011 Commons Chamber

15:31

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on developments in Libya and the middle east since the Prime Minister’s statement on Monday 28 February.

Members on all sides of the House will be concerned by the violence in Libya. The Gaddafi regime is launching military counter-attacks against opposition forces. There has been intense fighting in the east and centre of the country along the coastal strip between the opposition-held Ras Lanuf and the Gaddafi stronghold of Sirte. There are credible reports of the use of helicopter gunships against civilians by Government forces and unconfirmed reports of a helicopter and jet shot down over Ras Lanuf. There have also been serious attacks against the cities of Zawiyah and Misrata in the west by soldiers backed up by anti-aircraft guns and by tanks. Many of those taken to the city’s hospital, including a young boy of 10, have wounds to the head, neck and chest; and supplies of food, fuel and medicines have been all but cut off.

In Tripoli, there have been disturbing reports of hostage taking and large military deployments around the city designed to consolidate Gaddafi’s position and intimidate his opponents. His forces remain in control of Tripoli, Sabha and Sirte, but his authority is contested in large swathes of the country where local tribes have withdrawn their support. There is a clear risk of protracted conflict and an extremely dangerous and volatile situation in large parts of the country.

Our position is that Colonel Gaddafi must put an immediate stop to the use of armed force against civilians and hand over power without delay to a Government who recognise the aspirations of the Libyan people and are more representative and accountable.

On 5 March, opposition groups in the east formed an interim national council based in Benghazi. Ministers and FCO officials are in contact with members of this council, who welcomed the idea of a British diplomatic mission to Libya. This engagement is vital in gaining a better understanding of the political, military and humanitarian situation on the ground.

Last week, I authorised the dispatch of a small British diplomatic team to eastern Libya in uncertain circumstances, which we judged required protection, to build on these initial contacts and to assess the scope for closer diplomatic dialogue. I pay tribute to that team. It was withdrawn yesterday after a serious misunderstanding about its role, leading to its temporary detention. This situation was resolved and it was able to meet council president, Mr Abdul-Jalil. However, it was clearly better for this team to be withdrawn. We intend to send further diplomats to eastern Libya in due course.

The safety of British nationals in Libya remains an important priority. Since the Prime Minister’s statement, the UK military have undertaken a further two evacuation operations from the port of Benghazi, with HMS Cumberland and HMS York both evacuating British nationals and foreign citizens. In total, we have evacuated more than 600 British nationals from Libya, as well as nationals from many other countries. I hope that the House will join me in paying tribute to all those involved. We are aware of about 180 British nationals still in Libya, some of whom—including some journalists—have told us that they currently intend to stay. We continue to provide assistance and information for those who wish to leave. We are also working with other countries to isolate the regime, and to ensure that anyone responsible for abuses or contemplating further crimes knows that there will be a day of reckoning.

On Thursday, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court announced his investigation of alleged crimes in Libya, following referral by the UN Security Council. We welcome that swift action, and will do all that we can to assist. We also welcome the important decision by the UN General Assembly, following referral by the UN Human Rights Council, to suspend Libya’s membership of the council. European Union sanctions on Libya came into full force last Thursday. That was the quickest-ever delivery of an EU sanctions package, and it goes beyond the sanctions imposed by the UN. It includes an arms embargo on Libya, and an assets freeze and visa ban on Gaddafi and 25 of his associates—strong foundations on which we can build.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we are making contingency plans for all eventualities in Libya. NATO has been tasked to work on a range of options, including the possible establishment of a no-fly zone, the evacuation of civilians, international humanitarian assistance, and support for the international arms embargo. There will be further NATO meetings this week. At the UN Security Council, we are working closely with partners, on a contingency basis, on elements of a resolution on a no-fly zone, making clear the need for regional support, a clear trigger for such a resolution, and an appropriate legal basis.

My right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary visited Tunisia on Friday to assess the humanitarian situation. The UK has flown in blankets for 38,000 people and tents for over 10,000 people, and has sent aeroplanes to repatriate more than 6,000 stranded Egyptians and 500 Bangladeshis. This remains primarily a logistical emergency, but it is essential that international agencies are provided with unfettered access to help to prevent the development of a humanitarian crisis. With our support, the UN’s emergency co-ordinator, Baroness Amos, convened a special meeting in Geneva today to call for unfettered humanitarian access inside Libya. HMS York has also delivered 1.3 tonnes of Swedish medical supplies to Benghazi.

The Prime Minister will attend an emergency meeting of the European Council on 11 March, this Friday. We will use the Council to press for further action in response to the situation in Libya, and—as the Deputy Prime Minister made clear in Brussels last week—we will also urge the European Union to change radically its thinking about its neighbourhood. As I agreed with the French Foreign Minister in Paris on Thursday, it is time for European nations to be bold and ambitious, and to show that while Europe will not seek to dictate how these countries should run their affairs, we will always be the lasting friend of those who put in place the building blocks of strong civil societies, economic openness and political freedom. We must give every incentive to countries in the region to make decisions that bring freedom and prosperity. At the Council meeting, the Prime Minister will call for Europe to set out a programme to bring down trade barriers, to establish clearer conditions for the help that it provides, and to marshal its resources to act as a magnet for positive change in the region.

The G8 Foreign Ministers’ meeting will take place in Paris next week. It will provide a further opportunity to widen the international coalition addressing the crisis in Libya; to underline with the United States, Russia and others the urgency of progress on the middle east peace process and on Iran’s nuclear programme; and to reaffirm our collective support for political transition in Egypt and Tunisia and democratic reform in the wider region.

There has been welcome progress towards democratic transition in Egypt and Tunisia. There has also been further progress, including the announcement of a national referendum on constitutional reform in Egypt and of a date for elections in Tunisia. However, the resignations of the Prime Ministers of both Governments show that significant challenges remain. There continues to be instability in other countries, including Yemen. We have changed our travel advice: we now advise against all travel to the whole country, and recommend that British nationals without a pressing need to remain in Yemen leave using commercial means. We look to Governments across the region to respect human rights, including the right to peaceful protest, to avoid the use of force and to respond to legitimate aspirations for greater political openness and economic reform.

It remains more vital than ever that we press for a just and lasting resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We want to see an urgent return to negotiations, based on clear parameters, including the 1967 borders. We will work with all the parties to press for a decisive breakthrough this year. President Abbas is visiting the UK this week. I will discuss these issues with him tomorrow, when I will also confirm that, given the extent of our aid to the Palestinian Authority and our work with them, we will join many other countries in upgrading the status of the Palestinian delegation to London to the level of a mission.

If change and development can be achieved peacefully in the middle east, that will be the greatest advance in world affairs since central and eastern Europe changed so dramatically 20 years ago and many of those countries entered the European Union. If not, this could mark the start of even greater instability emanating from the region. It is vital for the people of these countries and the rest of the world that the international community play a coherent and ambitious role in supporting their aspirations. The British Government are deeply committed to that endeavour, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me advance sight of his statement today. I am grateful to him for his update on the situation in Libya and across the region.

First, let me begin by paying tribute to the bravery of the units of our armed forces that have operated in Libya during this crisis. Specifically, I praise their extraction of British nationals from the oilfields of Libya two weeks ago. This was done with an effectiveness and professionalism that is rightly seen as typical of Britain’s armed forces. Secondly, let me say to the Foreign Secretary that I appreciate just how tough this situation is. There is no manual for handling a wave of revolt in a tumultuous region. The tempo of change in the middle east and north Africa has hardly slowed in more than an month, and none of the policy challenges or ministerial judgments thrown up be these events is straightforward or easy.

On behalf of the Opposition, I should like to add my support and welcome for the Foreign Secretary’s announcement that the status of the Palestinian delegation in London is to be upgraded. He can rely on our support as he continues to make the case for renewed urgency in efforts to bring about real and meaningful negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Let me turn to the events of yesterday. I believe that I speak for many when I say that the news on Sunday that British diplomatic and military personnel were being held was seen as just the latest setback for the United Kingdom, and that it raises further serious questions about Ministers’ grip on and response to the unfolding events in Libya. First, we had the still unexplained decision by the Foreign Secretary, alone among European Foreign Ministers, to publicise reports that Gaddafi was already on his way to Venezuela. Then, the Foreign Office was late in securing charter flights and even in convening the Government’s emergency Committee, Cobra, when hundreds of UK nationals were stranded and clearly in danger. Then, last week, the option of a no-fly zone was first talked up and then talked down, with the US Defence Secretary warning against loose talk on the issue. Twice in as many weeks—after the events of this weekend, and following the flights fiasco—ministerial decisions have generated an embarrassment that could all too easily have become a tragedy.

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Benghazi courthouse that is serving as the headquarters of the interim national council is but 2 miles from where HMS Cumberland was berthed yesterday afternoon? Secondly, will he confirm that the Royal Marines have, on several occasions in recent days, assisted EU nationals from Benghazi on to royal naval warships in the area?

The Foreign Secretary has confirmed today that he personally authorised this mission. Given the outcome of the effort, will he now tell us whether he discussed the merits or demerits of the proposed course of action with senior officials? Did he discuss alternative means of achieving the mission’s aim with his senior officials ahead of his decision being taken? In particular, did he discuss the mission with the Prime Minister in advance of his decision to authorise it?

Will the Foreign Secretary share with the House his assessment of the impact of this weekend’s events on the credibility of British foreign policy with the Gaddafi regime in Tripoli and the opposition forces in Benghazi? Perhaps the Foreign Secretary has read the question asked by a spokesman for the opposition forces in today’s edition of The Times. Let me quote his words directly:

“If this is an official delegation why did they come with a helicopter? Why didn’t they [inform the revolutionary council] that ‘we are coming, we’d like to land at Benina airport’, or come through Egypt like all the journalists have done”.

Given those remarks, does the Foreign Secretary accept that if some new neighbours moved into his street, the British public would be entitled to wonder whether he would introduce himself by ringing the doorbell, or instead choose to climb over the fence in the middle of the night?

The Opposition support the Government’s aim of establishing a dialogue with Gaddafi’s opponents. We welcome today’s statement that further efforts will be made to engage with the opposition forces now running parts of Libya, but our welcome to that initiative is conditional, for it should be done in a considered, co-ordinated way with our European and NATO allies. The strategic objectives for the west—sustaining pressure on the regime; helping and where we can protecting the Libyan population; and over time working to assist in ensuring that popular revolt becomes more democratic government—do not divide this House.

This week’s meetings of the European Union and NATO remain opportunities to co-ordinate the international response and increase pressure on Gaddafi. May I therefore ask the Foreign Secretary whether he would consider requesting that the Arab League attend Friday’s EU summit, to signal clearly the breadth of international pressure, in the region and beyond, on the Gaddafi regime? That meeting will also be vital in shaping the humanitarian response. We of course welcome the work undertaken by the Department for International Development and the visit that the Secretary of State for International Development recently paid, but I hope that the Foreign Secretary will update the House on the work being done across Government to support a multilateral response though the World Food Programme, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and indeed the Commonwealth.

The EU summit can do more in sharpening the choice for Gaddafi’s supporters, explicitly stating that assistance will be available to a post-Gaddafi Libya in tackling trade barriers and supporting democratic progress. The summit can be equally explicit to those fighting for Gaddafi: those who leave his forces should be confident about the treatment that they will receive, while officers and mercenaries who stick with him should know that they will face serious consequences in future. At the NATO meeting this week the Secretary of State for Defence will have our support for considering the available contingencies. All options should remain on the table, given the need to sustain pressure on the regime.

Given that it remains uncertain whether this wave of revolt is over—we continue to hear talk of protests in countries beyond Tunisia, Libya and Egypt—can we be confident that lessons are being learned by Ministers about the serial bungling that we have seen in recent weeks? That is what the British people want, and that is what they deserve.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for much of what he said. He pays tribute to the bravery of the troops involved in extracting people from the oilfields two weekends ago, and he is absolutely right to do so. I welcome his welcome for the upgrading of the status of the Palestinian delegation. It is good that that is supported across the House.

There is clearly a good deal of agreement too on the overall outlines of western policy in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman stated, as we have, that all options should remain on the table. He underlined the importance of working closely with the Arab League, which should be continued in many different forms. I do not know whether that will be possible at the European Council this week, but we are in close touch with many of those Arab nations about all the options that may be necessary over the coming weeks and months. Close consultation and co-ordination with those nations will need to continue.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the multilateral aspects of humanitarian aid. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is in continuous close touch with Baroness Amos and all the organisations and people the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, including the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and others. We will keep up that work, including on co-ordinating our humanitarian and logistical assistance with France—we have co-ordinated it to a degree—which has also worked well.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked about matters that were raised in the House last Monday, so I will not go over all of them again, except to say this on his question about whether there has been a variation in policy on the no-fly zone and whether our policy is out of step with that of other nations: the policy is exactly as stated by the Prime Minister here at the Dispatch Box last Monday, which is that contingency planning should be done for a no-fly zone. It is exactly the same position as that expressed by Secretary Clinton last week, and exactly the same as that expressed by the French Government, as the French Foreign Minister and I made clear at our press conference last week. I think from what the right hon. Gentleman says that it also enjoys the support of the Opposition in this House, so I think we are aligned on this policy.

On the deployment in Benghazi, the factual points the right hon. Gentleman stated in his question are correct. On consultation with officials and who decided what and so on, we should be clear that when our staff go into a potentially dangerous situation, a level of protection is provided for them, based on professional and military advice. We do that in many places around the world, and it was, of course, important to do so in this situation. As I explained, I authorised such a mission to be made to put a diplomatic team into eastern Libya with protection. Of course, the timing and details of that are operational matters decided by the professionals, but Ministers must have confidence in their judgments, as I do, and must take full ministerial responsibility for all their actions and judgments, as, of course, I do. The Prime Minister and other Ministers were of course aware that we would attempt to put a diplomatic team into eastern Libya.

On the overall impact of British foreign policy on the Gaddafi regime and others, they are aware, as is much of the world, that we have led the way at the United Nations Security Council and drafted the resolution that was passed last weekend, that we led the way at the UN Human Rights Council, gathering the signatures that led to the suspension of Libya, and that we are at the forefront both of implementing the assets freeze and other measures that are putting pressure on the regime and of getting the message through in Libya that reference has been made to the International Criminal Court. The impact of British foreign policy on this situation and on the Gaddafi regime is extremely powerful, and that is how it will remain.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

Having as Defence Secretary helped to enforce the no-fly zone on Iraq to protect the Shia and the Kurds, I am well aware of the important benefits this can produce in the right circumstances, but does the Foreign Secretary agree that to take forward proposals for a no-fly zone in Libya two fundamental conditions must be satisfied: first, the United Nations Security Council must give explicit endorsement for such an operation; and, secondly, there must be unambiguous evidence that the Libyan revolutionary council representing the insurgents actually wants the very substantial degree of western military involvement that a no-fly zone would represent, because there is clear indication that many of them believe that Libyans should liberate their own country? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this proposal is unlikely to go anywhere until and unless these two conditions are satisfied?

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. and learned Friend is correct that all the contacts we have had with opposition forces in Libya suggest that they believe Libyans should be responsible for liberating their country. However, it is also only fair to point out that in those conversations they have already explicitly asked for a no-fly zone, and they do not see a contradiction between those two points.

My right hon. and learned Friend is right that many conditions should be attached to trying to implement a no-fly zone. The way I would state them at this moment is: there should be a demonstrable need that the whole world can see; there must be a clear legal basis for such a no-fly zone; and there must be clear support from the region—from the middle east and north African region—as well as from the people of Libya themselves, as my right hon. and learned Friend says. Those are the necessary conditions for such a no-fly zone to be created.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

In my experience of operations such as the one at the weekend, there was always an impressive level of operational detail in the submissions that came to me as Secretary of State and to the then Defence Secretary, because it is not the concept that could go wrong but the operational detail. Does the Secretary of State have any reason to believe that less detail is provided to this Administration than was provided to the previous one?

[Mr Hague]

No, absolutely not. The right hon. Gentleman is right about the level of detail normally provided. These operations vary enormously in their nature and the level of detail provided, but I have no reason to think that there would, in general, be a difference.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

There is much in the Foreign Secretary’s statement to be welcomed, but I regret what I am about to say. Is it not clear that this mission was ill conceived, poorly planned and embarrassingly executed? What is he going to do to restore the United Kingdom’s reputation in relation to foreign policy in the middle east, what will be the role of any further mission and what permissions will it seek before it goes?

[Mr Hague]

As I said, the United Kingdom, having led the way in so many of the ways I have described at the Security Council and the Human Rights Council, is in the forefront of western policy on this issue. Clearly, further contacts with the opposition in eastern Libya are necessary and desirable, for all the reasons that I set out in my statement. The opposition there has made it clear that it would welcome such contact, so it is important for that to go ahead. Clearly, it must go ahead on a very different basis from that on which it went ahead last week, and that is what we will set about.

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

Will the Foreign Secretary do nothing more to give the impression to the British public that what is under consideration is about being seen to be doing something, rather than about doing something? Will he do absolutely nothing—he has recognised this in answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind)—to undermine not only the impression but the priority for the Libyan opposition to be at the forefront of this? This should not be about some desire of the United Kingdom Government.

[Mr Hague]

Yes, the right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. In all the countries witnessing great change it is important that the solutions are owned by the people. That is why we have said that it is important that all the assistance that we provide and that we are calling on the European Union to provide is given in a way that is not patronising towards such countries, but does help to provide some of the necessary incentives to get them to move in the direction that we would consider—greater economic openness and political reform. That is true in Libya, too, and I am sure that Libyans are determined, as we should be, that they also own the solution to this. At the same time, the whole world has humanitarian responsibilities—the United Nations has, of course, a responsibility to protect—so we have to balance those against the consideration that he rightly points to.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. More than 50 right hon. and hon. Members are still seeking to catch my eye. If I am to have any realistic chance of accommodating them, as I usually strive to do, brevity is of the essence.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

Further to the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) on no-fly zones, on the two recent occasions when it has been tried—in Bosnia and in Iraq—such zones did not turn out to be effective and the intervention of ground troops was needed before the situation on the ground was resolved. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it makes sense to bear that in mind before making such an operational decision?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. That is one of the reasons why I said in answer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) that one of the criteria should be demonstrable need. If one was to consider implementing a no-fly zone, one would have to ensure that it would actually make a difference to the situation. The demonstrable need must be there if we are to consider doing it.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Since this crisis started, I have been reading The New York Times and European papers, and watching al-Jazeera, and the notion that Britain is seen as the leader in this crisis exists only in the Foreign Secretary’s head. Last week, to restore the good name of the London School of Economics, Sir Howard Davies did the honourable British thing and accepted his responsibilities. Has the Foreign Secretary considered his position at all?

[Mr Hague]

As I have said, I take full ministerial responsibility, as Ministers do. I believe very strongly in the doctrine of ministerial responsibility for everything that happens in a Minister’s Department, so I am very clear about that. We have been busy drafting the resolutions of the UN Security Council and the UN Human Rights Council while the right hon. Gentleman has been struggling to read the newspapers from around Europe.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the British Government and our partners are to be able to take the kind of difficult decisions that will be needed in the next few weeks, intelligence and information on the ground are of the first importance? Will he therefore reassure the House that whatever action is taken to secure that intelligence and information will not impede the deployment of British assets?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, absolutely—I certainly give that assurance.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

If the object of the mission was to make contact with the leaders of free Libya, why did those involved not go straight into Benghazi, as scores of international journalists have done? Does that not illustrate a lack of grip and competence right at the heart of government?

[Mr Hague]

As I explained earlier, in answer to the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), whenever we deploy diplomats in a dangerous situation, we provide a level of protection based on professional and military advice. We do that in several other countries, so it is not an unusual thing to have to do, and we did it on this occasion too.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Before considering any military intervention, will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that he is aware that when intervening in a civil war, it is all too easy to kill the people one is trying to help?

[Mr Hague]

Direct intervention in these situations is, of course, a momentous thing that must be considered carefully from every possible angle, and my right hon. Friend points to another angle that we have to consider. It is important to stress that the contingency planning that we have asked for in NATO does not constitute such direct intervention in a civil war, or near civil war, but involves the consideration of measures to protect the civilian population and the provision of humanitarian assistance if necessary. That is different from directly intervening in a conflict.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

The latest report of the UN Refugee Agency says that 170,000 people have fled to neighbouring countries, mostly to Egypt and Tunisia. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Black Watch is currently on stand-by to assist in supporting humanitarian efforts? Given its potential deployment, does he agree that now is not the time to consider closing its home barracks at Fort George outside Inverness?

[Mr Hague]

It is probably beyond the scope of this statement to go into the last point that the hon. Gentleman raises, but he is right to point to the huge numbers of people involved. The latest figures that I have seen show that more than 200,000 people have passed those borders. My right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary stresses that, at the moment, this is a logistical crisis of getting people to where they need to be, rather than what we would term a humanitarian crisis. Clearly, if the conflict in Libya becomes even more protracted and violent, such a humanitarian crisis may develop on top of that. That is why we are seeking to help and why we are already engaged in helping. Yes, the Black Watch would be available to assist with such humanitarian activity, but that is why it is on that degree of stand-by.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that strong civil societies with democratic freedoms will come about in the middle east and north Africa only if there is greater equality for women in those countries? Will his Department work with the Department for International Development to support all the efforts that will bring that end about?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I think that is absolutely right. We have to work with people in those societies without us in the western world telling them what to do. We have to work with the grain of their cultures and traditions, but the building up of civil society, improvements in human rights and the development of more open political activity should—certainly in my view and clearly in my hon. Friend’s view too—include a much increased role for women in those societies. That is something that, in the right way, we should certainly promote.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary does not need me to tell him that when we engage in the kind of operations that took place over recent days, there is risk a to serving British service people, as well as to those with whom they come into contact. That must be proportionate. In this case, is the right hon. Gentleman confident that what appears to have ended in farce could not have ended in tragedy?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman points to an important fact. There are risks involved in many of the things that we have to do in such situations. There were risks involved in what happened the previous weekend in the rescue of oil workers from the desert. One of those flights was engaged with small arms fire when it landed in the desert, so yes, there are risks involved, and it is precisely because there are risks involved in the deployment of our staff in such situations that we act on professional and military advice to give them protection.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I speak as someone who has operated underneath a rather ineffective no-fly zone. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that if we get involved in a no-fly zone, we will be prepared to bring down aircraft and helicopters, and even strike anti-aircraft assets in the sovereign territory of Libya?

[Mr Hague]

For a no-fly zone to be implemented, it would clearly have to be effective, as well as to have the demonstrable need that I spoke about earlier. My hon. Friend is getting me into matters that are properly for the contingency planning that is now being done in NATO. Those are matters to be scoped out in any planning for a no-fly zone, and in consultation with other countries beyond NATO as well.

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

It is useful to follow the previous question, because my question is about hitherto unsuccessful no-fly zones, where the confusion between military and humanitarian aid caused undue problems. In his contingency planning, is the Foreign Secretary planning to distinguish strictly between those areas still controlled by Colonel Gaddafi, which would therefore not receive humanitarian aid, and those controlled by the rebellion, which would receive it, or is he not prepared to make such a distinction?

[Mr Hague]

There is a range of options to be considered, and the hon. Lady draws attention to how many different ways one can look at the issue. Those different options need to be examined. NATO Defence Ministers will be able to discuss the matter later in the week, so I cannot give a specific answer now to her question. All those considerations will be taken into account.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I urge my right hon. Friend to take credit for the operations that go right, as well as responsibility for the operations that go wrong? May I remind him of the aftermath of the first Gulf war, when the fatal error was to allow Saddam Hussein to fly his helicopters to oppress his own people again? The Government are right to lead the debate about a no-fly zone, which is gaining support among voices in the United States, as well as from France.

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I take the point that my hon. Friend makes and I am grateful for his support for the position that we have taken on contingency planning. On the question of taking credit for what goes right as well as blame for what goes wrong, having in the past led the Conservative party for four years, I have never heard of that notion before.

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

Up to about a fortnight ago, we were busy selling arms to Gaddafi’s bloodstained regime. Does the Foreign Secretary understand that there is a great divide between giving humanitarian aid to the victims of Gaddafi’s regime, and military intervention? On the latter, there seems to be in the House and certainly in the country at large—and I believe it is the right attitude to take—no appetite for military intervention in Libya.

[Mr Hague]

We will not take too many lectures from the Opposition on the issue of selling things to the Gaddafi regime or wider issues of policy towards Libya, but of course there is a difference between humanitarian assistance and direct military intervention. As I explained earlier, the options that we are asking NATO to look at are essentially options to protect the civilian population or to deliver the necessary humanitarian assistance. That is different from direct military intervention.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Following the scandal of the financial links between Libya and the London School of Economics and other British universities, will the Foreign Secretary examine what the previous Labour Government did to help facilitate those links? Does he not agree that the fish rots from the head down, and will he hold an independent inquiry to examine the previous Government’s insidious links with Libya?

[Mr Hague]

I am sure that there will be lessons to be learned from that. We are a little preoccupied with what is going on at the moment, but there will be a time to learn all the lessons from past relationships with some of the systems and regimes now being overthrown by their own people.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

In the light of the tragic deaths of three Bangladeshi nationals during a repatriation mission from Libya, what steps are being taken to ensure the safety of all those being repatriated? What further assistance will the UK Government provide to support and repatriate those stranded in neighbouring countries?

[Mr Hague]

We will continue to provide support as necessary. All accidents in these situations, and certainly deaths, are very regrettable, as we would agree immediately across the House. We have assisted in the evacuation of more than 500 Bangladeshis and more than 6,000 Egyptians. In doing so, their safety is the paramount concern—it is for their safety that we are undertaking the operation in the first place. The hon. Lady can rest assured that the utmost care is being taken. We cannot guarantee that no accidents will happen, but great care is taken and will continue to be taken in the operations.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Realistically, given our resources, or lack thereof, surely there is no way we can or should take the lead in a no-fly zone. Indeed, will my right hon. Friend accept that after two interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the British public have not the slightest appetite for getting involved militarily in a third Muslim country?

[Mr Hague]

As I have said, what are not being actively introduced at the moment, but for which we want to do the contingency planning, are measures to protect the civilian population or deliver humanitarian assistance where it is needed. There might be an appetite for that if there is a demonstrable need. I set out several criteria earlier, and any action along those lines should be judged against them. Several hon. Members have drawn attention to previous no-fly zones and conflicts. Should we learn lessons from what has happened? Yes, we certainly should.

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

Two weeks ago, we witnessed the debacle of the Foreign Office trying to arrange a Tripoli airport rescue mission, and last week the Prime Minister refused to rule out arming rebel groups in Libya, and those are the same groups that held our diplomats and soldiers over the weekend. Can the Foreign Secretary give an assurance that this week will not be the third week of disasters by the Government?

[Mr Hague]

If it is a protracted conflict that goes on for some time, it will throw up many challenges in addition to those we have already faced. Some of those are diplomatic, and as I have said the UK has led the way on that. Some are humanitarian, and the UK is playing a leading role in that, as we have discussed. There are other areas where we have certainly had difficulties, such as those of a couple of weeks ago to which the hon. Gentleman refers. On the other hand, after those difficulties we have pulled out and evacuated British nationals, ahead of many other nations, and helped people of about 30 other nationalities to leave Libya during our operations. Perhaps he should take a lesson from my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and acknowledge that although not everything goes right, the UK has done many things properly and well over the past few weeks.

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

There are many non-violent options that have not yet been explored. May I please encourage my right hon. Friend to look in particular at the formation, under chapter 7, of an escrow account for Libyan oil revenues in trust for the Libyan people and apart from the Gaddafi regime?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, we continue to look at other options on top of the asset freeze and the measures we have already taken. My hon. Friend will be familiar with the measures we took to stop the delivery of what has added up to about £1 billion in bank notes to the Gaddafi regime. We continue to look at other ways to reduce the financial flows to the Gaddafi regime that might be used to support the violence and attempts to suppress the civilian population’s protests, of which we have all heard and some of which I have described. We will certainly be looking at that kind of measure.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Who, if anyone, did the diplomatic mission believe it had arranged to see, what did it think was the agreed agenda, and why were the missionaries issued with multiple identities and passports?

[Mr Hague]

As I have explained, the missionaries were to make contact with opposition groups in Libya in order to assess the humanitarian situation there, and it will be necessary to have further diplomatic presence and diplomatic contact in order to do that. I am not going into further operational details about that for entirely obvious reasons: other missions sometimes take place in other parts of the world. The mission under consideration met the president of the national council that the opposition have formed, and that is the basis for further contact between the United Kingdom and those opposition groups.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary could elaborate on that point. I am keen to know what direct contact either our embassy or his other officials have established with the chair of the national Libyan council, Mustapha Abdul-Jalil.

[Mr Hague]

The diplomatic team that was there at the weekend did have a meeting with him, and we have had a range of contacts with other figures in the opposition. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that several figures have defected from the Gaddafi regime to the opposition, and I have spoken to some of them myself, including General Younis, one of the Ministers who took some of the special forces over to the other side in Libya, so our contact has been with Mr Jalil, that particular general and other figures among the opposition forces in eastern Libya.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary obviously has a huge area of responsibility, but I am very surprised that in his statement he said very little about the crying need for human rights and justice in Saudi Arabia, and nothing about the ongoing crisis in Bahrain. The contagion throughout north Africa of the thirst for democracy, liberty and human rights is universal, and the Government should recognise it as such. It is actually more important than selling arms.

[Mr Hague]

It is true, of course, that it would be possible to make a much longer statement about the situation in the middle east, but it might be necessary for Ministers to make statements over many months, going into the details of many countries, so of course I recognise that it is possible to say more about those situations. I referred to them in my statement—where we called for people to be able to protest peacefully. It is also important that, where protests occur, policing techniques are used that allow for peaceful protest and, wherever possible, do not encourage or lead to violence. That is a message we convey to all nations, as well as the message that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister expressed in his speech in the Kuwaiti Parliament, calling on all nations in the region to respect legitimate aspirations for economic development and more open and flexible political systems.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Do events in Libya and the middle east carry any lessons at all for the Government, given the talk about possible British participation in no-fly zones and the decision to stand down the carriers and the Harriers that would be essential to carry out any such operation?

[Mr Hague]

It is not true that such facilities are necessary to implement a no-fly zone, because, in the case of Libya, ground bases are available and no nation has used an aircraft carrier for the recent evacuation of their citizens. The United Kingdom still has and will continue to have formidable military assets, including in air power. We are a part of the contingency planning for what might happen, but it would not be necessary to have an aircraft carrier to execute such a plan.

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

In acknowledging the difficulty of deciding how best to protect the Libyan people, I wonder what discussions the Foreign Secretary had with our partners in view of the danger and the potentially counter-productive nature of the mission.

[Mr Hague]

We have discussions with our partners in NATO and in the European Union, and indeed more broadly in the Arab world, about this entire crisis, about the future of Libya and about the future of the entire region. Obviously, the mission into eastern Libya that we are describing was a United Kingdom-only mission, and not subject to discussion with other nations.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

If the European External Action Service has a point, it is surely to engage in a timely fashion in its very near abroad. Is my right hon. Friend aware of any action being taken by Baroness Ashton in advance of this Friday’s meeting beyond cancelling a few visas and imposing a few trade sanctions?

[Mr Hague]

Baroness Ashton has recently visited a number of states in the region, including Egypt and Tunisia. It will be important for the European Union, including Baroness Ashton and her organisation, to play a role in what we are calling on the European Union to do in changing its policy to one of greater openness towards the countries of north Africa and to providing incentives for them to move towards economic openness and political reform. I hope that all the nations of the European Union, and its organs, will take part in that.

[Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State spoke earlier about the plight of refugees. Up until the middle of last week, 10,000 to 15,000 people were crossing the border into Tunisia on a daily basis. Since then, that number has dropped dramatically, and on Thursday only 2,000 refugees crossed the border. UNHCR has expressed concerns that people are being prevented from leaving Libya. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of this drop in numbers, and to whom has he spoken to help to inform that assessment?

[Mr Hague]

That is a very good point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has expressed the very same concern. A variety of things may be happening in this regard. Most of the people who have left have been migrant workers from other countries, and so it is possible that the numbers who remain are diminishing. It is also possible that the extent of the fighting that is taking place is making it harder for people to leave, or that they are being discouraged from leaving. My right hon. Friend is assessing that with his international partners and multilateral organisations. It is difficult for us to know exactly what is happening on the ground, but we will continue to assess it.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

May I congratulate the Government and the armed forces on the successful evacuation of thousands of people by sea and air under very difficult circumstances? May I also, though, caution my right hon. Friend that humanitarian aid supported by military means is very unlikely to be seen in that way by the protagonists in a civil war?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I entirely take my hon. Friend’s word of caution; he is quite right to point that out. If we came to the point of thinking that that might be necessary, it would be a difficult decision to take. As the Prime Minister made clear last Monday, it is also right to do the contingency planning about many of the options that might have to be taken in a whole variety of circumstances. However, I stress to my hon. Friend that this is contingency planning rather than a decision to undertake the kind of operation that he is concerned about.

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

It is good that the Foreign Secretary is admitting that the mission failed, and of course it must be right to protect our diplomats in the way that he outlined. However, was not the mission always going to fail given that people arrived, unannounced, in a helicopter full of military equipment in such a volatile situation? What does he think of the role of our ambassador in the conversation that was reported by Colonel Gaddafi and the relationship between the two ambassadors, when the ambassador himself did not know what was going on?

[Mr Hague]

Of course, there are many telephone conversations going on. I myself speak to people on both sides of the divide in Libya, including to the Libyan Foreign Minister, Musa Kusa, who is still part of the Gaddafi regime. As there are British nationals still in Libya, it is important for us to be able to have a channel of communication directly with the Libyan regime, as well as with leading figures in the opposition. It is therefore no surprise that such telephone conversations are going on, particularly in the situation that we had over the weekend. The background to the mission is exactly as I described it earlier. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, as I made clear in my statement, the mission ended up meeting the president of the national council of the opposition forces, and that is now the basis for further diplomatic contact with them.

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

Apart from the irony of sending a British warship named after a pork sausage to rescue Brits from a Muslim country, is not the real lesson from this situation that we should stop meddling in other people’s affairs and be very careful before we lecture countries on democracy when we have armed their autocratic rulers with crowd-control weapons?

[Mr Hague]

I differ a little from my hon. Friend on that point. When we had to evacuate British nationals from Benghazi, it was important to send the nearest royal naval ship available, irrespective of its name. That is not the only vessel that has been involved. HMS York has also been there, and my hon. Friend will understand that I am particularly proud of that as a Yorkshireman. I hope he has no difficulty with that. Those ships have been there not to meddle in anybody else’s affairs, but primarily to take humanitarian aid and to evacuate our nationals and the nationals of many other countries out of harm’s way.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary has announced a change in travel advice for Yemen. Last week, the Secretary of State for International Development generously, and correctly in my view, increased aid to Yemen to record levels. Is it still the Government’s position to support the Government of Yemen while calling for reforms?

[Mr Hague]

We do not take sides in Yemeni politics. We of course want a close and friendly relationship with the state of Yemen. We support the Government of Yemen in carrying out necessary reforms. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, when I visited Yemen a few weeks ago, I called on its President to deliver a detailed development and poverty reduction plan, and to combat international terrorism within Yemen effectively. Those are the necessary priorities for Yemen. I also called on him to be generous to opposition parties in charting the way forward constitutionally for Yemen, and asked opposition parties to be generous to him in finding an agreed way forward. We are still engaged in that process, including through delivering the aid to Yemen that the right hon. Gentleman highlighted in his question. It is the Foreign Office’s responsibility to give up-to-date travel advice to reflect the difficult situation in that country. The situation has deteriorated in recent days, which is why we have changed the travel advice.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

If we have no aircraft carriers, which are needed to implement a no-fly zone, from which base would rescue helicopters for downed pilots fly?

[Mr Hague]

That will be the subject of the contingency planning that we are talking about. Clearly, there are many military bases along the south of NATO. I have referred to the need for clear support from the region if we are to implement a no-fly zone. That has to be borne in mind in answering my hon. Friend’s question.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

My constituent Jennifer Currie, her eight-month-old baby Nadia and her six-year-old daughter Alisha, happily, are on their way home from Libya. My caseworker spent the weekend arranging for them to travel home from Gharian, where they were hiding from the fighting. It took the Foreign Office 36 hours to agree to pay for a taxi to the airport, and my caseworker had to persuade the Foreign Office to arrange flights home. Jennifer had to agree to pay £1,400 for the tickets when she got home. Will the Foreign Secretary investigate why the arrangements were left to an MP’s caseworker, and why the penniless mother of an eight-month-old baby was asked to pay for her children’s escape from a war zone?

[Mr Hague]

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who has responsibility for this region, has worked on this case and does not accept the hon. Gentleman’s description of it. We are delighted that his constituent and her children have been able to get out of Libya and to safety. FCO staff in London bought flights for her and her children, and ensured that she had assistance at Tripoli airport. They met her in Tunis and ensured that she made her flight, via Frankfurt, to the United Kingdom. We are not expecting her to repay the cost of the air fares.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

As we have heard, there have been calls in some quarters for the west to arm the rebels. Students of history know that we have in the past armed communist guerrillas in Malaya against the Japanese and the mujaheddin in Afghanistan against the Russians, both with unforeseen long-term consequences. Will the Foreign Secretary reassure the House that he will exercise great caution in the face of such calls?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, absolutely. I also point out that the whole of Libya is subject to a United Nations international arms embargo.

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

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that there are still questions about his judgment at the weekend? Did he not realise the difficulties that sending in a helicopter would create? Did he not realise that, in the sensitive situation in Libya, arming people to the teeth would be a red rag? Will he please answer the question about how he made those decisions? Does he not think that they have left us looking risible in the world community?

[Mr Hague]

I set that out earlier, so I am not sure that it is necessary to go over it again. Clearly, some of the judgments are difficult. The previous weekend, we sent armed people into Libya to perform different missions, so such judgments unfortunately have to be made quite regularly. This mission turned out differently from those on the previous weekend.

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

May I warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s reiteration today that there will be no major intervention without the UN’s backing, unlike what happened under the Labour Government? Will he outline the role of UK diplomats in the consular service in evacuating citizens from Libya?

[Mr Hague]

As I said earlier, the measures for which we are making contingency plans require demonstrable need, a clear legal basis and clear support from the region for them to be implemented. UK diplomats have done an amazing job. For example, the people in our rapid deployment team who went to Tripoli airport the week before last worked day and night for four to five days, assisting British nationals to be evacuated. They did an outstanding job, which has not always been widely recognised in the commentary on those matters. I pay tribute to them today.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Will the Foreign Secretary now apologise for the fiasco over the weekend?

[Mr Hague]

I think that I have made my position on all that clear.

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

Whatever political capital or trust there was to justify international military intervention in the middle east was spent several times over—and squandered—by the Labour Government. May I therefore suggest that any future intervention in which we participate is strictly rooted in humanitarian support so that we can start to regain the trust that Labour Members squandered and lost?

[Mr Hague]

I agree with my hon. Friend that there is much mistrust among the public about what might happen in such situations. I also reassure him that the measures for which we are doing the contingency planning—a no-fly zone, protection of humanitarian assistance—are directed at protecting the civilian population if that becomes necessary and there is a demonstrable need to do so.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Further to the questions from the hon. Members for South Dorset (Richard Drax) and for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Foreign Secretary indicated that he has identified some countries from which a no-fly zone could be operated. What are those countries and what discussions has the FCO had with them?

[Mr Hague]

Although those are entirely legitimate questions, they can be answered only after the contingency planning has been done either in NATO or with partners outside NATO. It is not possible currently to specify which countries would play such an active role.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

In 2003, when Tony Blair led Colonel Gaddafi out of the cold, he did so on the basis that Libya gave up its weapons of mass destruction. We now read and have heard briefings in the past week that Gaddafi is perhaps in possession of mustard gas. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether that is true? If it is true, when did the Government know and why was it covered up?

[Mr Hague]

It is true, as far as we know, that Libya continues to have stocks of mustard gas. We continue to call on the Libyan regime to ensure that any stocks it has are absolutely secured, because the level of violence in Libya gives rise to concern about what might happen to them.

I am not sure whether the previous Government had knowledge of the stocks or why they did not comment on them, but this Government have been very open about our knowledge that those stocks exist, and they must be secured.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does the Foreign Secretary recall the day when Minister Michael Heseltine, clad in a camouflage jacket and accompanied by 1,500 soldiers and police, arrived at Molesworth peace camp by helicopter in order to evict 17 peace campaigners and a goat? Is it not true of the Government that our brave British soldiers—our brave British lions—are still led by Tory Ministers who have overdosed on James Bond?

[Mr Hague]

I do not fully recall the incident that the hon. Gentleman describes—I was at university at the time and was probably doing something else—but I take his point. However, I would have thought that he would have taken this opportunity to pay tribute to the work that our troops did in rescuing so many people from the Libyan desert the weekend before last.

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

On that note, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating and thanking the crews of HMS Cumberland and HMS York, which are based in my constituency, who did such a professional job in that evacuation? Will he thank the Maltese Government for hosting our nationals who were involved, and will he explain our relationship with Malta and under what conditions we are operating?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. One answer will suffice.

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to those things. The Defence Secretary spoke to the captain of HMS Cumberland only this morning and the Prime Minister has spoken to him in recent days. Cumberland and York have been doing a great job, exactly in the way that my hon. Friend describes. I welcome the opportunity to place on record our thanks to Malta for the assistance it has given to enable us to evacuate our nationals and to take humanitarian supplies into Libya. Malta is a neutral country, which we must always respect, and it is a member of the European Union and of the Commonwealth. We are enthusiastic that it is one of our partners in both those organisations. Recent events have reminded us of something that our predecessors in the 1940s and the 1800s learned—the immense strategic importance of Malta. We will do everything we can to strengthen our friendship with that country in the coming weeks and months.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I am sure the Foreign Secretary is aware that a number of groups over the years, particularly Christian and voluntary groups, have visited the Palestinian territories, as Caritas did recently. What are we doing to get the peace process up and running, and in particular, what pressure are we putting on Israel?

[Mr Hague]

We are doing everything we can diplomatically. As I said, that is what we will discuss with President Abbas tomorrow. We have called on the US to join us in saying that the parameters of a settlement should include stating that it will be based on 1967 borders. We also need a just settlement for refugees, and for Jerusalem to be the future capital of both states in a two-state solution. We voted that way at the UN Security Council three Fridays ago—we voted among the group of 14 of 15 nations on the Security Council for the resolution concerning settlements in the occupied territories. Those settlements are illegal, and we have called on Israel to extend and then to renew its freeze on that building. This country is a friend to Israelis and to Palestinians. We believe that it is in the vital interests of both that the middle east peace process receives greater urgency from the international community, and not less urgency in the light of recent events.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

To say that the situation in Libya is volatile, uncertain and dangerous would clearly be an understatement, which is why I and my constituents are immensely proud of the brave work of our special forces on behalf of their Queen and country. Will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity to congratulate our special forces on the courage they show?

[Mr Hague]

Yes. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I join him in his congratulations.

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

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that one of the lessons of the past few days is that we must be careful about the number of western military missions seeking to operate in Libya, lest they play into Gaddafi’s hands in respect of foreign interference and undermine the very opposition we are trying to reinforce?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, of course, but I think that the hon. Gentleman would also join me in accepting that there have been necessary military missions, including for the evacuation of some of our workers. We have just been praising the work of HMS Cumberland and HMS York. Those were also military missions. We do not go ahead with any military mission unless we believe it to be genuinely necessary.

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

In Egypt, we have now seen a referendum on eight amendments to the constitution put forward by the interim military Government. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that all the amendments must be agreed by a new Parliament elected through free and fair elections in order to have a genuine democratic mandate?

[Mr Hague]

There is no doubt that we want to see free and fair elections in Egypt for the presidency and the Parliament. The people who have brought about the revolution in Egypt are also absolutely determined about that, however, so they do not need the United Kingdom to show our determination on that front—although we certainly agree. It is the people of Egypt who own what has happened, and of course we now want to see the development of a stable, open democracy in that country.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary is right to say that things have gone well and other things have not gone so well. However, with the decision not to convene Cobra for several days, the no-fly zone announcement, which was on and then off, the flights fiasco and the announcement about Venezuela, the mishaps have been coming thick and fast. Would he not be in a good position to try and rebuild his credibility if he apologised to the House and to those who might feel that their lives have potentially been put in danger by the mishaps that have befallen them over the past two weeks?

[Mr Hague]

The policy on the no-fly zone, which the hon. Gentleman asks about, has been the same throughout. As I have explained, the evacuation of British nationals was completed ahead of that of many other countries. Indeed, we assisted people from about 30 other countries in doing so. When one looks at those things, they will see that the United Kingdom has a good deal to be proud of.

Points of Order

Monday 7th March 2011 Commons Chamber

16:42

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following last week’s overwhelming yes vote for law-making powers for the National Assembly for Wales, both the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor made statements over the weekend indicating the UK Government’s intention to begin a Calman-like process for Wales. Is it in order that these statements were made at their conference in Cardiff rather than in this House or the Welsh Assembly?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice of his intended point of order. I confess that I am not aware of any Government statement on this subject. Neither am I aware, notwithstanding what he just said in pursuit of his point of order, that there is a matter of order on which I can rule. However, I suspect that being a perspicacious Member he will find other opportunities to pursue the matter through the Order Paper and in the House.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will have seen the large number of Members interested in the Foreign Secretary’s statement just now and the intensity of the questioning. Have you had any suggestions that there is going to be a full day’s debate on north Africa and the middle east in the very near future?

[Mr Speaker]

In the first instance, where Government time is concerned, that is a matter for the Government. Secondly, it could be a matter for the Backbench Business Committee. I was trying to think whether there was anything further in my mind on the subject, but I cannot recall off the top of my head any other plan. However, there are those two possible avenues, and I have a feeling that, if the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied or if what he wants is not forthcoming pretty soon, he will renew his endeavours.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to look at the Order Paper for Thursday 17 March.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House, because I did not have the Order Paper in front of me and could not recall that date. I had germinating in my mind the notion that something was brewing, but I did not know what. However, the Deputy Leader of the House has helped the hon. Gentleman, me and the whole House, so we are all extremely grateful to him.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

We are all happy.

[Mr Speaker]

We hear pre-emptive gratification from the hon. Gentleman from a sedentary position.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Thank you very much.

[Mr Speaker]

Gosh, we have an outbreak of happiness in the Chamber on a Monday afternoon. We are all grateful, and I am sure the country will be too.

Scotland Bill

Monday 7th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[1st Allocated Day]

Considered in Committee.

[Dawn Primarolo in the Chair]

Clause 1

Administration of elections

16:45

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move amendment 10, page 1, line 22, at end insert—

‘(3A) After subsection (2) there is inserted—

(2A) The first order made by Scottish Ministers under subsection (1)(a) must include the application to Scottish Parliamentary general elections of the terms of paragraph (3A) of Rule 45 (the count) and Rule 53ZA (counting of votes: statement by returning officer) in Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983.”’.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Government amendment 29.

New clause 5—Administration of elections—

‘(1) In Part 1 of Schedule 4 to the Act (enactments protected from modification by the Parliament), in paragraph 4(2) after “1(4)”, there is inserted “12”.

(2) In Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Act (reserved matters: specific reservations), in Section B3 (elections) the words “the European Parliament and the Parliament” are omitted and the words “and the European Parliament” are inserted.’.

[Tom Greatrex]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Primarolo, as we embark on the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill. Since we last debated the issues on Second Reading, the legislative consent motion Committee has made its report to the Scottish Parliament, which we received last week. I understand that it will be debated by the Scottish Parliament later this week. There is also the ongoing scrutiny of these matters by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, to which the Secretary of State and others have given evidence. We are part of the way down the road, but there is still some way to go.

It is right that our scrutiny is done thoroughly and with care, and that the issues are properly raised and discussed, particularly in the Committee stage on which we have embarked. I am sure that many Members will wish to press their points on different aspects of the Bill. For our part, we have tabled a number of amendments, of which amendment 10 is the first. Some are designed to tease out detailed consideration to which the Minister might wish to respond further today or on Report, while we intend to press other amendments to the vote.

I would like to say at the outset how grateful we are for the assistance and discussion we have had with a wide range of interested parties and individuals over the past few weeks as we have sought to scrutinise the Bill. We are also grateful for the Secretary of State’s confirmation—after some reasoned but pointed business questions in recent weeks, which also ensured that the Leader of the House had a fuller understanding of the Holyrood legislative process than he otherwise would—that the Government will not move forward to Report until the LCM process in Holyrood has been completed. We also note the Secretary of State’s confirmation that while he will wish to reflect on the content of the initial LCM Committee report—and, presumably, the motion that accompanies it—he will not necessarily be bound by it, which is a point he recently made at the Scottish Affairs Committee inquiry. The LCM Committee made a number of observations and recommendations, and I am sure the whole House—well, at least some of it—will look forward to hearing the Government’s response to those points.

It is part of the responsibility of Members to press on particular aspects of the Bill. There are strongly held views on both sides of the House on some aspects of devolution, but it is important to endeavour to continue our scrutiny of what the Secretary of State himself has proclaimed to be the most significant development in constitutional arrangements since the Scotland Act 1998. Our reference point, as always, because of its shared, cross-party status, is the report of the Calman commission, which hon. Members know led to an earlier White Paper before the general election and, subsequently, to this Bill.

Clause 1 deals with the administration of elections, which Calman recommended should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Amendment 10 deals specifically with overnight counts, which I shall discuss first. It is widely acknowledged that, by and large, people in Scotland want to know the results of their elections as soon as it is practicable so to do. That was the objective of the Minister when he was in opposition in the lead-up to the general election last year and it was supported by the then Opposition parties in respect of an amendment to the Representation of the People Act 1983, which my amendment seeks to replicate. The Government are well aware of the history.

Partly owing to measures of the Government’s own making, such as the imposition of a referendum on the same day as the Scottish parliamentary elections, and partly owing to the views of electoral administrators—who always come out of the woodwork during the build-up to elections—there has been continuing speculation in recent weeks that returning officers will again seek to move wholeheartedly to morning counts, which is something that they do habitually. They tried it in 2005—when, as an employee of East Dunbartonshire council, I was closely involved in the arrangements relating to the count for the redrawn East Dunbartonshire constituency—but got nowhere. They tried it in 2007 for the purpose of the Scottish parliamentary elections, notwithstanding the disruption caused to those elections, although—unlike the design and descriptions on the ballot papers—the time of the count was not an issue; and they tried it again in the run-up to the general election.

As the Minister will recall, I raised the matter with him via the Leader of the House. Despite an earlier suggestion that it might be dealt with in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, he wrote to me saying that he was not prepared to change the law, that it was all very difficult, that returning officers were independent and he could not tell them what to do, and that we should leave it at that and lobby if we so wished. That was an interesting revision of the view that the Minister had expressed about a year ago, before the general election. I have with me the letter that he sent to me, in which he said that he assumed that I knew all that, given my long service as a special adviser at the Scotland Office. Given that long service at the Scotland Office, I was also aware that I would receive a letter from officials that I would send back, asking them to try again. Perhaps the Minister will learn that in the months and years to come.

The spectre of election counts not starting as soon as practicable is still with us in respect of the voting in May. Although the revered Tom Aitchison of City of Edinburgh council is no longer in post, his successors keep trying. The amendment deals with the issue for the next election to the Scottish Parliament and every other set of Scottish parliamentary elections by invoking the amendment to the Representation of the People Act that finally dealt with it before the general election.

I note the comments of the Electoral Commission, which has said that the amendment contains flexibility to deal with the position in constituencies such as Argyll and Bute in which there are practical problems connected with starting counts. However, it allows the counts to begin as soon as practicable after the election. Given that the Minister and his colleagues voted for this 12 months ago, I am sure that even within the scope of the coalition agreement there is the opportunity for some consistency on the Government’s part. I hope that those of us, in all parts of the Committee, who wish to reflect the view of our constituents that counts should happen as soon as possible after elections make our position clear. I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s comments.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

I find myself in the extremely unusual position of agreeing entirely with everything that the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) has said. That is not surprising, however, given that the amendment that was accepted by the Government approximately a year ago, before the last general election, was originally tabled by me. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) wisely added his name to it and accepted it as a Government amendment, and it became part of the Bill. At the time, I thought that that was the only thing that I had ever achieved from the Opposition Front Bench, but perhaps that was due to the cynicism engendered by 13 years of opposition.

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West has tabled the amendment again. It was very popular with Members in all parts of the House when we debated it a year ago. It became law, and it made a difference to the way in which the general election was administered and to the timing of the extremely disappointing results of that election across the country. But if we were going to get bad news, perhaps it was as well to get it sooner rather than later. That is not the point, however. The point is that, in the operation of our democracy, it is right that election counts should take place as soon as practically possible after the close of poll.

We discovered that many excuses were being made by returning officers around the country for not undertaking their duties in a timely and correct manner. They made every excuse that they could think of, none of which proved to be correct, because, when the law was changed and they were required to act as they ought to have been acting in the first place, they did so. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this amendment, but I hope that I shall be able to support what the hon. Gentleman has just proposed to the Committee.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I welcome you to the Committee, Ms Primarolo. I know how much you appreciate the convivial nature of Scottish debates, and I hope that we will do our best to behave ourselves today and to conduct these proceedings in a civil manner.

On Second Reading, we made it clear that it was our intention to improve and strengthen the Bill. I concede that, over the past few weeks, significant progress has been made in that direction. We have already had the report from the Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee, which made a number of useful and helpful recommendations, especially those that apply to the non-fiscal parts of the Bill. I welcome those recommendations. It is perhaps unfortunate, however, that some of them cannot be properly debated because of where we are in the process. The Scottish Parliament has not even passed its legislative consent motion, yet we are here in Committee today discussing the Scotland Bill, line by line and clause by clause.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

Notwithstanding all that, and the fact that there is a huge amount of discussion still to be had, will the hon. Gentleman address the amendment? Does he not agree that it is absolutely right that the count in all Scottish parliamentary elections should take place immediately, overnight?

[Pete Wishart]

I have no dispute whatever with the hon. Lady about that; of course the count should take place as soon as possible—[Interruption.] If she will allow me, I must point out that we are debating clause 1. She needs to check what we are discussing just now.

We have made progress, but it is unfortunate that we are unable to debate certain amendments that could have been tabled on the back of what was proposed by the parliamentary Bill Committee in the Scottish Parliament. We are at a different stage in the process. The legislative consent motion has not been passed, yet we are here today scrutinising the Bill in detail in Committee without having access to that important work.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

May I seek clarification from the hon. Gentleman? Why are he and his colleagues tabling amendments that do not appear in the Scottish Parliament’s legislative consent motion Committee? For example, they are tabling an amendment proposing to devolve the matter of especially dangerous airguns to the Scottish Parliament, even though that was not the unanimous view of the Committee. If he respects the view of the Committee, why is he tabling such amendments?

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I know that the Minister is eager to debate airguns, but perhaps he could wait until we get to the relevant clause? Meanwhile, I am sure that Mr Wishart was going to stick to clause 1 and this group of amendments.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to you, Ms Primarolo. That is exactly what I was going to do. May I just say to the Minister, however, that we will introduce and propose our own amendments? His problem as a Minister, and the problem for all the Calman commission parties, is that they have no opportunity to table their own amendments relating to the recommendations of the Scottish parliamentary Bill Committee. There has been no opportunity to do that because we got the Bill Committee’s report only on Friday morning.

[David Mundell]

I do not want to exceed my role, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that it will be possible to discuss any further amendments arising from the Scottish Parliament’s consideration of the Committee’s report on Report in this House.

17:00

[Pete Wishart]

That answers one of the questions that I was going to put to the Minister, which is when are we going to see those amendments? How are they going to be introduced? If they are all to be tabled on Report, we will need a little more time to discuss them than is currently available. It would be unacceptable for them to be tabled in the unelected House of Lords. It is the responsibility of directly elected Members of Parliament to discuss those issues, and we should have the opportunity to do so. Those amendments should not be tabled in the House of Lords; they should be discussed on the Floor of this House. We should also have more time on Report, if that is when we will see those important amendments arising from the Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend will have noticed the Minister saying that there would be time later—perhaps on Report—for the consideration of any amendments that follow the LCM Committee’s recommendations. However, during earlier exchanges the Secretary of State was nodding when my hon. Friend was confirming that the Government would not be bound by the LCM Committee’s recommendations. Will he now press the Government to confirm that if the LCM Committee proposes serious amendments or makes recommendations that would improve the Bill, they will accept them?

[Pete Wishart]

My hon. Friend poses an important question for the Minister. That is what we need to hear: are the Government of a mind to accept those recommendations? [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is saying no. That is very clear. This is not an issue just for me; it is an issue for all my colleagues in the Chamber. This was supposed to be a process that started in the Scottish Parliament, but now that recommendations have been made, the Secretary of State is saying that he is not of a mind to accept them all. Perhaps he could give his view on what he is prepared to bring forward and what he is not prepared to bring forward.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)]

If I may repeat what I said to the Chair of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and the Scottish Parliament’s Committee, we are already actively considering all the different proposals that have come forward from what is an excellent and serious report. We are taking it seriously and we will bring forward our thoughts on it at the appropriate moment, with time for plenty of scrutiny both here and in another place.

[Pete Wishart]

That is a helpful contribution from the Secretary of State, but perhaps when the Minister winds up he could tell us when we will see those amendments, where they will be introduced and when elected Members of this House will have the opportunity to debate them.

I bring all this up because the Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee makes an important recommendation in relation to the proposals for electoral administration. What we see in new clause 1 is the partial devolution of some administrative responsibilities—not all, as was recommended in the Calman report—from the Secretary of State to Scottish Ministers. The Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee said that two more areas should be added, covering the disqualification of Members and arrangements for elections to the Scottish Parliament. The Committee made those proposals, but we have not had the opportunity to debate them because we have not seen any amendments.

Why is that important? It is important because of recent experience. We have to go back only four short years to find out what can happen in electoral administration, when more than 140,000 of our fellow citizens were effectively disenfranchised. They lost their ability to vote because of how the Labour party, which was then administering the Scotland Office, failed to discharge its obligations and responsibilities seriously and sensibly. Some 140,000 people lost their votes in the last Scottish Parliament elections. To be fair to the former Labour Scotland Office, a number of problems with that election were identified. To the previous Government’s credit—I acknowledge this—they brought in Ron Gould to look at what went wrong and perhaps make recommendations to ensure that it never happened again.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the concerns raised was about putting the words “Alex Salmond for First Minister” on the ballot paper?

[Pete Wishart]

I accept that, and I said that the failings identified were not just those of the then Labour Scotland Office, although it was in charge of the process and the buck stopped there. Ron Gould identified a number of issues in his report. One of the key things that he identified was fragmentation and a disparity in responsibilities between this House and the Scottish Parliament. He made the strong suggestion that all responsibilities and arrangements for Scottish Parliament elections should be in one place, under one jurisdiction, and he gave the strongest possible hint that that should be the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament considered the Gould report back in January 2008. Its Members were unanimously of the view that all electoral administration, including competence for elections, should be in one place, and they made it clear that that place should be the Scottish Parliament.

[David Mundell]

Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that as one of Ron Gould’s recommendations was that there should be no overnight counts, perhaps he was not right about everything?

[Pete Wishart]

I am more than happy to acknowledge that Ron Gould was not right about everything, but I think most Members accepted the broad thrust of his report’s recommendations in respect of the structural problems that arose in the 2007 election. One of his recommendations was that all responsibilities for elections should lie in one House, and he gave the strongest possible hint that that should be the Scottish Parliament. Our new clause 5 proposes precisely that. It brings together all aspects of electoral administration and legislative competence and places them with the Scottish Parliament, which is where they should be. We believe that that is the case not only because about 140,000 people lost their votes in 2007, but because it is the normal way of things. Any self-respecting Parliament should be in charge of its electoral arrangements. With election to office comes accountability, and we strongly believe that all arrangements to do with elections should be the responsibility of the Parliament that has been elected on the basis of those arrangements.

I accept that the Bill’s proposals represent an improvement on current arrangements. I welcome the fact that it devolves certain administrative functions to Scottish Ministers—indeed, I welcome any transfer of powers to the Scottish Parliament—but it does not even devolve all aspects of electoral administration, as recommended by the Calman commission. That would still give the Secretary of State powers over voter registration, the rules on the composition of Parliament, the procedure for filling any regional seat vacancy during the life of the Parliament, and rules relating to disqualification.

Scottish Ministers would still need to approach the UK Government if primary legislation were required on the date of elections, for example, or even on the voting system, which is an issue that I know greatly exercises many Labour Back Benchers. The Scottish Parliament’s role would also be limited to approving or disapproving rules made by Scottish Ministers, and it would have no opportunity to shape them through its own primary legislation. Furthermore, the Bill would require that Scottish Ministers must consult the Secretary of State before making any of these rules.

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

The hon. Gentleman has said something that jarred with the logic of his argument. He is obviously speaking about an independent country that has its own Parliament when he says that the Parliament should decide the electoral system. Does he not accept that as this Westminster Parliament is sovereign, it is right that we decided the system—although I do not agree with it, in particular the additional Members who were added instead of bringing the numbers down to the figure proposed in the first Bill? Does he not accept that it is right that this sovereign Parliament should decide how people are elected to the devolved Parliament, as the reality is that we do not have an independent Parliament in Scotland?

[Pete Wishart]

Of course the hon. Gentleman and I differ as to how we would like this whole process to develop and the sort of Scotland we would like in the future, but my view is still very much that any self-respecting Parliament worthy of that name must be responsible for its own arrangements. That is just how things are done, and I believe the Scottish Parliament should have that responsibility.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

Why, therefore, have the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues north of the border in his Scottish Parliament not processed the whole question of having a referendum on what he is talking about?

[Pete Wishart]

Actually, I have had a look at the calendar, and I see that there is to be an election in about eight short weeks’ time, when these very issues will be debated and voted on. I also foresee a groundswell of support for the position I am advocating and a diminution in support for the hon. Gentleman’s position.

Through our amendment, we intend to fulfil the general drift and thrust of the Gould report recommendations, and to implement what has already been established in the major recommendation of the Calman commission report, which comes close to what the Scottish Parliament’s Scotland Bill Committee is proposing. The amendment also puts the voter at the heart of the process, because that is what is required. The interests of the voters come first, and they were short-changed and badly let down by what happened four years ago. Radical work was required in order to address that, and thank goodness we have the work and recommendations of Ron Gould.

I see no good reason why Westminster should remain in charge of Scottish elections; I see only the predictable knee-jerk response that this place needs to have some sort of say and role in Scottish elections. To devolve not even all the administration of Scottish elections, as was suggested by Calman, is bewildering and contrary to everything proposed. The Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee is now saying that the devolution of administrative functions is not good enough and the Secretary of State needs to look at this again. The Committee went even further and said that before we even implement clauses 1 and 3 the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government should be consulted and we would review this once again. It also raised many of the Electoral Commission’s concerns in respect of the electoral management board—that is currently going through the Scottish Parliament.

For all those reasons, I ask the Minister to re-examine this clause to see what can be done. Let us have a proper debate about what the will of the Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee is and what Calman intends in all this. Let us give proper constructive consideration to ensuring that all arrangements to do with elections, be they about electoral administration or legislative competence, can be moved to the Scottish Parliament. I ask hon. Members to support new clause 5.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

I am delighted to support amendment 10. It would be disappointing if we judged whether or not it was valid on the basis of what happened during the previous Scottish Parliament elections. I am sure that many hon. Members in the Chamber can come up with a compendium of reasons why that count was a disaster. All political parties in this House have to accept some responsibility for the ballot paper, which has been identified as one source of the problem, because we all consented to it. We also put our faith, wrongly, in an IT system that did not work. We could perhaps accept that there is an excuse for its not working, given the complications involved in a Scottish Parliament election as a result of different votes being counted, different constituencies and so on, but that same IT system was tried out in a local council by-election in my constituency and it took us nearly five hours to get the result. The only good thing was that this occurred in the full presence and glow of the electoral commissioner with responsibility for Scotland, John McCormick, and his senior members of staff. They realised then, if they had not already done so, that that electronic system of counting was not yet usable for future elections.

It would therefore be unfortunate if we said that one of the reasons why we do not want overnight counts relates to that disastrous night, although the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is right to identify the number of ballots that were lost—people’s votes that were lost. Ron Gould fell into the trap of stating that that was the reason why overnight counts were not wanted. He did not look beyond a particular set of circumstances on a particular evening when a series of issues arose that, in retrospect, could perhaps have been dealt with differently.

I have been astonished by the reaction of returning officers. For most of my political life, they have been able to deliver an overnight count without any great anxiety about whether or not staff had to work overnight, yet they have suddenly decided, in their wisdom, that they do not want to accept the responsibility of an overnight count. It came as a surprise to many of us before the last election that what we thought was a given—an overnight count—was no such thing. We then discovered that returning officers had it in their power to decide when they wanted to count an election for this or any other House. With the greatest respect to returning officers across Scotland, I do not think it should be their responsibility to decide when the count should take place. It is for this Parliament to decide when an election count should take place and I hope that the Government will consider the amendment seriously and will look at how they engage with returning officers, because, as we found out before last year’s general election, custom and practice will not be good enough.

17:15

[Mr Donohoe]

I wonder whether returning officers would be so keen on that if they were to forgo their wage for the election if it was to be held during office hours.

[Mrs McGuire]

Knowing my hon. Friend’s grasp of the political minutiae of local government and returning officers, I am sure there is deep insight in those comments, but I am not quite sure what it is at the moment—unless he wants to explain his point in a way that I might understand.

[Mr Donohoe]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way again. If returning officers are going to work office hours to do the count, rather than overnight, they should not get any additional money. In those circumstances, perhaps we would save money if we moved the count.

[Mrs McGuire]

I understand now exactly where my hon. Friend is coming from, and I am sure that he would never have put forward that argument when he was a full-time officer of the National and Local Government Officers Association, but I will let that one stick to the wall.

There are all sorts of reasons why we should insist on an overnight count. Sometimes, we say that there is disillusionment in politics, but one area of excitement, even if it is only mini-excitement, is in waiting for the overnight count, and that is not just for apparatchiks and anoraks such as ourselves in the House. I think you would be amazed, Ms Primarolo, how many people like to listen and wait for election results to come in. Indeed, the figures show that.

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

May I confirm my right hon. Friend’s point about excitement? I remember wondering last Thursday, or in the early hours of Friday morning, “Will the Liberals come second or third in Barnsley, or will they come fourth or fifth?” But then, ecstasy of ecstasies, it turned out that they came sixth. The excitement built throughout the night, and that is why it is essential to have a count overnight.

[Mrs McGuire]

I could not agree more. I not only waited until the television report had nearly finished, but then went upstairs to listen to the result coming through on Radio 5, and then promptly fell asleep.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Such was the excitement.

[Mrs McGuire]

Indeed, but I was delighted that when I awoke, what I at first thought was a dream was in fact reality—Labour had not only won that by-election but had won it with an increased majority and an increased percentage of the poll, and a member of the coalition parties had come further down. However, I see that I am taxing your patience a little, Ms Primarolo.

I want to highlight the Electoral Commission’s comments. I am a wee bit surprised by the attitude it has taken in not supporting overnight counts, and I feel it has based its assumptions on what happened in the last election, four years ago. It makes a good point in saying that returning officers should not be expected to conduct parallel counts for the first-past-the-post and regional lists, but it is a bit disappointing that it has not recognised that part of the culture of elections in this country, and in many others, is sitting and waiting for the overnight results to come in. That happens in American presidential elections and others.

[Mrs Laing]

Does the right hon. Lady agree that although the excitement is certainly important to people like us who are involved in these matters, it is not just a matter of excitement and media presence? It is also about good electoral governance, good management of the electoral process and bringing conformity right across the country. Last year, we discovered that returning officers had held themselves responsible for what happened in their area and that many of them refused to be told or to behave in the way that the Electoral Commission thought they should. Is it not therefore up to this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament literally to lay down the law so that there is conformity of action in every election taking place at the same time?

[Mrs McGuire]

The hon. Lady makes a valid point. Like her, I do not want to overplay the excitement, in spite of our reflections on last Thursday night, because sometimes we can get carried away with that.

The continuity of the election process and the election day is important. The election day does not finish until there is a declaration of the count. It is also necessary to give people the confidence that when they put their vote in a ballot box, which is sealed, it is resealed at the close of play and transported immediately or as quickly as possible—if the two are not mutually exclusive—to the count. Part of our historic attitude to elections is the speed with which we can get the individual’s vote from the place in which it was cast to the place of the count.

We should recognise that, for the most part, we are not talking about transporting ballot boxes in the depth of winter. These elections are conducted in the spring. I have a constituency which, as some colleagues are no doubt fed up with my telling them, is the size of Luxembourg. I know that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) has a constituency that extends far wider than that, but in the case of my constituency, we are talking of a distance of some 65 miles, and I have never heard of any difficulties in transporting the ballot boxes in reasonable time from outlying villages such as Tyndrum in the most northerly part of the constituency down to Stirling for the count.

[Mr MacNeil]

Although I am enjoying the marvellous nostalgia of election night, does the right hon. Lady see any role for electronic voting, which would give an instantaneous result?

[Mrs McGuire]

I am not into the Simon Cowell approach to voting. Some of our younger colleagues who entered the House at the last election might see that in the future, but I do not have as much confidence in voting by mobile phone as the hon. Gentleman may have. We must make it as easy and straightforward as possible for people in varying circumstances to cast their vote. That is why the extension of postal voting has been such a welcome addition.

We should consider seriously the way in which the House wants to see its elections and the count of those ballots conducted. I would be disappointed if we based all our analysis on the situation that arose four years ago. It was an unusual situation. There was a coincidence of circumstances which made the count difficult. If the Government are serious about achieving consensus on a major constitutional issue, I hope they will not just rely on the good will of electoral returning officers, but take account of the will of the House, which is, I hope, to count our ballots overnight for the Scottish Parliament elections.

[Michael Connarty]

It strikes me that all political parties are like Simon Cowell—they want the person they own to win whatever campaign they are involved in, so we have a vested interest, although I would not go as far as the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) might go.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) was right about the myths regarding the errors of 2007, as if it was all down to the ineptitude of the Scotland Office at the time, or of the returning officers. It is clear that the complication in 2007 was the counting of two ballots for two different purposes on two different mandates, combined with the construction of a ballot paper that did not make sense to the elector and clearly, in the count that I watched at great length until I retired to bed at about 4 am, was not fully understood by the returning officer in my area.

[Mr MacNeil]

To be clear, by electronic voting I do not mean the Simon Cowell, light entertainment version, but the serious version used in many countries around the world.

[Michael Connarty]

I know a little about that, as my son lives in Australia, which has a totally electronically registered electorate who all must register and vote. He travels a great deal all over Australia with his job and finds absolutely no difficulty in voting, because he can pop into any electoral office in any town at any time up to three weeks before a ballot and cast his vote for the area in which he lives, so it is a very sensible system. It is surprising that we have not caught up with the technology. It would certainly be a great advantage if we did, as that might engage people much more in the ballot.

The idea that we had a problem because we counted overnight is wrong. Although those of us who soldiered on might not have been quite as excited by the process as my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), it was clear to us that the muddle was created by there being two ballot papers. The other question relates to the training of returning officers, because I do not think that the returning officer I watched was competent enough to deal with the ballot, and some crazy errors occurred. For example, he did not tell a candidate who had lost in a council election going on at the same time that he had lost by one vote. The candidate did not discover that until the next day and so was not allowed a recount. Whether that was the result of incompetence, or just the fact that the returning officer was so fatigued that he wanted to get home to his bed and not have another recount in that crazy system running parallel to the Scottish election is another problem.

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) seemed to argue that at whichever level an election takes place—Scottish Parliament level or UK Parliament level—that level should have control over its own type of ballot. By that argument, local councils would be put in charge of their elections and allowed to decide all the things that have been argued for, including exactly who would be elected, how they would be elected and what the franchise would be. That is a nonsense. Presumably for Scottish Parliament elections it would be the First Minister who decides, certainly in the present Scottish Government, as only one person seems to make all the decisions in that Government. Those aspects must be determined by the level above that being elected. For example, the Scottish Parliament, quite correctly, controls the methodology for local elections, just as this sovereign Parliament, which set up the Scottish Parliament, should decide if it wishes to change that, possibly in negotiations. That is not saying that there is not a dialogue to be held, but the idea of putting it down does not make much sense.

Therefore, I support the amendment. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling said, the important point is that when people put their ballot papers in the ballot box, they expect it to be transported securely to the place where they are to be counted. One of the reasons why that was set up for UK elections was to let people know that ballot boxes are not stored somewhere else where they might be tampered with, so there is no split between the process of voting and the process of counting. To push that back to the next day is to add to people’s cynicism about how elections are conducted and how the count comes out.

It is clear to me that the lesson we should learn from 2007 is that we should not have two counts on the same evening. Therefore, we should not have the two processes of electing representatives and choosing the method of election at the same time. That argues strongly against the Government’s proposal to have a referendum on a voting system on the same day as the Scottish elections, because that is asking people to postpone the count for the electoral amendment to the next day. It might be fine, because I think that it will be the great yawn of the century—I can just see people getting as excited as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North about exactly what little deviation in the electoral system they will be allowed in the process of choosing which system to use.

[Mr Davidson]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Michael Connarty]

I have startled him into an intervention.

[Mr Davidson]

My constituency is Glasgow South West.

That was not a deviation. Was it not a major result? One of the country’s governing parties came not even second in a by-election, and not even third. If I remember correctly, it was not even fourth or fifth. [Laughter.] It is indeed laughable that it came sixth. I believe that it beat the Loonies, but only barely because there was some blurring at the edges. Is that not worth being excited about?

[Michael Connarty]

Obviously, my hon. Friend is the Member for Glasgow South West, and I do apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), who has offices across the corridor from me. I should really remember that.

A change to AV would not have helped the Liberal Democrats in that election, and any such change will probably not help them in the future, either. The point that I am trying to make is a very serious one, however. To have two different ballots, a referendum on a voting system and a vote for an elected chamber, is to mix up the purpose and focus of the electorate on that day, but that might be the reason behind it all. The possibility of not coming sixth and getting a few votes as the minor party in the coalition might be the reason for holding the two ballots on the same day, but that certainly argues for splitting the process. In the proposals before us, we say that the count for the Scottish Parliament should take place overnight, which is quite correct—and basically no one really cares what happens to the referendum.

17:30

[Mr Davidson]

We have to ask ourselves a fairly simple question about when the count is held: for whose convenience are elections run? There is a view, very strongly held, that elections are run for the convenience of returning officers. I do not take that view; I tend to think that people generally want elections run for their convenience. A tradition has developed over a long period, whereby those who do not follow an election overnight wake up in the morning and hear the result, and I see no good reason why we should not make that stipulation. Of course professionals and those who are competent at, and have experience in, running elections should have a say in how polls are carried out, but they should not be the tail that wags the dog.

That is one of the issues, however, because if we have an election management board, with the role of the Electoral Commission being brought into question, it must be under democratic control; it must not be self-employed and able to set its own rules according to its own convenience, because its view of what is best will often be determined by self-interest.

I understand, however, that the Government are about to announce a change in the rules about the announcement of by-elections, so that when the Government, particularly the minority governing party, have a successful result along the lines of that in Barnsley, it will be announced some two days after hell freezes over. That does not seem to be an appropriate outcome. Not only did the junior partner in the coalition—this cuts coalition—come sixth; it has been suggested that it came sixth only because the Scottish National party was not standing, and that support for the SNP in Barnsley would have been far greater than that for the Liberals. I can understand that.

I was interested to see that the UK Independence party—basically the British National party with suits—beat the Conservatives, which again tells us something significant. People do find that quite exciting and stimulating. I want to ensure, however, that the Government’s position is that two ballots should not be conducted at the same time, because, unless the Government change their mind, the Scottish Parliament elections and the AV referendum will be held on the same day. I hope that we can secure the commitment that they will be counted separately, because most of us want to see the Liberals get a kicking twice, and it would greatly spoil our enjoyment if the results came out at the same time. People in Scotland want to be able to say no to separation, no to cuts, no to the coalition and no to AV, and they need the announcements to be clearly separated.

Finally on the issue of delay, I am old enough to have read about John F. Kennedy’s presidential election. The result turned on Illinois, and in Illinois the result turned on Chicago. Chicago, despite being an urban area, was about the last area to announce its vote, because the Democrats held the results back until they found out how many votes they needed to win that state and, hence, the American presidential election. Thankfully, we have always been free of any such suggestion in this country, but it will be considered a possibility if there is any undue delay. It is therefore important to proceed with the count as quickly as possible.

I would like to remind people of the excitement that they, too, felt when they heard the result of the Barnsley by-election. I do not know whether I have mentioned this, but the junior partner in the coalition did not come anywhere close; in fact, it was sixth. I do not have the figures with me, but I suspect that it was only the votes of a couple of households, and the fact that the SNP did not stand, that stopped it coming 10th out of nine candidates.

[David Mundell]

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Evans. It is always a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee. I thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) for his good advice, which, as he said, he garnered during his sentence at the Scotland Office.

While Ms Primarolo was in the Chair, Mr Evans, I tried to seek some guidance on the SNP position in respect of this Bill, because, as those of us who were present during its Second Reading will know, the SNP declared it to be unacceptable. However, I am afraid that that clarity was not forthcoming.

[Pete Wishart]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not only the case that the SNP found the Bill in its current, unamended form to be unacceptable, but that the Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee made many recommendations that have significantly improved it?

[David Mundell]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the Bill Committee. I sought from him, and again he refused to answer, clarification on whether he would accept that Committee’s report, and whatever the vote of the Scottish Parliament is, rather than pursuing amendments that even his colleagues on the Committee did not pursue.

[Pete Wishart]

The right hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the Secretary of State of State for Scotland, has said to me and to this House that he is not of a mind to accept all the recommendations from the Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee. How can we make up our minds if he does not tell us what is and is not going to be accepted?

[David Mundell]

The Secretary of State made it clear in his written ministerial statement that the Government will give serious consideration to all the amendments and issues raised in the Bill Committee because we respect the work of that Committee and the work of the Scottish Parliament; we do not pick and choose to meet our own political ends.

[Mr MacNeil]

Is the right hon. Gentleman accepting or steamrollering the will of the Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee?

[David Mundell]

The Government are looking forward to the debate in the Scottish Parliament later this week when it will consider the legislative consent motion coming forward from the Bill Committee. It will be very interesting to see how the SNP votes in that debate.

Clause 1 transfers to Scottish Ministers certain Executive functions relating to the administration of Scottish Parliament elections that are currently the responsibility of the Secretary of State. Members will wish to note that the Bill Committee in the Scottish Parliament accepted this provision in its report on the Bill. However, as has been mentioned, the report also asked for consideration of a number of related issues such as the procedure for filling any regional seat vacancy during the life of a Parliament, the rules relating to disqualification, and reciprocal consultation. I wish to reaffirm that the written statement from the Secretary of State makes clear our commitment carefully to consider those recommendations, including those relating to this clause. The Scottish Parliament will vote on the Bill on Thursday, and we await the outcome of that vote.

The clause will enable Scottish Ministers to make general provision by order for the conduct and administration of elections to Holyrood, subject only to some necessary constraints. This power includes making provision about supply or otherwise dealing with the electoral register, the combination of Scottish Parliament elections with other elections falling within the legislative competence of the Parliament, and limitation of candidates’ election expenses. However, some elements of the powers will remain the function of the Secretary of State—that is, the franchise and the power to combine Scottish Parliament elections with other reserved elections. That will ensure that issues of constitutional importance continue to be dealt with by the UK Parliament. The Scotland Bill Committee in the Scottish Parliament recognised and accepted the continued reservation of those matters.

Amendment 10, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West said, would require Scottish Ministers’ first conduct order under the new powers to include provision requiring returning officers to start the count at Scottish Parliament elections within four hours of the close of the poll, or to publish a statement explaining why they were unable to do so. It is important to clarify at this point that the amendment would not apply to the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections.

I recognise the strength of feeling on this issue, which has been set out eloquently by the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) and my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing). The drama and excitement of election night and the wish to know the election result as soon as possible are vital parts of our political heritage. I want returning officers to listen to what has been said in this debate. As hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies know, Mary Pitcaithly, the chairman of the Electoral Management Board for Scotland, will be available to Scottish MPs to discuss the arrangements for the forthcoming Scottish elections at a meeting at the Scotland Office later this week. I am sure that the point about overnight counts will again be forcefully made.

In a recent response to the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, I suggested that he and his colleagues should lobby for overnight counts. I had noticed that the counts in Conservative-led council areas such as Dumfries and Galloway, Scottish Borders and South Ayrshire were scheduled to be overnight counts, and that Labour predominated in the council areas that were on the list of counts scheduled to happen the following day. I therefore thought that he might be able to bring more influence to bear than I in those areas.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I hear what the Minister is saying, but does he not agree that the best way to ensure that overnight counts take place is to pass the amendment and put it in the Bill, rather than simply exhorting to people and leaving the discretion to them?

[David Mundell]

The hon. Lady cannot have heard me say that the amendment would not apply to the 2011 election. I am surprised that she, of all people, takes the view that when we are devolving powers to the Scottish Parliament on this matter, we should curtail them. Once the powers have been devolved, it will be perfectly possible for the Scottish Parliament to take account of the representations that have been made from certain quarters, where there is clearly an equally strong feeling about overnight counts. Passing this amendment would be contrary to the spirit of devolving responsibility for these matters to the Scottish Parliament. I certainly hope that we will not see support from the Scottish National party for such curtailment of a newly devolved power.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree, given the strength of feeling that has been clearly shown across the Committee this afternoon, that this matter should be left to a free vote for Government Members? This point elicits a great deal of excitement and passion among Members, so it would be appropriate to deal with it on the basis of Members’ own judgment, rather than on a party political basis.

[David Mundell]

From the hon. Lady’s experience of the Scotland Office, she will know that this is a debate not about the merit of overnight counts, but about whether the Scottish Parliament, in gaining new powers over the administration of elections, should have those powers constrained in respect of an election that is likely to take place in 2016.

17:45

It is not about the count on the night of 5 May 2011. I advise the hon. Member for Glasgow North and other Labour Members to come along and speak to Mary Pitcaithly later this week and reinforce the strength of feeling that exists for overnight counts for elections to the Scottish Parliament.

[Mr Davidson]

Does the Minister believe that it is right that elected Members of Parliament should have to lobby an unelected bureaucrat about the way in which the elections should be conducted? I appreciate that the change in the rule will not apply to this year’s elections, but it is unfortunate that we have got ourselves into a position whereby the best that the Minister can suggest is that we go along and lobby a bureaucrat, no matter how worthy.

[David Mundell]

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that since it was first suggested that few overnight counts would take place in Scotland for the election of 5 May, the number has grown significantly, partly because of the expression of public opinion. Today’s debate and some of the eloquent contributions that we have heard will further reinforce that. Passing the amendment this evening will not move the matter forward because it will have no impact on the count.

[Mrs McGuire]

Would not it be a clear declaration of intent by the House to the returning officers that we expect them, even in the absence of a legal instruction that they must do it, to hold an overnight count for elections to the Parliament of Scotland?

[David Mundell]

I trust the Parliament of Scotland to set its own rules for the elections in 2015 or 2016. That is why the Government support devolving the power.

[Mrs McGuire]

I fear that the Minister may have missed my point. I recognise his legal and technical argument that the matter will be the Scottish Parliament’s responsibility in 2016, but surely some seven or eight weeks away from the potential for counts to be postponed until the next day, we should send out a message from this House that we expect an overnight count.

[David Mundell]

The right hon. Lady’s comments, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest and others will have sent that clear message to returning officers.

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

The point at issue is whether the Scottish Parliament should have the right to make those decisions. The Bill grants those powers. The second question is how we get what we all want: an overnight count at the forthcoming election. Does the Minister have any power under other primary or secondary legislation that he could use to make that happen so that we do not send a message, but just make it happen?

[David Mundell]

I note the hon. Gentleman’s comments, but I believe that we can all play a role in ensuring that it happens through the force of our argument. Again, I invite colleagues to join me and others at the meeting with the chairman of the Interim Electoral Management Board.

[Stewart Hosie]

The Minister is doing a stoical job in trying to defend the indefensible, but the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) is right. Notwithstanding the fact that we want everything devolved, not just the administration, the clearest signal that we are backing public opinion in wanting an overnight count would be voting for amendment 10 and allowing the Scottish Government to make the decisions thereafter.

[David Mundell]

I do not know why I should be surprised at the SNP’s voting against more powers for the Scottish Parliament in an attempt at gesture politics, in which its specialises.

The SNP referred to new clause 5, on which we will vote on the third day of Committee proceedings. That would give the Scottish Parliament full legislative competence for the Scottish Parliament elections. That goes far wider than the Calman commission’s recommendation to devolve only the administration of elections. The Government gave careful consideration to the extent of the powers to be devolved on the evidence provided to the commission, and we believe that the proposals in the Bill strike the right balance. Devolving elements of responsibility for the administration earlier, as was outlined earlier, is consistent with the Calman commission’s principle—

[Pete Wishart]

What extra value does the Scotland Office bring to elections in Scotland?

[David Mundell]

This will not be the first time during the Committee’s discussions that I refer to the fact that the SNP declined to take part in the deliberations of the Calman commission, and indeed set up its own national conversation. Many issues on which SNP Members now claim outrage could have been fully debated if they had raised them at that time. The Bill is based on the recommendations of the commission.

[Stewart Hosie]

The Minister says that the SNP declined to take part in Calman. He will, I am sure, want to confirm for the record that the Government refused to accept all the Calman recommendations, and that the Bill does not go even as far as Calman suggested it should.

[David Mundell]

Given the hon. Gentleman’s thorough research into all matters on which he speaks, I am sure he has read in detail the Command Paper that accompanied the publication of the Bill, in which the Government set out their response to each and every Calman recommendation, and how, whether in legislation or otherwise, those are being taken forward.

Government amendment 29 to clause 3 is technical and ensures that when Scottish Ministers make orders about the administration of Scottish Parliament elections, they can include the type of technical supplementary provision set out in section 113 of the Scotland Act 1998. For example, Ministers could make different provisions for different purposes or make consequential or savings provisions. The amendment also ensures that any criminal penalties imposed in such an order are subject to the appropriate limits. It gives Scottish Ministers the same supplementary powers and constraints as currently apply to the Secretary of State when he makes provision on the administration of Scottish Parliament elections.

I commend clause 1 to the House and urge the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) to withdraw his amendment.

[Tom Greatrex]

We have had an interesting start to the Committee. The Minister will have heard the concern of Members of both sides of the House at the possibility that overnight counts will not happen. In all candour, it is not good enough for him to stand at the Dispatch Box and suggest that we go and lobby Mary Pitcaithly on Thursday on the matter. We have the opportunity now to set a position that the Minister voted for in relation to elections to this House, which is a perfectly responsible position.

The Minister would do well to listen to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing). I apologise to her, because I was unaware that the wording of amendment 10 is borrowed from her. I hope she feels emboldened enough to vote for it. I have heard her argue against the Government on other occasions, but she has felt unable to follow through and vote against them. I hope she has the confidence to do so today.

This issue is at the heart of electoral administration. As I said, at every set of elections, electoral administrators say, “We don’t want overnight counts. We can’t do it for reason A, B, C, D, E or F.” The proof is not in what Ron Gould says, but in what we all witnessed in May last year. If we set a position, the electoral administrators can get on with it. Let us make that clear for the Scottish Parliament elections as well as for other elections.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

17:54

Division 215

Ayes: 206

---

Labour: 192
Scottish National Party: 5
Plaid Cymru: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Conservative: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1
Independent: 1

Noes: 298

---

Conservative: 253
Liberal Democrat: 44

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Combination of polls at Scottish Parliamentary and other reserved elections

[Tom Greatrex]

I beg to move amendment 11, page 3, leave out lines 4 and 5.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: clause stand part.

New clause 7—Timing of the Scottish Parliamentary general election—

‘(1) Section 2 of the 1998 Act is amended as follows.

(2) At the end of subsection (2) there is inserted “or unless the poll is advanced or delayed as a result of the operation of subsection (6A) below”.

(3) At the end there is added the following new subsection—

“(6A) If the poll to be held under subsection (2) or subsection (5) above is in the same calendar year as an early parliamentary general election under section 2 of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, the Parliament may by resolution appoint an alternative day for the poll for the next Scottish Parliamentary general election no more than 12 months earlier nor more than 12 months later than the day appointed under subsection (2) or subsection (5) above and at least 6 months before or after the parliamentary general election, and the day so appointed shall be treated as if it had been proposed by the Presiding Officer under subsection (5) above.”’.

[Tom Greatrex]

Amendment 11 and new clause 7 are probing amendments regarding the potential for elections to happen on the same date. In the previous discussion, we heard a lot about the Gould report and the issues encountered in the 2007 Scottish Parliament elections. Ron Gould concluded that one of the primary problems was a combination of elections on the same date, and that has been implicitly recognised by the Secretary of State in some of his discussions about the potential clash arising from the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. Despite the fact that there are a number of concerns, this issue has been included in the Bill not because of something that Calman deliberated on, but because of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill going through Parliament. That would not, of course, be an issue if that Bill had proposed a four-year term, because a four-yearly cycle for the Scottish Parliament elections and a four-yearly cycle for the UK Parliament elections would mean that the elections would always be at different times. That is why we tabled the amendment. As every authority questioned by the Select Committees that have examined the issue has said, there is very little, if any, precedent for a five-year term, and a four-year fixed term is much more appropriate. That is why I raise the matter today. New clause 7 is also relevant to the potential problems created if an extraordinary general election for the UK Parliament were to take place under a coalition Government, for example.

[Mr Davidson]

Surely there is a logic to having a five-year term. If one part of the coalition has come third in a by-election and another part of the coalition has come sixth it, it is quite understandable that they are in no hurry to have an election.

[Tom Greatrex]

The Secretary of State, who is no longer in his place, might well be thinking about how long he might be able to continue as Secretary of State, and what my hon. Friend says could well be one of the reasons for that stance. If we are in a position in which an extraordinary general election has to take place, new clause 7 would provide the opportunity to deal with it in a way that is appropriate for both the Scottish and the UK Parliaments and would save us from having to conduct both elections in the same year. It deals with the problem of confusing the issues of the two different elections and should help us to avoid the problems experienced in 2007, when having two electoral systems for different Parliaments at different elections caused some confusion. It is our responsibility to do what we can to ensure that people are made aware of how their elections work and to make those elections as straightforward as possible. That is the intention behind amendment 11 and the accompanying new clause 7, which deals with extraordinary circumstances.

[David Mundell]

This clause amends the Representation of the People Act 1985 to provide that when a Scottish parliamentary general election and a parliamentary general election or a Scottish parliamentary general election and a European parliamentary general election are to be conducted on the same date, they should automatically be taken together. It will also allow for the polls to be combined if the returning officers so agree where polls for related areas are taken on the same day—as, for example, with a Scottish Parliament by-election and a parliamentary general election.

Amendment 11, as proposed by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), would remove the mandatory requirement that where the polls at a Scottish Parliament general election and a UK Parliament general election fall on the same day, the administrative arrangements must be taken together. The amendment would not stop the polls taking place on the same day, however, and it leaves returning officers with the discretion to combine the polls if they think fit to do so. Alternatively, if they are not combined, various processes such as the issue of poll cards and postal votes or voting at polling stations would have to be run side by side.

As it stands, the clause will allow poll cards, postal voting materials and polling stations to be shared. It effectively streamlines the process of organising and running the two polls on the same day, avoiding potential duplication of functions where polls held on the same day would otherwise be run in parallel and it enables overall costs to be reduced. If two polls fall on the same day, for whatever reason, electoral administrators agree that combining them is the best option. It makes it simpler for the returning officer to administer and, more importantly, makes it easier for voters to cast their votes at both polls. If the intention behind the amendment is to stop the polls taking place when both elections fall on the same day, it does not work. If the intention is to make it easier for the voter, that, too, I would suggest, does not work.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I would like to offer some anecdotal evidence from my constituency at the general election. That poll coincided with a local government poll. The arrangements were that postal ballot papers for the local election were sent out earlier than those for the general election. A number of electors expressed their confusion and asked why they had only one ballot paper when they were expecting two. The imperative of combining the two elections in one is incredibly important.

18:15

[David Mundell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his valuable insight based on his personal experience.

In addition, if the intention of new clause 7 is to avoid the poll at a scheduled Scottish Parliament election from falling on or close to the date of the poll for an early parliamentary general election held under clause 2 of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, it does not work.

[Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North) (Lab)]

I appreciate that the clause will not apply to the next Scottish election, but there are difficulties in Aberdeen where we have the forthcoming vote on AV and a vote on the Scottish parliamentary elections, which require two ballot papers. Sadly, one of the Liberal Democrat councillors died recently, as a result of which a by-election is also likely to be held on 5 May. The electorate in Aberdeen are thus looking at four separate polling formulae under different systems. The Minister used the word “streamline” earlier, so will he help me by explaining how we are going to streamline the elections in those sorts of circumstances?

[David Mundell]

The arrangements for the conduct of the Scottish Parliament election and the AV referendum allow for a council by-election to be held on the same day. As I understand it, that by-election will take place on the basis of one form of the alternative vote system.

[Mr Doran]

But there is a worry that we should use separate arrangements when there are that number of elections all taking place on different bases on the same day.

[David Mundell]

On the specific case that the hon. Gentleman mentions, representations can be made to the returning officer, because the polls are not required to take place on the same day. The by-election poll does not have to take place on 5 May; it is a decision for the returning officer. That by-election poll should also take place in a separate polling station, although possibly within the same building.

[Mr Doran]

As I understand the current law on local government by-elections, the election must be held within three months of the death or resignation of the councillor—except when there is also a UK parliamentary or Scottish parliamentary election. In this particular case, except at extraordinary expense, the returning officer does not have much option.

[David Mundell]

I think the returning officer has some option, but the hon. Gentleman raises an important and relevant point about the multiple electoral systems operated in Scotland. I had just mentioned that Scottish council by-elections, which are another example of polls that could be held on the same day as the AV referendum, take place under a form of the alternative vote rather than the single transferable vote.

[Jim McGovern]

Is it not the case that we are effectively putting a price on democracy by saying that it is simply cheaper to have all the polls on the same day?

[David Mundell]

I do not believe that is an accurate summation of the position. The clause allows for the combining of polls and the amendment suggests that they should not be combined. However, I do not accept that the amendment is successful in that regard.

If new clause 7 is designed to avoid having a poll at a scheduled Scottish Parliament election following on or close to the date of the poll for an early parliamentary election held under clause 2 of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, it does not work, as I have said. By its very nature, an early parliamentary general election held under clause 2 will take place at short notice following either a motion of the House that there should be such an election, or at the end of the 14-day period after a motion of no confidence.

In the unlikely event that a Prime Minister were to decide on a campaign period of at least six weeks before the date of poll at the early parliamentary general election, which would be the minimum to ensure that the Scottish Parliament had not already dissolved, the parties taking part in the Scottish parliamentary general election would have already gone to significant expense in preparing campaign literature and making other arrangements, as would returning officers. All that would be wasted if the Scottish Parliament then decided to change the date of poll. Returning officers might also have started the nomination processes and, depending on timing, might have already entered into contracts for printing and accommodation, the costs of which would, again, be wasted.

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

Surely the logical conclusion of the Minister’s argument is that we should have four-year rather than five-year fixed-term Parliaments. Would that not be an easier way in which to solve the problem?

[David Mundell]

As the hon. Lady will know, what she suggests was debated extensively in the Chamber during the passage of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, and the House delivered its view then. As she will also know, last Thursday the Scottish Parliament voted unanimously to ask the United Kingdom Government to move the date of the Scottish parliamentary election in 2015 to avoid a clash with the United Kingdom general election. The motion stated that the Scottish Parliament

“notes the potential clash of UK and Scottish general election dates in 2015; invites the UK Government to set the next Scottish general election after 5 May 2011 for Thursday 5 May 2016, and looks forward to UK Government consultation on a legislative provision that would set apart UK and Scottish general election dates on a permanent basis.”

I am sure that Opposition Members welcome the fact that the coalition Government have consulted the Scottish Parliament fully on the matter, because it was raised in a number of debates.

[Tom Greatrex]

Surely the Minister accepts that the Scottish Parliament felt the need to come up with that motion only because of the potential provisions of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. If the Bill had provided for a four-year fixed term, there would be no problem. The Government still have an opportunity to revisit that possibility, and I hope that they will take it.

[David Mundell]

The issue of the length of a fixed-term Parliament was well argued during the passage of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, and the fixed term that Parliament has determined is five years. The Government have therefore embarked on an active discussion of the matter with the Scottish Parliament.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

My maths is not always fantastic, but I suspect that in 2020 we shall encounter exactly the same problem, because the Westminster Parliament will last from 2015 until 2020, and the Scottish Parliament will last from 2016 to 2020. Are the Government considering a permanent extension of the Scottish Parliament’s term to five years?

[David Mundell]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, a number of possibilities have been suggested, and the Government have said that after the Scottish parliamentary election, there will be a consultation on them. Some Members of the Scottish Parliament have said that they would like it to serve a five-year term, and that view will obviously be considered.

[Tom Greatrex]

I thank the Minister for giving way to me again. He is being characteristically generous. Surely he accepts that there would be no need for so much consultation and juggling with all the possible ways of dealing with the problem if a four-year fixed term were proposed for this Parliament as well as the Scottish Parliament. He has an opportunity to make that case to his colleagues in Government, so that the issue can be dealt with when the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill returns to this House. Will he take the opportunity to make sure that that point is made?

[David Mundell]

I see no purpose in a rerun of the debate on the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. The views expressed by the hon. Gentleman have been expressed by others, but they have not prevailed in votes in the House. The Government have set out what I consider to be the strong arguments for a five-year term for this Parliament. Because of the complicated devolution settlement in the United Kingdom, which has its own nuances—I welcome them, because they accommodate the different needs of different parts of the United Kingdom—consequential changes would inevitably be required. We have discussed the changes required in the timing of the Scottish parliamentary election and the best way of resolving the issue in a mature way through a dialogue with the presiding officer and party leaders in the Scottish Parliament.

[Mrs McGuire]

Does the Minister not accept that in trying to extend the life of this Parliament to a term that bears no relationship to any other element of our electoral process, the Government have created a series of problems not just for themselves but for other parts of the democratic process? The result has been a number of ill-considered consequences to which the Minister and the Government attempt to apply Elastoplast every time they encounter them. This is a very expensive way of providing a lifeboat for the coalition Government to take them through to 2015.

[David Mundell]

I would take what the right hon. Lady says a good deal more seriously had the last Labour Government not extended their own life to virtually the last minute of a five-year term. That opened up the possibility of another five-year term for this Parliament, leading to a coincidence of elections with the Scottish Parliament elections in 2015 that would have taken place in an unstructured and unthought-out way. The Bill has dealt with the possible repercussions.

[Mrs McGuire]

Will the Minister reflect on the facts? There have been two five-year Parliaments since 1992, one under the former Conservative Prime Minister John Major and the other under a Labour Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). The Minister’s argument has no credibility. He and the Government have created a series of consequences by trying to introduce a five-year fixed term for the current Parliament. Everyone else is being forced to alter the ways in which they operate in order to suit the coalition Government.

[David Mundell]

I am afraid that that is merely a smokescreen for the fact that there could have been a coincidence between the Scottish parliamentary and Westminster elections in any event, and that arrangements would have had to be made to deal with it.

[Thomas Docherty]

The Minister said earlier that the Government had given some consideration to the idea of moving the Scottish parliamentary elections to 2021. He will be aware that the next local government elections are scheduled for 2021. It may interest Members to know that several years ago, in the Scottish Parliament, a certain David Mundell introduced a Bill to decouple the Scottish Parliament from the local government elections. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what his position on the issue is now.

[David Mundell]

My maths is better than the hon. Gentleman’s. I knew that already, and I knew that these were exactly the sort of matters on which discussion and dialogue were needed. It is much better for that discussion and dialogue to take place in a structured way than for it to take place on the ad hoc basis that would have been required if there had been a coincidence of elections on the basis of the arrangements that existed before the introduction of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. That Bill allows these matters to be addressed, and discussion and dialogue to take place. I believe that the mature way in which that dialogue with the Scottish Parliament has taken place reflects well on the coalition Government.

[Ann McKechin]

Does not this debate show that a draft Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, which would have allowed consultation to take place between all the relevant bodies affected by the legislation in advance of it being brought to this House, would have been the most sensible way forward?

18:30

[David Mundell]

Once Parliament had determined the nature of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, the appropriate thing to do was to enter into the mature and sensible dialogue that we have had with the Scottish Parliament. I am sure that, like me, the hon. Lady will welcome the fact that the motion in the Scottish Parliament was passed unanimously. The Government will take forward the wish of the Scottish Parliament to ensure that the next Scottish Parliament election after this one will take place on 5 May 2016, on the basis that voters going to the polls on 5 May 2011 will know that they will be electing their MSPs to serve for five years.

I do not feel that the amendment would achieve the objectives that it sets out to achieve. It could lead to a lot of wasted expenditure for candidates, parties and returning officers, and I accordingly commend clause 2 to the Committee and urge the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West to withdraw his amendment.

[Tom Greatrex]

We have had an interesting debate on these issues. I would just note again that, if there had been a proposal for a four-year fixed-term Parliament, none of this would have been a problem. That would probably have been a more sensible route to take, and it is still open to the Government to deal with that matter again in the weeks to come. In the light of what the Minister has said, we will withdraw the amendment at this stage and perhaps reflect on the matter again on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Supplementary and transitional provision about elections

Amendment made: 29, page 3, line 11, at end insert—

‘( ) In section 113 of the 1998 Act (subordinate legislation: scope of powers) for subsection (1) substitute—

“(1) References in this section to a power are—

(a) to an open power,

(b) to any other power to make subordinate legislation conferred by this Act which is exercisable by Her Majesty in Council or by a Minister of the Crown, and

(c) except in subsection (9), to the power of the Scottish Ministers to make an order under section 12,

and include a power as extended by this section.”’.—(David Mundell.)

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Bills: statements as to legislative competence

[Tom Greatrex]

I beg to move amendment 12, page 4, line 36, at end add—

‘(1A) In section 31(1) of the 1998 Act, at end add—

“(1A) A person promoting an amendment to a bill in the Scottish Parliament shall on or before the lodging of the amendment state that, in his opinion, the bill if amended in accordance with the amendment would be within the legislative competence of the Parliament.”.

(1B) In section 31(2) of the 1998 Act, at end add “and state the reasons for his view.”.’.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Tom Greatrex]

We have had the opportunity to discuss a number of amendments with interested parties, including the Law Society of Scotland. This amendment relates to the statements of legislative competence that are made in the Scottish Parliament. The Minister will be aware that, before introducing a Bill in the Scottish Parliament, it is the responsibility of Ministers there to issue a statement of legislative competence. It is also the responsibility of the Presiding Officer to make a similar declaration. The amendment deals with a situation in which amendments are tabled to such Bills, either by Ministers or by Members, including to private Bills. For example, the Bill on the Forth road crossing is a private Bill. Many Members’ Bills are also dealt with in the Scottish Parliament.

It is important that, when the Scottish Parliament deals with legislation, it is aware that it is competent so to do. It is also important that the measures that come before it are appropriate. That has not always been the case for amendments, however. Our proposal also deals with Government amendments. A number of Bills, particularly technical Bills, have had a whole series of Government amendments tabled for which no declaration of competence has been made. It has therefore fallen to the Law Officers to consider those issues, post-stage 3 and before Royal Assent. Our proposal would enable that problem to be rectified, and would introduce a degree of consistency to the arrangements. This would bring confidence and competence to the work of the Scottish Parliament when legislative matters were brought before it.

[David Mundell]

As the law stands, only those members of the Scottish Government in charge of a Bill have to make a statement on its legislative competence when introducing a Bill in the Scottish Parliament. Clause 6, which amends section 31 of the Scotland Act 1998, will ensure that anyone who introduces a Bill in the Scottish Parliament is confident that it is within the Parliament’s legislative competence and prepared to make a statement to that effect.

The Scottish Parliament’s Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee supports the amendment, agreeing with the Calman commission that a statement would provide a helpful and public indication that the legislative competence of the Bill had been carefully considered by those introducing it. The Scottish Parliament endorsed the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s report on 29 September 2010.

Amendment 12 would require that the Member promoting the Bill must make a statement, when or before every amendment to a Bill is lodged in the Scottish Parliament, that, in his opinion, the Bill, if amended in accordance with the amendment, will be within the legislative competence of the Parliament. That would make the Scottish parliamentary system overly bureaucratic and complex and it is, in my view, unnecessary. Should there be any concerns about the legislative competence of a Bill passed by the Scottish Parliament, which might have been substantially amended during its passage, UK and Scottish Law Officers may refer questions of competency to the Supreme Court for decision under section 33 of the Scotland Act 1998.

The Calman commission also considered the argument that the Presiding Officer should state his reasons when making a positive statement about the legislative competence of a Bill—that is, a statement that the Bill is, in his view, within competence. This was rejected on the basis that it can be relatively easy to give reasons for thinking that a Bill is outside competence, which the Standing Orders currently require the Presiding Officer to do, but more difficult to give reasons why it is within competence. The commission’s other main doubt was that exposing to public view any grey areas in relation to competence could provide ammunition to those who were politically opposed to the Bill, either during its passage or later, by providing the basis for a legal challenge. As the Calman commission reported, it would remain open to the Presiding Officer to add reasons to any positive statement about the legislative competence of the Bill, but concluded that it was unlikely that he would do so. On that basis, I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendment to a Division and to support clause 6.

[Tom Greatrex]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, although we reserve the right to revisit the matter on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Partial suspension of Acts subject to scrutiny by Supreme Court

[Tom Greatrex]

I beg to move amendment 13, page 5, line 28, after Officer’, insert ‘and the Law Officer making the reference under subsection (1)’.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 14, page 5, line 30, leave out ‘Edinburgh Gazette’ and insert ‘Belfast Gazette, the Edinburgh Gazette and the London Gazette’.

Amendment 15, page 5, line 31, leave out ‘considers’ and insert ‘and the relevant Law Officers consider’.

Clause stand part.

[Tom Greatrex]

We have discussed amendments 13, 14 and 15 with a number of bodies, including the Law Society of Scotland, and we are attempting to clear things up and respect the doctrine of the separation of powers, so that the Executive can take responsibility for publishing references made by them in relation to the suspension of Acts subject to scrutiny by the Supreme Court. The Bill currently stipulates that the Presiding Officer shall publish the notice of any reference to the Court in the Edinburgh Gazette, and in other ways as he or she considers appropriate. As the Minister will be aware, the references will be made by one of the Law Officers, be it the Attorney-General, the Lord Advocate or the Advocate-General. Our contention is that the Law Officer making the reference should also have the responsibility to publish the fact of the reference, whether by publication or on a departmental website, so that it is not left to the Presiding Officer.

Amendments 14 and 15 deal with the publication of the notice, which the Bill currently states should be in the Edinburgh Gazette. To ensure consistency of approach, we suggest adding the London Gazette and the Belfast Gazette to the list of publications in which a reference must be published. That is significant, particularly as we are dealing with issues that are potentially subject to a reference to the Supreme Court.

[Pete Wishart]

There has been a lot of talk about the Supreme Court in the past week—it even reached First Minister’s questions last Thursday—whether in connection with the limited references to it, or its being the final port of call for appeals in criminal cases. We need to know exactly what is going on. There has been talk of a number of secret clauses that have been proposed by the Advocate-General. As we understand it, they seek to remove the High Court of Justiciary as the final court of appeal for criminal cases in Scotland and to transfer limited responsibility to the UK Supreme Court. I want to know from the Minister whether those clauses exist. If they do, when will they be introduced? Will this House, as a body of elected representatives from Scotland, have the opportunity to discuss them? Just what will be the general process?

[Jim McGovern]

The hon. Gentleman mentions secret clauses, but he seems to know what they are, so just how secret are they?

[Pete Wishart]

I am not in the fortunate position of having seen those secret clauses, although I know of others who have, and they have caused them concern. However, we are discussing a Bill that has always been described as effecting the most significant transfer of powers since the creation of devolution 10 years ago, but we are doing so under what might be described as a cloak of secrecy. We have not had a chance to see those clauses. Why have they not been introduced? Why have we not had the opportunity to see them, and if they are to be introduced, when will we have the opportunity to debate them?

We have a number of issues with clause 7 that the Minister should consider before we proceed. In effect, it would transfer new, significant and substantial powers to the Law Officers of Scotland. The clause proposes an entirely new mechanism that would allow the Law Officers new responsibilities when it came to legislation, by having the authority to identify provisions in a Scottish Bill that they considered would not be affected by a reference to the Supreme Court. As I am sure we will hear from the Minister, the intention is to allow the Law Officers to refer a part of a Bill to the Supreme Court without affecting the remainder. However, the proposal has come out of nowhere, other than the fevered, exercised minds of the legal establishment in Scotland. It was certainly not considered by the Calman commission, which made no such recommendation. It has simply appeared in the Bill, and I would like to know exactly where it came from.

18:45

The proposals in this clause raise a number of issues of principle and practice. There is simply no precedent for such an approach, and it is unclear what the status of the provisions affected by such a reference would be in law. It is for Parliament or the Government to decide when and how to implement legislation, not the courts. The clause re-describes the relationship between the legislature and the Supreme Court, yet it does not respect the separation of those roles. The clause would also allow the Law Officers to be judge and jury when deciding what the “unaffected provisions” were, and so decide which could or could not come into force. As I have said, these are substantial and significant new responsibilities for the Scottish Law Officers.

The proposals in clause 7 could also remove from Parliament and the Government the ability to judge on the overall coherence of legislation, and could have implications for the overall will of Parliament. They would also mean that, in making the call on whether to make a general or limited reference, the Law Officer concerned would need to assess whether the affected provisions were central to the Bill or whether it could proceed to Royal Assent without them. We know from our consideration of this Bill that Parliament considers Bills as a whole. Bills contain packages of measures, and support for a Bill as a whole may rest on the inclusion of matters of interest to Members which are not linked to its drafting. The proposals in clause 7 would create uncertainty and bring into question the status of Scottish Parliament legislation in a quite unacceptable way. They would also allow for changes in the law affecting the responsibilities of the courts and the Law Officers.

The clause is both unnecessary and undesirable, and has the potential to disrupt the good governance of devolved Scotland. I hope that the Minister will take a further look at it, because as it stands we have real difficulties with what is being proposed.

[David Mundell]

We have heard some unusual contributions from the Scottish National party, in this and other debates, but declaring amendments that the Advocate-General has published on his website to be secret is one of the more extreme. Indeed, I understand that there was an exchange in the Scottish Parliament last week during which, while protesting about the secrecy of the amendments, the First Minister had to concede that he had seen them.

I would agree with the hon. Gentleman that we are debating important issues, in that they relate to the laws and judicial system of Scotland, and that is why, in relation to proposed amendments to section 57(2) of the 1998 Act, the Government have adopted a consultative approach. He will be aware that the Advocate-General set up an advisory group to look into the issue. That group came back with certain views, which led to the formation of the clauses concerned, which are now the subject of further discussion and debate. They are not being moved in Committee in this House and are not part of our consideration of clause 7, and they are not referred to by amendments 13, 14 or 15, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex).

[Pete Wishart]

The Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee has expressed great concern, because it cannot make any judgment on those secret amendments in its legislative consent motion. If those amendments are not to be introduced in Committee in this place, when will they be introduced? When will we, as elected Members, have the opportunity to debate and discuss them? What is the process for introducing those amendments? [Interruption.]

[David Mundell]

The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) tempts me to answer that it is a secret, but it is not. Rather, it is part of the full legislative scrutiny of the Bill. As I suggested earlier, and as the Secretary of State’s written ministerial statement suggested, we take the issues raised by the Committee, and the specific issues raised in relation to the clause, very seriously.

[Cathy Jamieson]

It might be helpful for those who are not au fait with all the technicalities if the Minister confirms that these specific clauses are not dealt with in the legislative consent motion that will be debated in the Scottish Parliament on Thursday, and that a further LCM will be required.

[David Mundell]

That is a helpful intervention, because the LCM that will come before the Scottish Parliament this week relates to the Bill as published, and as scrutinised by that Parliament’s Committee—and also by this House. The LCM the Committee promotes suggests that if there are significant changes to the Bill—and, of course, the proposed amendments to section 57(2) of the 1998 Act would be significant—there would be another legislative consent process with the Scottish Parliament. The Government are clear in that regard. Also, as I understand it, the Scottish Government do not support the LCM promoted by the Committee.

[Pete Wishart]

When and where is the Minister going to introduce these measures, if, indeed, he is going to introduce them?

[David Mundell]

As I have suggested—as have the “secret” ministerial statement the Secretary of State made last week, the “secret” LCM Committee report, and the “secret” clauses that are on the website—the coalition Government are engaged in consultation and dialogue on these clauses. Indeed, so generous are we in that regard, that we will even take on board in our considerations the points the hon. Gentleman makes on these matters, but these amendments are not being moved at this stage. There is a further very significant point, which I would have thought would have satisfied the hon. Gentleman given the respect he has for the Scottish Parliament and its views: a further LCM would be required from the Scottish Parliament if significant amendments were being made in relation to section 57(2).

[Stewart Hosie]

Given the time scales, will it in fact be the next Scottish Parliament after the election in May that will have to consider a further LCM, were one to be requested if such amendments were going to be considered?

[David Mundell]

The hon. Gentleman is very astute: yes, there will be a Scottish Parliament election on 5 May, and, yes, the current Parliament will be dissolved on 22 March. It is therefore very likely that there will be another Scottish Parliament in place, but this coalition Government respect that Parliament and whatever Government emerge of whatever political colour, and we will engage in a constructive dialogue with whoever is in power in Holyrood.

On the Opposition amendments, currently entire Bills of the Scottish Parliament can be delayed, possibly for months, should just a single provision be referred to the Supreme Court to determine whether it is within legislative competence. Clause 7 of this Bill will amend the 1998 Act, not in the nefarious way the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) suggests, but in a positive way, to prevent unnecessary delays to Bills where the majority of provisions are considered to be within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. The affected Bill would be submitted for Royal Assent by the Presiding Officer, while the disputed provisions would not come into force until the Supreme Court had reached a decision and Scottish Ministers had made the appropriate commencement order. The UK Government believe this is the most appropriate and sensible method of helping to ensure that the work of the Scottish Parliament runs as smoothly as possible. Members will wish to note that the Scotland Bill Committee in the Scottish Parliament accepted this provision, but asks for consideration to be made of the legislative procedure used. We will review that recommendation carefully.

The amendments would require the Law Officer making the limited reference, in addition to the Presiding Officer, to publish notice of the reference in the Edinburgh Gazette and also in the London Gazette and Belfast Gazette. Clause 7 already requires the Presiding Officer to publish notice of a reference in the Edinburgh Gazette and in such other ways as he considers appropriate. It does not prevent the Presiding Officer from publishing notices in the London Gazette or Belfast Gazette, or in any other paper or on any website, or in any other way he should wish—even secret ones.

[Thomas Docherty]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can satisfy a curiosity of mine. What is the Edinburgh Gazette, and where may one attain a copy of it?

[David Mundell]

The Edinburgh Gazette is one of the few newspapers in Scotland in which the hon. Gentleman does not appear. It is a formal publication in which formal Government, local authority and other governmental notices appear. I understand that it can be subscribed to, although it is not regularly available in most newsagents in Scotland. There is also a person with the title of the Queen’s Printer for Scotland, who may also publish notice of the reference in such ways as they consider appropriate.

[Pete Wishart]

Is it not possible that the Queen’s Printer may be abolished under the Public Bodies Bill? What would happen then?

[David Mundell]

I will look into the hon. Gentleman’s specific query and write to him on it.

A requirement on the Law Officer to publish the notice of the reference would lead to three different people being responsible for publishing the same notices, and could be considered overly complicated and unnecessary. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) to withdraw the amendments and to agree to clause 7. I hope I have been able to ease the concerns of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire in respect of possible future amendments to section 57(2) by confirming that the Advocate-General has set up an expert group to look into the issue, and that the group came forward with proposals that were put into the public domain and shared with the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament Bill Committee. They are still under consideration, which is why they are not being introduced into this House; we accept that these are important issues on which there should be full discussion, but that discussion is not yet at a sufficiently advanced stage for it to be appropriate to introduce amendments. On that basis, I commend clause 7 as it stands to the House.

[Tom Greatrex]

I am disappointed in some of the Minister’s responses. I am aware that there is no preclusion on publication in the London Gazette or Belfast Gazette, but, in the interest of transparency, it would be a step forward if the publication were extended, particularly given the issues under consideration. He also rightly said that this means that at least two people have responsibility and perhaps we may consider a further amendment subsequently to deal with that point.

19:00

I had an inkling that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) would discuss the secret amendments. Although the Minister may have had a bit of fun about the definition of “secret”, they suggest that a lack of thought went into the processes that the Government have followed. If they wanted to avoid some of the hyperbolic language from the MSP who spoke to the Scottish Affairs Committee last week or the week before, it may have been sensible for them to have published those draft amendments, to have had a short consultation on them and then to have introduced them to the Bill at the right time. Scrutinising the Bill is very important and although there will be an opportunity to come back to those amendments, it would have been much better if we had seen them by now and been able to discuss them in this Committee. I reserve the right to come back to my amendments on Report, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Air weapons

[Tom Greatrex]

I beg to move amendment 17, page 7, line 26, after ‘weapons’, insert

“except those intended to be utilised in recognised international sporting competitions”.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 38, page 7, line 26, after ‘air weapons’, insert

“below a muzzle energy of 6 ft/lbs”.

Amendment 3, page 7, line 27, leave out from ‘1968’ to end of line 34.

Amendment 18, page 7, line 34, at end add—

‘(1A) The Secretary of State shall have the power to issue regulations to deal with any cross-border issues arising from the operation of this section including but not limited to issues arising from the transport of air weapons from, or their use in, Scotland and England and Wales.’.

Amendment 39, page 7, line 34, at end add—

‘(2) The use or possession of air weapons as defined in subsection (1) above which were acquired before the coming into force of any Act or other legislative instrument of the Scottish Parliament made as a result of this section shall until then continue to be subject to any regulations made under the Firearms Acts 1968 to 1997.’.

Clause stand part.

[Tom Greatrex]

There has been much discussion of this issue and I know that many hon. Members wish to contribute to this part of our consideration today, so I shall keep my remarks brief. This emotive issue was considered in detail by the Calman commission and I know from my own experience that lengthy discussion has taken place involving the Scotland Office, the Home Office and, on various occasions, the Scottish Government on issues associated with the control of air weapons. The current definition of “air weapons” has often been raised and I was slightly surprised to see that the Bill uses the 1968 definition, because an issue had previously arisen regarding the proper definition of “air weapons”. I am sure that other hon. Members will deal with that in greater detail. I took the opportunity at today’s Home Office questions to ask the Home Secretary when she planned to review that definition and one of her Ministers said that he was not sure but he would come back to me on it at some point. We need to be confident that the definition is appropriate in respect of what the Calman commission recommended on air weapons and therefore what the Bill tries to do.

Amendments 17 and 18 do not relate to that issue but are probing amendments dealing with a couple of specific areas, one of which is the treatment of air weapons for recognised sporting events and what happens when people travel to the Commonwealth games or another event through England and into Scotland. Amendment 18 deals with cross-border issues—for example, what happens when an airgun is licensed in Scotland but not in England and someone from England takes a weapon without a licence north of the border. The Minister represents a rural constituency on the border, so I am sure he will be aware of the potential for some of these issues to arise. The amendment seeks to ensure that there is a mechanism to deal with any of those issues. I am well aware that other hon. Members wish to discuss this matter in much more detail, so I shall draw my comments to a close.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I wish to speak to my amendments 38 and 39. I do so as chairman of the all-party group on shooting and conservation, the secretariat for which is provided by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the specialist shooting body. The BASC has briefed me on these matters and I took some of its members to see the Secretary of State last week, when they were able to put the technical arguments against this matter being included in the Bill and thus becoming a devolved matter. I shall use the latitude that the clause stand part debate provides to make that argument, as well as the one for my two amendments.

My two amendments are straightforward. Amendment 38 seeks to withdraw all but the least powerful air weapons from these arrangements. Amendment 39 goes some way towards dealing with the cross-border issues that the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) described and with the issue of weapons being legal in England and Wales but becoming illegal in Scotland if the matter were devolved and the Scottish Parliament were to use its powers under the Bill.

In arguing against this becoming a devolved matter, it might be useful if I put the whole thing into context. Shooting contributes £240 million to the Scottish economy and airguns are the entry point into the sport. It is estimated that there are some 500,000 airguns in Scotland, compared with 4 million to 7 million in the UK as a whole. They are owned for a variety of lawful purposes, such as target shooting and pest control. The majority of airguns do not carry any serial or other identifying number, and very few need to be held on the authority of a firearms certificate because their capacity is below 12 ft/lbs. The location of nearly all current owners is unknown.

Some 52% of all Scottish airgun crime takes place in the Strathclyde police area and this appears to be an urban problem, rather than a countrywide problem. The call in this Bill for the devolution of airgun legislation has been made following the tragic death of two-year-old Andrew Morton, who was shot with an airgun by 27-year-old Mark Bonini, a drug user from Glasgow. The subsequent tabloid outrage and a campaign by the Scottish nationalists has resulted in a “Scottish appetite” for airgun legislation to be devolved, despite the fact that the current criminal justice system worked by sentencing Mark Bonini to life imprisonment.

There is therefore really no need for any further amendments to the firearms legislation. Numerous pieces of legislation are available to the police across Great Britain to deal with the misuse of airguns and three further pieces of airgun legislation have recently been passed by Westminster: the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006, and the Crime and Security Act 2010. The Scottish police can also use the offence of reckless discharge, which is not available south of the border.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman said that 50% of these incidents took place in the Strathclyde police area and that there was some sort of link with this being an urban crime, not a rural one. Given that the Strathclyde police area stretches from the Dumfriesshire border with Ayrshire into the lowlands of the highlands, I am puzzled as to how he makes that link between urban crime and the Strathclyde police area.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

It comes from the number of offences that have been reported—no more, no less. The average number of Scottish airgun offences per annum since 1996 is 565 and the number of incidents has been falling since 2006-07.

The apparent rise in the use of airguns is likely to be the result of improved police reporting procedures, but other weapons, especially knives, are much more likely to be used in homicide offences in Scotland and, indeed, elsewhere. There is nothing peculiarly Scottish about airgun controls or crime, so there is no justification for creating a system for Scotland that differs from the current regime in England. It is not enough for Ministers to wash their hands of it on the ground that the democratic process will produce the right answer. The campaign for the devolution of powers regarding airguns has been fuelled by tabloid scaremongering such as that around the recent incident in Auchinleck in Ayrshire. It was initially reported that 18 schoolchildren had been shot by a sniper armed with an airgun equipped with a muzzle, but it later turned out that eight children had been hit by plastic pellets from a BB toy gun.

The coalition has rightly resolutely opposed knee-jerk legislation on firearms that is not based on sound evidence. The Calman commission produced no argument for devolving powers on airguns beyond the statement that

“there is appetite to deal with airguns differently in Scotland.”

I submit to the Minister that that is not a good basis for legislating on this matter. The commission produced no evidence to back that up.

The coalition has advocated having easily understood legislation that protects public safety, whichever part of the United Kingdom one comes from. Public safety is endangered by complex firearms laws, and having a different regime for airguns in Scotland will increase the complexity of firearms laws. Devolving power over airguns will destroy the internal logic of firearms legislation as a reserve power and will fuel calls for the devolution of all firearms law, which I note the Bill specifically does not do; all the most serious firearms legislation is still reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. There are already 36 offences that can be applied in relation to airgun misuse. The most recent legislation—the requirement in the Crime and Security Act 2010 to ensure that children do not have unrestricted access to airguns—came into effect only last month.

There is good evidence to suggest that increased powers, proper enforcement and education are behind the fall in airgun misuse that is most pronounced north of the border. The Government and Parliament are in the middle of a review of firearms legislation in the wake of Whitehaven, and Parliament is awaiting a response from the Home Office to the Select Committee on Home Affairs report on firearms. Devolving power over airguns in Scotland would be premature, would ignore the wider review and would mean having piecemeal legislation on firearms in response to outrage, which would damage effective legislation and enforcement. The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland has stated that

“in the ideal world, for the sake of lack of confusion…one set of legislation would be the best option”,

and that, given the number of airguns in circulation,

“in relation to cost and resources from a policing perspective, there would be a definitive impact”.

It has also said that regulating airguns in Scotland could be difficult and costly. It stated:

“Ideally, we would prefer them to come under the Firearms Act”—

that of 1968, to which the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West referred, and that of 1997, in particular, both of which are referred to in my amendment—

“so we don’t have two sets of rules.”

If a licensing system of air weapons was introduced, it would have a disproportionate effect on the operational capacity of the Scottish police forces. As I have said, they would not have the time or the manpower to deal with the issue properly. The new work load would require a serious displacement of staff from other more important fields such as crime prevention and detection. Any change to laws on airgun ownership proposed by the Scottish Government could criminalise an estimated 500,000 law-abiding airgun owners in Scotland overnight. The consequences of any change in controls over air weapons in Scotland would not be confined to Scotland, but no consultations have been launched to canvass the opinions of people in England and Wales who might be affected by such changes when they travel over the border. Any ban on air weapon ownership imposed by the Scottish Government would adversely affect trade and would lead to a significant bill for compensation for those who legitimately own air weapons. Is the Minister going to pay compensation to those people who suddenly find themselves with illegal weapons, or will the weapons simply become useless, in which case those people will lose out considerably?

19:15

The absence of border controls between Scotland, England and Wales is likely to lead to non-compliance. If the Minister doubts that, let me cite an example. Since the 2004 English ban on self-contained air cartridge firearms, which are often called Brococks, of the 70,000 estimated to be in circulation, less than 10% have been registered, so there is widespread breaking of the law, but few people that I know of have been prosecuted because it simply is not possible to find them. Major restriction on air weapon ownership would make it impossible for Scotland to host the Commonwealth games or other major sporting events, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West pointed out.

Let me put my suggestions and alternatives to the Minister and then I will conclude. Education is having an impact. BASC, which I have mentioned, runs “young shots” days, and the Scottish Countryside Alliance offers next-generation days, at which BASC Scotland provides airgun and shotgun tuition to teach and remind many hundreds of youngsters about the safe and proper way to use airguns—something to which we would all subscribe. We should continue to encourage the police to circulate BASC’s airgun codes of practice, which already reach tens of thousands of people, and focus on enforcing existing law. We should also encourage people to try target shooting with airguns at clubs so that people of all ages can learn about the safe use of airguns in a controlled environment by qualified instructors and realise that airguns are capable of inflicting a lethal injury if misused.

I have to say to the Minister that I think the whole airgun issue has been driven by a tabloid press feeding frenzy on one or two incidents. I understand that, and the same thing would happen if those incidents occurred in England.

[Jim McGovern]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the tabloid press. I am sure he is aware that in the past week or so, the tabloid press have had a feeding frenzy about two football coaches in Glasgow falling out with each other, but there does not seem to have been the same feeding frenzy about an England football player taking an air weapon to a training ground and shooting someone.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I welcome that intervention. I take any infringement of airgun law very seriously indeed. Anyone who has an airgun, firearm or shotgun should use it safely and according to the law. I do not diminish incidents when they happen; I am merely saying that whether they happened in Scotland or England there would be the same tabloid coverage. I simply say, in all seriousness to all concerned, that I think we are better with one set of UK-wide firearms legislation, given that this is such a serious subject, so that everyone who uses a firearm of any sort, whether a shotgun, airgun or licensed firearm, knows exactly what the law is. Having different laws in the Principalities of the United Kingdom will lead to trouble.

[Pete Wishart]

Doing things differently in Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom is what we call devolution, and I say to the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) that we make no apologies for representing our constituencies and communities. If this is the legislation that our communities want, it is up to us as their elected Members to secure it.

I strongly welcome the clause and I congratulate the Calman parties on introducing it. It is one of the few examples in the Bill of a real and positive transfer of powers from the Scotland Office to Scottish Ministers, in recognition of the very significant and different issues in Scotland. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds mentioned the tragic incident in 2005 when young Andrew Morton lost his life at the hands of someone with an airgun. It was not the tabloid press but his parents who started a remarkable campaign to bring the issue to public attention, and they were supported in that cause by politicians, civic groups and everyone who took an interest in the subject.

[Michael Connarty]

I worry when a Scottish National party Member accepts the kind of smear on Scotland that the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) made. If we look at the press in England, we see there has been a succession of shootings and killings using handguns, not airguns, in and around the cities of England. The seriousness of the issue of deaths being caused by those carrying firearms is much greater in England than in Scotland, so let us not get things out of perspective.

[Pete Wishart]

I will come to the issue of firearms, which is central to our amendment, in order that we can, in Scotland, have responsibility for firearms, as well as for air weapons, which are, as we all acknowledge, a significant problem in our community. It is important that we have legislative responsibility for all such weapons in Scotland so that we can make our own laws, not just in regard to airguns, but in regard to all serious weapons.

A fantastic campaign led to calls for Scotland to secure legislative competence for airguns, which we are doing today. It led to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, writing to Jacqui Smith several years ago to ask that Scotland be considered as a pilot area for the licensing of airguns, and subsequently to a summit of all stakeholders to consider the problem in Scotland and propose a way of dealing with it. Many interesting issues were explored at that firearms summit. The Scottish Government went as far as publishing the necessary parliamentary order to transfer the power quickly so that they could start to deal with the issue in Scotland.

Why do we want legislative competence? I have explained why we think the situation in Scotland is different and why Scotland needs the power, but what we can do with it? This might satisfy the hon. Member for The Cotswolds about our intentions: it is not about trying to stop sporting events or getting in the way of the Commonwealth games. That is nonsense. They will go ahead. Many constituents of mine enjoy and participate in events with all manner of rifles and I have no problem with that.

The power would allow us to examine the issue seriously. The intention is to put together a Scottish firearms consultative panel involving all the key stakeholders to establish a range of views on the issue. One of its first tasks would be to develop and consider the merits of a pilot licensing scheme for air weapons. This would enable the Scottish Government to test the practicalities of air weapon licensing. It would also test whether air weapon licensing can operate effectively without wider reform of the firearms legislation. A pilot could take place in one or more areas in Scotland.

Our strong view, as I said to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), is that air weapons are only part of the story when it comes to dangerous weapons in Scotland. At the firearms summit in 2008 there was clear agreement that the current firearms legislation is not fit for purpose. Something must be done to improve the situation. It needs to be comprehensively reviewed. I accept that a review is taking place and we will wait to see its conclusions, but we need action. If that cannot happen at UK level, and if the legislation is not satisfactory, we insist that firearms legislation control be handed to the Scottish Government so that we can make our own decisions about this critical issue.

[Mr Davidson]

The hon. Gentleman speaks about dangerous weapons. As he knows, more people are killed in Scotland by knives than by guns of any kind. Since its inception, the Scottish Parliament has had full control over knives, yet that problem has not been resolved. Will he clarify for me why he has such touching faith that simply transferring control over air weapons to Scotland will resolve the matter, when having full power over knives has not done so?

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the topic of knives. I am sure he would be the first to congratulate the Scottish Government on reducing the number of knife-related incidents in Scotland in the past few years. It is a remarkable achievement that in four years of SNP government, we have made real progress in reducing knife crime significantly.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that he wants to go further than the Bill by devolving all firearms legislation to Scotland. The Scottish Bill Committee, in which he placed so much faith at the beginning of the proceedings, was split on the vote. Clearly, it is not the overwhelming opinion in Scotland that all firearms legislation ought to be devolved.

[Pete Wishart]

I accept that, but it is our strong view that all firearms legislation should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament because it would enable us to ensure that we could deal with all the issues relating to firearms.

[David Mundell]

It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman defined who “our” is. As he knows, the Scottish Government have tabled their own draft legislative consent motion in the Scottish Parliament, in which they agree with the clause and do not suggest that there should be any further devolution of powers in relation to air weapons.

[Pete Wishart]

As I said at the start of my remarks, we welcome the clause. It is a real transfer of power—one of the few transfers of powers in the Bill. Of course we support the clause. I have argued consistently that our intention is to improve and strengthen the Bill to deal with some important issues. If our amendment is accepted, we have an opportunity to deal not only with air weapons, but with firearms in their totality. Surely that is a better situation to be in than having responsibility for just one aspect.

[David Mundell]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I know that I will get the same sort of question again, but I will give way to the Minister.

[David Mundell]

I do not want to be picky, but in the LCM that the Scottish Government have lodged, they suggest a significant number of amendments to the Bill and state their views on re-reservation and so on, but they are clear that they support the clause as it stands.

[Pete Wishart]

Indeed, we do support the clause as it stands. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is an astute follower of what happens in the Scottish Parliament, so he will have heard Kenny MacAskill and other colleagues saying on several occasions that what we require in Scotland is full control over all firearms legislation. That was the outcome of the summit held back in 2008 and that is what we seek to achieve this evening. We can achieve it. All we need to do is get the Committee to support us on amendment 3 this evening.

[Michael Connarty]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain how that would operate? I deal with firearms quite a lot in my constituency. I would like to hear what the difference would be if legislative control were transferred. The regime is very strictly run by the police, and the laws encompass everyone in the UK.

[Pete Wishart]

I am about to come to that. Let me explain first what we are trying to achieve with the amendment, and I will then deal with the hon. Gentleman’s wider point. He may intervene again if he feels that he is not getting a satisfactory response.

Our amendment deletes a small section that states that power over the control of “specially dangerous” weapons remains with the Secretary of State. It ensures that the Scottish Parliament will have the power to legislate for all air weapons, including the “specially dangerous” weapons that require a firearms certificate. The Bill as it stands includes a power for the Secretary of State to designate “specially dangerous” air weapons, which would then fall under the reserved regime that applies to all other firearms. In that case, the power would lie with the UK Government and Ministers and would not be subject to any approval from Scottish Ministers or the Scottish Parliament.

We therefore propose that the relevant power be exercised with the consent of the Scottish Parliament, even if it is not transferred. We believe that this is important because there are different and distinct issues relating to firearms in Scotland. I do not want to mention specifically all the tragedies that have taken place. We have only to recall Dunblane several years ago to recognise the very real issues that we have in Scotland involving firearms. It would be much more sensible for all firearms to be under one control in one central point. Scottish police forces have taken great interest in our plea and they would be interested in developing and exercising it.

We want to avoid complication. Our amendment would devolve legislative competence for all air weapons to the Scottish Parliament. I intend to press the amendment to a Division because it is important. This is one of the few opportunities that we will get to improve the Bill significantly and ensure that all weapons are included in it. It is a small measure designed to improve the Bill, as we said we would, and I urge the entire Committee to support it.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to this part of the debate. I hope it will be one based on the experience of representing an area that has had its fair share of difficulties with airguns, and of four years as the Justice Minister in Scotland, including at the time of the incident that has been referred to when a toddler lost his life in the east end of Glasgow as a result of an air weapon. Far from responding to any media frenzy, I hope that I was able as a politician to respond to the real tragedy for people in the local community, not least the child’s parents, who witnessed the event and had to deal with the consequences.

At that point, when there were demands for an immediate, all-out ban on air weapons, I took the view that we should take a considered approach that looked at the evidence and brought together the police and other organisations. At that stage I met a number of those organisations. I believed that it was best to deal with the situation not through a piecemeal approach, but by working with the UK Government to secure changes on sentencing and tightening the legislation, which we did, and with a view to looking at how a licensing regime could operate in Scotland in future. I welcome the clause that will give the Scottish Parliament the opportunity to do something about this.

19:30

Let me make a few comments to clear up some misunderstandings about the types of areas where there have been incidents with air weapons. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) said that most of these incidents occur in the Strathclyde region. If he looks at a map of the Strathclyde region, he will see its size and scale and note that it takes in not only cities and large towns, but small towns, rural areas, remote rural areas, islands and everything in between. It is not entirely accurate to suggest that because the figures relate largely to Strathclyde it is not a problem for the rest of Scotland. Indeed, the opposite could be argued; the region takes up so much of Scotland that if it is a problem there, we can be pretty sure that it is a problem elsewhere.

The hon. Member for The Cotswolds also mentioned an incident that occurred only a couple of weeks ago in Auchinleck, which is in my constituency. Of course, not absolutely everything that appears in the tabloid press is 100% accurate. Only a few weeks ago there was some interesting reporting of a junior football match between Auchinleck Talbot and Cumnock Juniors that suggested that mounted police were involved in something akin to the charge of the Light Brigade. A constituent suggested to me that when the horses came on to the pitch it was more like dressage than a charge, so I understand that things can be exaggerated. However, in an era of mobile phones and 24-hour news, I also understand that any incident witnessed in a local community is likely to get into the public domain quickly, as people will report it to newspapers or online, perhaps on Facebook. Indeed, that is where many of my constituents first heard about the incident in Auchinleck.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Lady share my experience that the abuse of air weapons often involves not only the cases that make the newspapers, but the distressing circumstances of much-loved family pets being injured or killed when shot at? Those stories never make the headlines, but they nevertheless cause great distress in communities.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I absolutely agree. Of course, those are the types of incidents that local newspapers report far more regularly than national newspapers.

Information about the incident in Auchinleck quickly got into the public domain, some of which was not absolutely accurate. A number of school pupils were injured, albeit by what the hon. Member for The Cotswolds described as a toy BB gun—I have more to say on that in a moment—and required hospital treatment, so I hope that he is not suggesting that it is not necessary to have a serious look at how that gun got into the hands of the people who used it, what they were doing with it and why they became involved in such an incident. To be honest, I recognise where he is coming from in relation to his sporting and shooting interests, but I find it difficult to understand in any event why anyone living in an urban environment would require an air weapon in their home. It is time we looked at the issue, and I hope that that is something a licensing or other regime in Scotland could deal with.

I want to say something about firearms in general. I accept many of the points made by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), but I do not believe that at this stage we require responsibility for the whole range of firearms legislation to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. However, I do think that it is incumbent on the UK Government—perhaps the Minister will indicate what discussions he will have or has had with Home Office colleagues—to ensure that the provisions of the 1968 Act still stand the test of time. The worst possible thing that could happen is that we devolve something and discover subsequently that we will have to revisit it, for example if the definition of what constitutes an airgun is no longer seen to meet the needs of the legislation we are devolving.

I want to say something on BB guns, because I know that in many instances they are the weapons—I use the word “weapons” rather than “toys” because of the damage they can inflict—that cause exactly the problems that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) identified. I also believe that there is a gap in the legislation, because those weapons appear to be easily available, particularly to children and young people. The fact that they are not covered by legislation sends entirely the wrong message. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister will have discussions with his Home Office colleagues to take that forward.

I appreciate that other Members want to comment in the debate and so do not intend to speak for much longer. I feel that the time is right, and I have given the matter careful consideration because my initial response when Justice Minister, as I have said, was that we should not legislate or press for legislation in haste. It is four years since that time, and considerably longer since the incident in Easterhouse, so no one could accuse us of legislating in haste when we take these measures forward.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

The hon. Lady is making a cogent and reasonable case, and I am interested to hear what she has to say as a former Justice Minister. In the Andrew Morton case, as I said in my contribution, Mark Bonini was sentenced to life imprisonment, so what does she think it is about the current laws that is not working and needs to be modified?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I say to him gently that the people of Easterhouse, and perhaps people more widely in Scotland, feel that legislation that would prevent someone like that from having an air weapon in their home in the middle of Easterhouse would be of assistance. That is why there is strong support in Scotland for a ban on air weapons. That is not the province of any particularly political party, but something that has united people across political organisations and local communities.

I said that it is not about legislating in haste. I believe that the time has come to look at how we can ensure that no other family goes through the same trauma as did the family in Easterhouse, but we will do that by having workable legislation. I end on a note of caution, because there are a number of areas where I think a great deal of further work needs to be done to ensure, for example, that the cross-border issues are manageable. We need to look at that in detail. It is entirely possible to look at exemptions for sporting activity, and I know from my previous experience in the Scottish Parliament that fruitful discussions were held, and I am sure continue to be held, on the transport and use of guns for sporting activities. This should not be the end of the matter. If the proposal is included and the Bill passed, it will be a stepping stone on a journey to ensure that, wherever possible, we avoid such incidents as have been described and are able to look at how best the existing firearms legislation throughout, importantly, the United Kingdom can be strengthened. In particular, I make the plea, which I shall repeat when the review reports, for the careful consideration of including in legislation BB guns and weapons like that to ensure that they do not fall into the wrong hands.

[Mrs McGuire]

I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson). For those colleagues who are not aware of her work as a Justice Minister, I hope that they will see what she managed to do when she held that difficult position and airguns became a major issue in Scotland. I acknowledge what she did.

I fear that the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), for whom many in the House have great respect, has taken a big hit tonight, because in prosecuting his case he fails to understand that the issue of air weapons is slightly different in Scotland. That is why we feel it important to allow the Scottish Parliament to regulate air weapons in Scotland. I, like the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), have a large rural constituency, and I have had no correspondence—letters or e-mails— at all on the issue, yet many in my constituency see air weapons as part of an introduction to country sports, and I fully recognise that.

I fear also that the hon. Member for The Cotswolds anticipates what a Scottish Parliament might do with such powers, but he has to recognise that it has Members with urban constituencies and many with rural constituencies, and they will take into account the balances that have to be struck to ensure that they do not undermine a way of life or an activity that is important to many communities in Scotland.

When the legislation banning handguns was passed in 1997, one argument was that it would undermine sporting activity. That has not happened, because in that legislation we ensured that there was a tight regime and that any sporting activity was conducted in a safe context. That is what we are asking for in the Bill before us, because the debate has thrown up some issues that could cause confusion if they are not attended to properly.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun that we need to be clear about what we are doing in passing this element of the Bill. Indeed, on Second Reading, I asked the Minister whether he had consulted his colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that we had the definitions right and did not allow some air weapons to fall outside the legislation. I should still be interested to know what discussions he or his departmental colleagues have had with the Home Office to ensure that we get the definitions right.

I fully support the probing amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) has tabled, because the issue is not just about passing this element of the Bill, but about instilling in the House the confidence that, in passing the legislation, we have in place all the other elements that are required to make it an effective piece of devolution, while maintaining safety both north and south of the border and not allowing for any confusion, which might exist if we do not get the legislation right for those people who, as the Minister will know, cross the border regularly. I hope that he will deal with the specific issues that have been raised. This is an issue not of principle, but of detail, and I hope that he will be able to give us some assurances this evening.

19:45

[Michael Connarty]

I approach the issue from a slightly different position. I support clause 11, because it is sensible to route such decisions to the Scottish Government, and amendments 17 and 18, which I hope the Government will take on board. Strangely, in a Committee of the whole House, Members do not necessarily receive from the Government the moderate responses that they would if they were in Committee off the Floor of the House and outwith the view of the television cameras. Often, Ministers see the sense in amendments and accept them, but this is a much more public arena, so we might not get from the Government Front Bencher tonight the sensible response that we would have had if we had been off the Floor of the House. That is one of the problems of this theatre, as some people regard the Chamber.

I have had to handle many matters to do with guns—to do with normal firearms—because there is quite a large shooting fraternity in my constituency. My constituency is mostly urban, but it has a rural hinterland where people shoot in clubs, to get rid of vermin, which is what farmers consider rabbits to be, and they go further north to shoot deer. It is an urban environment, and with reference to the remarks of my good Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), strangely, where somebody lives does not necessarily determine whether it is right for them to have a weapon of any kind; the question is what they are going to use it for, whether it is properly secured and whether they are properly licensed, controlled and monitored by the police.

I hope that in this Bill we are giving to the Scottish Parliament the power to think about—in keeping the whole thing in perspective—what I would call regulation rather than prohibition. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) is partly concerned by the idea, whipped up by whomever, for whatever reasons and with the aid of whatever quality press, that we are talking about—and we do use the phrase—a ban on airguns in Scotland. I hope that that is not the case, and we are not talking about someone running such a campaign.

The problem with prohibition, which was very well exhibited in the USA when they tried to ban alcoholic drink, is that the banned item just goes underground. In that situation, weapons would not only be used but traded, and unfortunately a large number of illicit users might misuse them, so I hope that the Scottish Government are sensibly thinking about a regulatory regime for air weapons. People say that a licensing scheme will cost so much money that it will be easier or, certainly, cheaper to introduce a ban, but I hope that in Scotland there is a sense of perspective, so that the issue, when it is transferred, will be about regulation, not prohibition.

That is not at all to diminish the serious effects of the deranged misuse of such weapons. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) was right to point out that a lot of damage is done by misuse, particularly to domestic animals in our communities. I am sure that it does not happen just in communities in Scotland, either, and that the hon. Member for The Cotswolds did not mean to smear the good name of urban communities in Scotland, because we know of the terrible catalogue of murders by people using guns—firearms, not airguns—in England. I am sure that airguns are misused a lot in communities in England.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

The hon. Gentleman has been a Member for a long time and, in fact, as long as I have. I did not in any way mean to smear the people of Scotland, as he has inferred from my remarks; that was not what I said at all. Does he, in turn, recognise that the vast majority of firearms offences and, indeed, airgun offences are carried out by unlicensed users? We can have in place whatever regime we like, but those offences will still occur from time to time.

[Michael Connarty]

I wish that we could expunge from the memories of the people of Scotland, particularly central Scotland, the fact that a licensed gun owner used guns that were then allowed to create the carnage at Dunblane. It is not wrong to say that by regulating and banning the possession of handguns we did something very positive. There are times when controls are needed. In the United States of America, people can buy what are basically machine guns over the counter; we cannot, thank goodness. This obviously has a lot to do with the person who misuses the weapon, but it is also about its availability in the first place.

I hope that whatever regime is introduced in Scotland will be strict. A regular firearm user who is a hunter recently came to see me about relicensing and could show me that they had a strongroom that was totally secure, which meant that access to their guns would be very difficult for anyone. Their licence was approved by the local police, and it was a very thorough operation. I do not know whether that operation could be replicated for airguns, but that would stop a lot of the illicit possession. It is much easier for the local community around the area to know that someone is misusing such a gun if they possess it without a licence, in a similar way as applies to the possession of ordinary guns. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun agrees with that.

I hope that the Minister is listening to the support for these small amendments, which are useful and helpful. With apologies to those who aspire to have this in Scotland because we are Scottish, there are some serious types of airguns that should be licensed universally on an all-UK basis. That will not undermine the ability of our communities to know that people who have unlicensed airguns can be immediately notified to the police to have those firearms removed.

[David Mundell]

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Benton.

I can assure the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) that nothing that the Government put forward this evening is in any way determined by the fact that these proceedings are televised. I hope that we are bringing forward a reasoned response to important issues that have been raised in the debate on these amendments.

I wanted, during this discussion, to clarify the SNP’s position, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) will understand why. I think that the logical explanation is that we now have devolution in the SNP, with a London SNP that is proposing an amendment to clause 11 and an Edinburgh SNP that is in agreement with it as it stands. In those circumstances, I find it extremely odd that the hon. Gentleman suggested that he was going to push this matter to a Division. He will have seen the Scottish Parliament’s Scotland Bill Committee report, which, in paragraphs 142 to 144, confirms that it was a unanimous view of that Committee that clause 11 should be supported. It states:

“We note that this excludes those air rifles, air guns or air pistols which are of a type declared by rules made by the Secretary of State under section 53 of the 1968 Act to be ‘specially dangerous’. These particular weapons are already banned and we see no reason why this would change.”

The Committee went on unanimously to recommend support for clause 11.

[Dr Whiteford]

I have here a copy of the Scotland Bill Committee report, which came out last week. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at paragraph 142 and the footnote attached to it, he will see that in fact there was a division on that point and the view was not unanimous at all.

[David Mundell]

The hon. Lady will also be aware of the text of the LCM to be put forward by the Scottish Government. Her Scottish Parliament colleague, Fiona Hyslop, kindly sent it to me, listing several clauses to which the Scottish Government want changes made. Clause 11 is clearly stated not to be one of them.

[Dr Whiteford]

May I once again draw the Minister’s attention to paragraph 142 and footnote 28, which clearly show that two members of the Committee, Brian Adam and Tricia Marwick, caused a split on the issue? Will he acknowledge that for the record?

[David Mundell]

I acknowledge for the record that the vote took place, but I also point out to the hon. Lady annex A, where the minority views on the issues on which her colleagues felt particularly strongly are set out, clearly stating their disagreement.

[Stewart Hosie]

This is not good enough. The Minister said that the Bill Committee was unanimous, but the footnote makes it clear that it was not—there was a division and a split vote. Will he now take the opportunity to correct what he said so that the Committee is not inadvertently misled by his earlier remarks?

[David Mundell]

I certainly would not want the Committee to be misled by anything that I said. I referred to the paragraphs in the Scotland Bill Committee report, where it is clear that the Committee formed the view that it did. It is also clear that the Scottish Government have come forward with an LCM that supports this clause as it stands.

Clause 11 devolves a power to the Scottish Parliament in relation to the regulation of air weapons. This would enable the Scottish Parliament to legislate, if it wished, to create a separate regulatory regime for air weapons in Scotland. Members will wish to note that, as I said, the Bill Committee in the Scottish Parliament accepted the provision, and we wait to see the outcome of the debate on its LCM and the LCM proposed by the Scottish Government.

After careful consideration, the Calman commission concluded that firearms law should not be devolved in full. It is generally acknowledged that the UK already has some of the toughest firearm controls in the world and that the current unified regime represents the best way of tackling the problems that exist in relation to armed crime. The commission did recommend devolving power over a specific category—air weapons. The Government agree with this recommendation. Air weapons are the type of guns most often involved in firearms offences, and given the nature of their misuse most frequently to cause criminal damage, as we have heard, they are best controlled at the level closest to those affected. Reference was made to the specifics of the recent incident in Auchinleck, which demonstrated and reaffirmed the continuing concern in Scotland about the use of air weapons.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Given the Minister’s comments, will he make it clear for the record that if the clause goes through and the Bill is passed, a future Scottish Parliament could, if it wished, ban air weapons completely?

[David Mundell]

The hon. Lady makes an important point that also relates to the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). In fact, passing the clause will not in itself ban air weapons of the category defined in Scotland. That is a point that I want to make to my hon. Friend.

20:00

[Cathy Jamieson]

I appreciate that, but the point I was trying to get at, although perhaps I did not make myself clear enough, was whether, if the Bill is passed, the Scottish Parliament could enact a complete ban on air weapons if it chose to do so.

[David Mundell]

The Scottish Parliament will be able to enact a complete ban on air weapons that fall within the definition. The important point for colleagues such as my hon. Friend is that those who do not agree with that course of action will be able to argue their case in the Scottish Parliament. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) set out a strong case on the basis of her considerable experience, respected views and strong beliefs. I felt that my hon. Friend also set out a strong view, although Opposition Members and indeed Members of my party in the Scottish Parliament might not subscribe to it. It is important that people who hold such views move the argument on to the Scottish Parliament if the clause is agreed to, because that is the appropriate place for the debate to take place.

[Michael Connarty]

Will the Minister clarify the other point that he made? If I understood him correctly, he said that the air weapons that are not covered by the Bill, which the SNP is trying to amend so that they have power over such weapons, are already banned. The only thing that could be done differently would be to unban them. The SNP is therefore asking for the power to unban weapons that are banned. Is that correct?

[David Mundell]

The hon. Gentleman makes a useful intervention. The division that took place in the Scotland Bill Committee in the Scottish Parliament, to which we have referred, was on exactly that point.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would make a nonsense of all firearms laws if the Scottish Parliament banned air weapons completely, because people would still have legitimate licences for serious firearms, while airguns would be banned? Does he agree that that would be a complete anomaly?

[David Mundell]

I do not accept that it is inevitable that the clause or the Bill will lead to an anomalous situation. As I have said, it is for those who advocate a ban to make their case and for those who believe that it would be a retrograde step to make theirs.

As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said of her time as Justice Minister—I am sure this is also the case with the current Justice Minister—the Scottish Government need to have a close working relationship with the Home Office and the Home Secretary to ensure that there is a coherent interlinking of the measures determined here and in Scotland, just as with any devolved matter. I assure the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) that there have been discussions on all aspects of the Bill with the relevant Departments. The Secretary of State for Scotland has met the Home Secretary. We are clear that the clause will provide the Scottish Parliament with the powers it needs to deal with air weapons, as proposed by the Calman commission.

[Mrs McGuire]

Will there be a clear definition of what exactly is understood by “air weapons”? It is not the discussions that are important, but the definition and the clarity of the legislation.

[David Mundell]

I will come on to that later in my remarks. We are satisfied that the definition, as set out in this legislation, is appropriate to deal with the issues raised by the Calman commission.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Given my concern about BB guns, will the Minister answer the question that I posed about whether he has had any discussions with the Home Office on that matter? Is there a way to ensure that the Scottish Parliament can deal with that problem?

[David Mundell]

The hon. Lady has just under three weeks to raise that issue in the Scottish Parliament in her capacity as a Member of that Parliament. On a UK basis, I am happy to undertake to raise with the Home Secretary the concerns that she has set out this evening.

[Stewart Hosie]

That answer was interesting. Presumably it means that BB weapons, such as those that have been described, are not covered by the legislation, in terms of being devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case?

[David Mundell]

My understanding is that the Scottish Parliament would at this stage be able to take forward its own proposals in relation to a gun or implement of that type. As I understand it, we are not at the stage of having a definition for the weapon in relation to the incident, but there are implements of that nature for which the Scottish Parliament already has the power to make provision, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Will the Minister confirm that BB guns are covered by the 1968 Act?

[David Mundell]

There are definitions in the 1968 Act of certain weapons. A BB gun is not defined as a type of gun in that regard. It would be within the remit of the Scottish Parliament to make provisions in that regard as part of its ongoing responsibilities.

The clause will allow the Scottish Parliament the freedom to design its own controls over air weapons, while allowing the UK Government to retain a consistent regulatory framework across the UK for the most dangerous weapons. That will send the clear signal that the UK does not tolerate deadly weapons. As I have said, it is important to note that we are considering not what law on air weapons should apply in Scotland, but who should be responsible for taking that decision. The clause will not automatically create a separate regime in Scotland, but it will give the Scottish Parliament responsibility for that decision. Any consideration of an alternative regime will require the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament and other stakeholders to listen to all the views represented in Scotland and, crucially, to work through any cross-border issues that arise.

Amendment 39 would ensure that the 1968 Act continues to apply until the Scottish Parliament puts a new regulatory regime in place.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Joe Benton)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but the background noise is getting too high and it is difficult to hear. I want to hear the Minister.

[David Mundell]

Thank you, Mr Benton.

I assure my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds that the control of air weapons in Scotland will not fall into a state of limbo. By devolving power, we are not disapplying the present regime, but simply allowing the Scottish Parliament to change the laws that currently apply to air weapons, should it so wish. Until such a time, the existing rules will apply. I therefore suggest to my hon. Friend that his amendment is unnecessary.

Amendment 17 would prevent the Scottish Parliament from putting any controls on air weapons intended for use in recognised international sporting competitions. The Government recognise the legitimacy and responsibility of those who take part in safe and undoubtedly well-regulated use of air weapons for target shooting purposes. We fully accept that individuals engaged in such activity are highly unlikely to misuse their weapons.

I also understand concerns that devolved powers could be used in such a way as to prevent such competitions from taking place in Scotland and that that would affect disciplines in the Commonwealth games. Although I understand that the air pistols and air rifles used at that high level of competition are relatively expensive and built to high specification for their grip and accuracy, it would be difficult in practice to distinguish those intended for such use from other high-spec weapons that are used in lesser competitions or for hunting small game or for vermin control.

The Calman commission took the view, and the coalition Government agree, that there is a case for air weapons being controlled at the most local level. We must accept that the natural result of devolution is that separate rules may apply in different areas of the UK. Apart from the question of principle, it would be confusing and potentially difficult to split air weapons into different categories when there is no clear difference in muscle energy between a gun used for competition shooting at an international level and one used for lesser competitions or other sporting purposes.

Amendment 38 would restrict the power of the Scottish Parliament to air pistols and air rifles with a muzzle energy below 6 foot/lbs. That means that any air rifle that has a muzzle energy between 6 and 12 foot/lbs would not be subject to any new controls that the Scottish Parliament tried to introduce, but remain subject to the Firearms Act 1968. Most modern air rifles fall within that range. Anything above what is already declared to be “specially dangerous” by rules made by the Secretary of State under section 53 of the 1968 Act becomes subject to the requirement to hold and abide by a firearms certificate under section 1 and will not be devolved. It is right to retain a common framework across Great Britain for the most lethal weapons. As I have already said, I see no reason to try to split responsibility for the lower powered air weapons that we are devolving in the Bill. Calman did not recommend that, and it is wrong that the Scottish Parliament should not be able to exercise control over the majority of air rifles in use today.

Amendment 3 would omit the words in the exception to the reservation, which provides for the Home Secretary to retain powers for declaring air weapons “specially dangerous”. Those are subject to stricter controls because they need to be tackled on a consistent basis throughout the United Kingdom. The effect of declaring an air weapon “specially dangerous” is that it becomes subject to the requirement to hold and abide by a firearms certificate under section 1 of the 1968 Act. Currently, air pistols that generate a muzzle energy in excess of 6 foot/lbs and other air weapons that generate a muzzle energy in excess of 12 foot/lbs are declared to be specially dangerous for those purposes.

In essence, air weapons that are the subject of such rules or orders are classified as firearms under section 1 or prohibited weapons under section 5. Since the regulation of such firearms and prohibited weapons will remain reserved, as recommended by Calman, it follows that the power to decide what is a section 1 firearm or a prohibited weapon should also remain reserved.

Amendment 18 would address cross-border issues, which several hon. Members raised. We should remind ourselves that the Bill is simply devolving the power to regulate air weapons—not setting out the framework for regulation itself. Any discussions about future operational challenges are therefore largely hypothetical at this stage. How far any alternative regime will differ from that which applies in England and Wales has yet to be determined. As I said, I encourage my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds to try to ensure that the debate that he set out this evening moves to the Scottish Parliament, if it is to consider those matters. Of course I accept that there could well be differences in its approach to controls, but that is a natural consequence of devolution.

The Scottish Government will, of course, need to consider carefully how any new controls in Scotland will dovetail with the law in England and Wales, Europe and the rest of the world. I am sure that they will consult widely if they choose to change the law. If the Scottish Government introduced licensing for air weapons, they would need to consider what form of temporary licence a visitor from outside Scotland needed on or before entry. Any such temporary licence could not be checked if the visitor’s first port of call was England or Wales, so the Scottish Government would need to think about how they might enforce such a requirement.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Will my right hon. Friend address the point that I made before he concludes? What will happen to those people who currently have air weapons that are perfectly legal but would become illegal if the Scottish Parliament changed the rules? Would they be compensated?

20:15

[David Mundell]

It would be entirely for the Scottish Parliament to determine what regime it introduced if it created a restriction. It would not be a matter for the coalition Government. There was no suggestion of compensation from this Parliament or Government.

I recognise the strength of feeling of hon. Members of all parties on the issue. As I said, there are important implementation matters to be considered, alongside awareness raising and education to ensure that those who currently hold and use air weapons lawfully are not unwittingly affected. However, I would argue that these are questions for the Scottish Parliament. Today, we are considering whether to support the recommendation of the Calman commission, which the Government have included in the Bill and has the support of the Scottish Parliament Committee. I therefore urge hon. Members not to press their amendments to a vote.

[Tom Greatrex]

I am disappointed with some of the content of the Minister’s response. In respect of amendment 17, I understand that the Scottish Parliament and the SNP—whether the Edinburgh SNP or the London SNP—is included in a cross-party understanding of what is required to ensure that the Commonwealth games are properly protected. I am sure that that will endure.

I am more confident about that than on the Minister’s comments on amendment 18. The amendment is intended to be helpful to the UK Government, which has a responsibility to ensure cohesion, so that things do not slip through the net.

I was concerned with the Minister’s hesitation on BB guns in response to my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) and for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell). They highlighted the point on definitions that I tried to make at Home Office questions earlier. I hope that he will reflect properly on that prior to Report, particularly in the light of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire).

I am conscious that a number of hon. Members are in the Chamber and I am sure they have other things to get on with this evening. I hope the Minister reflects on my proposals. If he is unable to change his mind, we may return to them on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 3, page 7, line 27, leave out from ‘1968’ to end of line 34.—(Pete Wishart.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

20:18

Division 216

Ayes: 8

---

Scottish National Party: 6
Plaid Cymru: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 392

---

Conservative: 239
Labour: 103
Liberal Democrat: 47
Alliance: 1

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Tom Greatrex]

On a point of order, Mr Benton. In exchanges on clause 7, the Minister responded to a comment from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) about so-called secret clauses and said that they had been placed on the website of the Advocate-General. We have subsequently sought to find those clauses on that website, but have been unable to locate them, so can you advise the Committee on how we might be able to do so?

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Joe Benton)]

That is not really a point of order to which the Chair can respond, but I will allow the Minister to clarify the position.

[David Mundell]

I will e-mail the hon. Gentleman with the relevant details.

[Stewart Hosie]

Further to that point of order, Mr Benton. The Minister has generously offered to e-mail those secret amendments to the Front-Bench spokesman of the Labour party. I take it that he will want to communicate with the whole Committee, so placing the amendments in the Library would be more helpful.

[David Mundell]

I am happy to accede to that request, Mr Benton.

Clause 12

Insolvency

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Tom Greatrex]

I support clause 12, but I have a couple of questions about its implications. As the Committee will be aware, this clause and attendant issues were the subject of detailed scrutiny by the Calman commission. It was corporate insolvency practitioners who pressed the case on that commission for introducing such a clause, which effectively re-reserves some aspects of corporate insolvency work.

The Scottish National party has responded with a blanket, knee-jerk reaction against the proposal, because it does not believe that powers should be re-reserved. The Labour party takes a different view. The Calman commission examined the range of powers as a whole, and determined which, in Scotland’s best interests, should be devolved and which should continue to be reserved. As we all know, it concluded that there should be some changes, but not too many. We accept that recommendation, and also the comments of the LCM Committee, but the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations—from which Members will no doubt have received a briefing—has expressed concern about the implications for registered social landlords. Housing policy is, of course, devolved.

I am aware that, as no registered social landlords have been affected yet, the position is theoretical. However, on 25 February the Secretary of State told the convenor of the LCM Committee that the Government did not intend to cause any difficulty relating to housing policy, that they would consider introducing section 104 orders when that was necessary and appropriate, and that discussions were taking place between the Scotland Office and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. May I ask the Minister to confirm his intentions, so that we can ensure that the federation’s concern is not used unduly as an excuse to oppose the clause merely because it re-reserves a power, and that it is being dealt with?

[Dr Whiteford]

I am glad to have an opportunity to respond to the amendment in a way that does not involve any sort of knee-jerk reaction. I intend to discuss the substance of the issue, which is the power to transfer power over all insolvency matters and all aspects of company liquidation back to the House of Commons. Currently, certain aspects are devolved.

When the Commission on Scottish Devolution examined the issue it identified some shortcomings in the existing set-up, notably a degree of overlap in responsibility between the rules relating to insolvency governed here and those governed in Holyrood, and a need for consistency across the United Kingdom. As many Members will know, the Calman commission responded to the concerns expressed by, in particular, the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Law Society of Scotland by recommending that the United Kingdom’s Insolvency Service should be responsible for the rules to be applied by insolvency practitioners on both sides of the border, with the consent of the Scottish Parliament, and that the Scottish Parliament should retain its legislative competence over corporate insolvency.

Members will note that clause 12 goes way beyond the Calman recommendation. It would transfer powers over all aspects of company liquidation to the House of Commons. I urge the Committee to think very carefully about the clause, because I believe it is a rather blunt instrument which could have a number of undesirable and unintended consequences. I suspect that there is broad agreement in the Committee that the existing legislative framework pertaining to insolvency in Scotland could be strengthened and improved, but the real question is how we should go about it. Should we, as the clause suggests, simply re-reserve powers—which might be a quick and dirty way of dealing with the matter—or is there a better way of achieving the desired outcomes of consistency and efficiency?

I fear that clause 12 will create as many problems as it solves. We should bear in mind why the powers were devolved in the first place. The purpose was largely to take account of the distinctiveness of the Scottish legal system. When Professor George Gretton, the Scottish law commissioner and expert on insolvency, gave evidence to the Calman commission, he stated emphatically:

“Insolvency law has to fit in within the general corpus of the law, including such matters as the different court structures, the different systems of what Scots lawyers call diligence, the different systems of property law, and the law of voidable transactions.”

He pointed out that the aspects of corporate insolvency law that had already been devolved by the Scotland Act were pretty much aligned with the areas that were peculiar to Scots law. The issue was thought through carefully in the first place, and I feel that we too should think carefully before unravelling the existing provisions without taking account of the wider implications.The chair of the Scottish Law Commission, Lord Drummond Young, has also expressed concern about the implications for the sensible reform of Scottish commercial law, should these powers be re-reserved.

As the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) has already pointed out, some of the deepest concerns about the consequences of the clause have been expressed by the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, which has argued against it in the strongest possible terms. Members of that association own and manage 47% of Scotland’s affordable rented housing stock. They have an annual turnover of about £1 billion, and assets worth about £8 billion, so we should not take their concerns lightly. Housing is a fully devolved matter, and the Scottish Parliament has the power to legislate on all aspects of housing policy. There have been a number of changes to housing policy since the advent of devolution, as well as significant policy developments. This has been a dynamic area of activity in the life of the Scottish Parliament.

Back in 2001, in an amendment to the Scotland Act 1998, responsibility for legislation relating to the insolvency of social landlords in Scotland was devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The amendment order was agreed unanimously, with cross-party support, in the Scottish Parliament, and the provision was passed in Westminster. The amendment enabled the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 and the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 to address the potential insolvency of registered social landlords. The 2010 Act established the Scottish housing regulator as an independent body to safeguard tenants’ interests and regulate the financial well-being and governance of registered social landlords.

Assessing the risk of insolvency among registered social landlords is an integral aspect of the existing regulatory regime. The 2010 Act also gave additional powers to the Scottish housing regulator to act quickly when a registered social landlord was facing insolvency, thereby safeguarding the interests of tenants and of the wider social landlords sector. There have been no cases of insolvency among Scottish registered social landlords in the past 40 years, but those representing the sector are not at all complacent, given the economic environment in which they are operating and the experiences that they have seen in other parts of the UK. They believe that there needs to be provision for a regulatory authority to deal with such matters in a timely and appropriate way, should cases of insolvency arise.

The regulatory framework that has been established in Scotland is designed to reduce the possibility of a social landlord becoming insolvent by preventing the situation from occurring. I am sure that Members will appreciate the importance of that, not only for tenants and social landlords but for the wider housing sector and other stakeholders. In particular, effective regulation is crucial to the ability of registered social landlords to access lending at competitive prices. The Council of Mortgage Lenders made that clear in its response to the 2007 consultation, and it is estimated that Scottish registered social landlords have saved about £70 million in the past five years by being able to access lower lending margins than are available in the commercial sector.

All this provides a practical illustration of why a strong regulatory framework is important, and why these matters were devolved in the first place. We really should not be rash enough to dismantle that framework. We must also bear in mind the fact that, if we pass clause 12, any future measures relating to the insolvency of registered social landlords would require legislation at Westminster, with all the difficulties of securing time that that involves. We need to recognise the practical benefits of devolution in this area, and not try to reinvent the wheel in our efforts to tidy up the loose ends in the wider insolvency provisions.

In housing, there is a strong case for preserving the coherence and alignment of the legislative policy making and regulatory frameworks. This would be broken if insolvency powers over registered social landlords were to be re-reserved. If the main reason for clause 12 is to tidy up insolvency provision from a UK point of view, it would be most regrettable if it were to make housing policy significantly more untidy in the process. I have a real concern that, in time, such a dislocation of policy from regulation could lead to delays, fragmentation and inappropriate decision making. It would be a retrograde step, and it would reverse recent progressive measures that have had the support of the Scottish Parliament right across the political spectrum.

I urge Members to look again at this matter. We need modernisation of the insolvency provisions; that will be very welcome. This is not the way to do it, however. There are many ways of doing it, and key to the process will be better inter-governmental working. I would also draw the House’s attention to the Scottish Parliament’s Scotland Bill Committee, which took these concerns seriously and recommended that legislative consent on this clause should be subject to certain provisions being drafted. We are not in a position to see those provisions today, so I would urge Members to oppose the clause in the interim, until we have a workable and effective solution before us.

20:45

[Michael Connarty]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), who has both conflated a lot of issues that are of obvious concern to her party and not been quite open about what happened on the Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee. We have heard what seems to be a strange argument: the SNP is for devolution unless it does not win the vote, because on a devolved committee the SNP moved an amendment and lost. Then the committee concluded that it was

“content to recommend to the Scottish Parliament that it should give its legislative consent to the provisions in the Scotland Bill relating to the re-reservation of insolvency, subject to provisions being drafted which will secure capacity for devolved legislation to affect the winding-up of Registered Social Landlords”.

On the one hand the hon. Lady is conflating lots of issues of obvious concern to her party, but on the other she is denying the democratic process when it goes against her in the devolved Parliament.

The third thing that the hon. Lady has done is make a case as though that case were not recognised by everyone, on all sides, in the evidence given to this Parliament. Hopefully, the Government are listening to that, and those on our Front Bench have stressed the same points. However, there is another fault that people show when trying to enthuse people—I think that the common phrase is “overegging the pudding”. There has not been a bankruptcy or insolvency of a registered social landlord in Scotland in 40 years, because of the way in which their arrangements are structured. I was active in the early days of the housing association movement as a leader of a council in Scotland. Across all the parties we created a structure that mainly secures registered social landlords from the problems experienced by those landlords who are thirsting for profit and therefore taking risks by borrowing and overextending themselves. Registered social landlords are to be commended because they tend not to get themselves into such situations, which is one of the reasons we set them up as we did.

Everyone takes seriously the point made by the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, including those on our Front Bench and, I hope, the Government. Therefore, we should have the necessary safeguards to allow the points made by the SFHA to be taken on board. The SFHA is worried about the speed of action should there ever be a problem, and hopefully the final legislation will recognise that. However, we cannot conclude from this that we should therefore go against the recommendation of the Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee and against common sense in having a system across the UK to address a problem that faces a lot of the corporate bodies and private organisations in the UK at the moment.

[Dr Whiteford]

This is an argument that has come directly from the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, which is concerned about preventing such problems from occurring in the first place. It is the SFHA that is worried about the environment in which it currently operates. I know that we will shortly debate housing benefit in this House, but one of the SFHA’s concerns is that changes to housing benefit could have serious repercussions for cash flow. It is concerned that the financial position is not as secure as it might have been. That is why we have to take this issue seriously. I wish that I could share the hon. Gentleman’s optimism, but hoping that something might come forward is no way to go through the parliamentary process.

[Michael Connarty]

Allow me to recommend that optimism to the hon. Lady, who is new to the House. That optimism, which I have carried with me for 18 years, might stand her in good stead if she survives as long as I have in this place. They do say—I am quoting Gramsci, the socialist—that pessimism of the intellect should breed optimism of the will. She will certainly require that again and again if she sits on the SNP Benches in this place, I can tell her that.

I am deeply involved in fighting a case involving a bad insolvency in my constituency. In a sense, I have had to step over a line that I have drawn for myself since devolution, where I have had to say, “This is not a matter for me: I have a remit as a UK parliamentarian and my colleagues”—Members of the Scottish Parliament—“have a remit devolved to them.” I try to keep the two apart quite strictly. I try to encourage devolved organisations to write not to me but to my MSP colleagues, and to engage them properly in the process. I was involved in the scrutiny of bankruptcy in Scotland legislation here in Westminster between ’92 and ’97, and knew quite a lot about that. I therefore find the current environment frustrating, as many companies are facing serious challenges because of economic conditions and are having to go through the insolvency process.

Although the case I took on involves what is currently a devolved matter, I knew that re-reservation was being reconsidered, so my conscience was somewhat assuaged. The reality is that the insolvency process is not very pleasant. It is never pleasant for people to be bankrupted or to have their goods and chattels sold by a bankruptcy administrator who seems to be their friend until the moment when they sign the form, and who then turns out to be their enemy. In the case I am currently involved in, there is a house for sale. The insolvency administrator has allowed it to be vandalised, so quite a lot of the financial benefit to the creditors has been lost, and seems to be ignoring any offer from anyone to buy the property.

This issue should be a responsibility across all the Chambers, and I think it makes sense for the same rules to apply in Scotland as in the rest of the UK. The Bill’s provisions would bring them into line. We should all realise that it does not matter which side of the border people are living on or trading in, and that they must be dealt with properly by the insolvency laws and its practitioners. I have serious reservations about the way they are currently regulated. I look forward to this being returned to being a reserved matter so that I can fully engage in it.

[David Mundell]

Clause 12 implements the Calman commission recommendation that the UK Insolvency Service should be made responsible for laying down rules to be applied by insolvency practitioners on both sides of the border. The commission was persuaded by evidence from stakeholders, including the Law Society of Scotland and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, that a consistent approach to winding up would bring significant benefits to insolvency practitioners, creditors and others dealing with insolvent companies in both England and Wales and in Scotland. Many windings up involve groups of companies that operate on both sides of the border, and it will be more efficient in terms of both time and money if the same winding-up rules are applied to each insolvent company in the group, except where Scottish common law dictates otherwise.

As a result of the proposals, the reorganisation of groups of companies will be more efficient and lead to increased returns for creditors and shareholders. Group reorganisations may involve subsidiaries being wound up, and a common approach to winding-up rules would help reduce the cost and complexity of group restructuring where constituent companies operate in both Scotland and in England and Wales. In its evidence to the Calman commission, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, which regulates most of the insolvency operators working in Scotland, highlighted the benefit of consistent rules in promoting a more stable environment for corporate recovery and turnaround.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

I am interested in what the Minister says about having the same rules across an economic single market. By that logic, is he arguing that this should be not a UK competence, but a European competence across the single market in which we all live?

[David Mundell]

I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, and his party’s position in relation to matters European, which, as I understand it, would have Scotland as a member of the euro, which I steadfastly disagree with.

The Law Society of Scotland reported in its evidence to the commission that, because of the increased number of insolvencies of groups of companies, practitioners have for a number of years been having difficulties where parts of the group are subject to the English rules and part to the Scottish rules. The Calman commission was persuaded that a consistent approach should be taken to winding up rules, and the UK Government agree. The commission recognised that its first option for implementing its recommendation—UK legislation followed by a legislative consent motion—might not be achievable, so it suggested primary legislation amending the devolution settlement as an alternative means of securing the desired effect. The first option would not fully and effectively transfer legislative and Executive competence in this area, and that could result in continuing divergences in the rules. That would frustrate the objective expressed by the Calman commission, which is why we are adopting the second of the commission’s options and re-reserving the winding up of business associations in its entirety.

Schedule 2 is introduced by clause 12. Having just one Parliament responsible for the rules relating to winding up in Scotland will aid flexibility and responsiveness, and address problems that have been reported by insolvency office holders when the law changed in one jurisdiction but not the other. In fact, we are seizing the opportunity that the Bill provides to deliver for Scotland the benefits of modernisation changes, some of which have been in place in England and Wales—and for the existing reserved insolvency procedures in Scotland—for nearly two years. These changes lift administrative burdens by allowing insolvency office holders to make full use of advances in information technology made over the past quarter of a century to communicate with creditors, thus reducing the costs—for the benefit of creditors.

The changes were made to reserved insolvency procedures in Scotland in 2009 and 2010 by a combination of legislative reform orders and subordinate legislation, but because of the division of responsibility for rules between the UK and Scottish Parliaments the changes could not at that time be extended to windings up taking place in Scotland. That is an example of some of the unnecessary and confusing divergences that have developed between the two jurisdictions about which the Calman commission expressed concern. We are taking steps to address that concern and thereby ensure that creditors of windings up taking place in Scotland are able to enjoy similar benefits to those provided for creditors of windings up in England and Wales.

I wish to deal specifically with the points raised about registered social landlords. In that context, I fully agreed with the appraisal of the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) of the contribution of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford). I accept that she has legitimate concerns, which she raised in the Scottish Affairs Committee. As part of my appearance before that Committee, I undertook to meet representatives of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. I am pleased to report to this Committee, as I have done to the Scottish Affairs Committee, that that meeting has taken place and we were able to have a full discussion about these concerns.

The first and most important point is that no change to the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 will be brought about by these measures. They will not change the provisions of that Act or the regime and regulator that were put in place; they will not change the insolvency processes envisaged by that Act. Part of the concern appeared to be about what happened if the insolvency procedures put in place by that Act did not work and had to be changed, and whether this House would be as responsive in dealing with those concerns as the Scottish Parliament. I know that the hon. Lady has a fundamental view about the balance between the former and the latter. However the experience of not just this Government, but the previous one, when the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) was in the Scotland Office and the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) was aiding her, suggests that the UK Government have demonstrated a willingness to support the legislative intentions of the Scottish Parliament. The Insolvency Service is held in particular regard for the measures it has brought forward to modernise insolvency practice in areas for which it has responsibility in Scotland and, indeed, in England and Wales. I am pleased to report that the Insolvency Service will meet the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations at the beginning of April to discuss any specific ongoing concerns that might still exist.

21:00

[Dr Whiteford]

Will the Minister clarify exactly which issues remain outstanding with the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations that necessitate a further meeting?

[David Mundell]

Following our meeting with the federation, I wrote extensively on the specific points that I had raised. My interpretation concerned whether Westminster would be as responsive as the Scottish Parliament if new issues arose. It is extremely important to take on board that this is about new issues and not about the adequacy of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010. That Act is in place, as are the arrangements for insolvency. The issue is whether, if the arrangements that have been put in place did not work and other arrangements had to be brought in, that could be done expeditiously in the House of Commons, and I believe it could. Indeed, one Opposition Member is the former distinguished Communities Minister of the Scottish Parliament and I cannot imagine that she would allow the Government to sit idly by while there were requests for changes to insolvency procedures in respect of registered social landlords in Scotland. That issue is not a basis for continuing concern, but we are committed to the dialogue involving the Insolvency Service and the federation.

It is important to re-emphasise the point that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk confirmed—that the Scottish Parliament’s current powers in relation to RSLs are not whole powers regarding RSL insolvency. They relate only to the winding up and only where it concerns a moratorium on the disposal and management of property held by an RSL, so the Scottish Parliament is not currently able to make provision for all aspects of the law on RSLs. The view of the Calman commission was that the ability to make provision in this area was fragmented and should be returned to Westminster to deal with that fragmentation. Clearly, there are Members who could never agree with the return of powers to Westminster, however sensible that might be, but I hope that on this occasion they will accept that the measure will benefit Scottish business and will not be detrimental to the RSL sector. On that basis, I hope that the Committee will not divide on clause 12.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

21:04

Division 217

Ayes: 357

---

Conservative: 237
Labour: 70
Liberal Democrat: 47
Alliance: 1

Noes: 8

---

Scottish National Party: 6
Plaid Cymru: 1
Green Party: 1

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Thomas Docherty]

On a point of order, Mr Benton. You might not be aware, having been in the Chair, but apparently the Scottish nationalists have been tweeting tonight that Labour MPs voted not to devolve Government responsibility to the Scottish Parliament. I would be very grateful if you advised me what we as MPs can do to ensure that all SNP Members are aware of the actual facts, rather than just twittering.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Joe Benton]

I have heard the point of order, but as it is not a procedural point I cannot rule on it. I am very sorry.

Schedule 2 agreed to.



Clause 13

Regulation of the health professions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Tom Greatrex]

I rise to support clause 13 on the regulation of health care professionals. In some ways, it falls into the same category as the one we described in relation to clause 12. The Calman commission looked at an issue, and in this instance it decided that the best interests of Scotland would be for the issue to be dealt with on a UK-wide basis. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) said that her response to the previous issue was not a knee-jerk one; I assume that she or one of her colleagues will now rise to explain that there will not be a knee-jerk response to this issue. There seems to be a pattern emerging: when the Calman commission recommends that things be done at a UK level, it must be wrong, and when it recommends that they be done at a devolved level, it must be right. I am afraid that that does not strike me as consistent with serious consideration of these issues.

Since the passage of the Scotland Act 1998, several new categories of health care professionals have come into existence. In some instances, their regulation has been less than complete, and when they require regulation, it is appropriate that it is done in the same place. That proposal has been supported by the Calman commission and by the Scotland Bill Committee, and it was reflected in the White Paper and in the draft Bill. The Health Professions Council, NHS Lothian and others have supported this as a sensible approach. In evidence to the Holyrood Bill Committee, the Health Professions Council observed that

“there is widespread consensus that a consistent UK-wide approach to the regulation of health professions is both appropriate and beneficial to professionals and the public.”

This is beneficial to the public and consistent for the professionals.

We support the clause instead of trying to find a reason to object to it simply because it reserves a power. That does not strike me as a sensible way of dealing with the issue. However, no doubt the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) will now try to enlighten me.

[Pete Wishart]

I rise to oppose the clause. This is part 2 of the great Calman clawback. Presumably we are going to see an attempt by the Tory-led Government to take powers away from the Scottish Parliament, once again with Labour complicity and support.

The Bill is characterised as one that gives powers away to the Scottish Parliament, but the previous clause and this clause demonstrate that one hand most definitely giveth, but the other most definitely taketh away. We oppose the clause, first, because it is anti-devolutionary, and secondly, and most importantly, because it is not necessary. The Scottish Parliament is totally in control of Scotland’s health services. Scottish Ministers are responsible to the Scottish Parliament and, in turn, to the Scottish people for the structure and delivery of health services. We have our own national health service in Scotland.

The Scottish Parliament has a direct interest in ensuring that Scotland’s particular needs and circumstances are taken into account in decisions made about the health service in Scotland, including the regulation of its work forces. Since 1999, we have developed a different NHS in Scotland—one based on the needs of the Scottish people.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the regulation of work forces. Does he therefore believe that we should have a separate Health and Safety Executive for Scotland?

[Pete Wishart]

There would probably be a strong case for that. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. In Scotland, all the regulations for the regulation of health professionals that existed before the 1998 Act came into force are continuing to be regulated at a UK level from the Department of Health. That includes nearly all doctors, nurses and dentists. The Scottish Government have a little toehold into regulation as regards important new professions that have been designed since the 1998 Act came into force—for example, operating department practitioners, dental nurses, dental technicians, orthodontic therapists, pharmacy technicians and practitioner psychologists. It is incredibly important that we do not lose that toehold.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

If the hon. Gentleman were consistent, he would be arguing that all the health professions should be regulated in Scotland. Surely it does not make sense for dentists to be regulated UK-wide and dental technicians to be regulated in Scotland, but for them all to be regulated in one place.

[Pete Wishart]

There is eminent logic in what the hon. Gentleman says, and there is very little of it that I could not support. Of course all these important health professionals should be regulated in the Scottish Parliament.

[Mr Reid]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I will give the hon. Gentleman another shot.

[Mr Reid]

I said that the professions should all be regulated in one place. It is the hon. Gentleman who is saying that they should be regulated in different places.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman confirms what I was saying. Of course they should all be regulated in one place, and that should be the Scottish Parliament. They should be under the direct control of Scottish Ministers, because we have a Scottish national health service—perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware of this—that has been designed and structured by Scottish Ministers who are accountable to the Scottish people.

[Tom Greatrex]

I do not wish to involve myself in the spat that has been entertaining us, but given that the hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that there is a different health service in Scotland that has different professions, will he explain which medical professions exist in Scotland that do not exist in England?

[Pete Wishart]

I am really pleased that the hon. Gentleman has asked that, because that is one of the things that I am most keen to come on to. If he is not satisfied by what I say, I ask him to come back on me, because I will list some very important professions that receive regulation from Scottish Ministers.

The most important point is that we have the toehold that I have described. All the UK devolved Administrations work together on these important issues to find innovative practices and new ways of doing things. That is important work. The current arrangements support and create dialogue and the sharing of ideas in reserved and devolved areas.

I come to the examples that the hon. Gentleman is so keen to hear about. The first is practitioner psychologists. The Department of Health originally wanted all such professionals to be educated to doctorate level. That would have posed major problems for the NHS in Scotland, where the majority of them are trained to masters level. That is why we need separate regulation. NHS Scotland has also piloted the position of physician assistant, which is an assistant to medical practitioners. Unlike their equivalents in England, such people can prescribe and work across a variety of roles in the Scottish NHS. Those are not the only two examples. Health care scientists were identified as a priority for regulation in the 2007 White Paper, in which the Department of Health proposed that the new education and training arrangements envisaged for England should also apply in Scotland, where there are different needs and a different educational system. Perhaps it has escaped the hon. Gentleman that as well as having an NHS in Scotland, we also have our own devolved education service. The training of many such professionals requires different regulation and different standards.

[Mrs McGuire]

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has explained exactly why Scotland needs different regulation from the rest of the United Kingdom. Will he tell the Committee how many health care scientists are practising in Scotland and who currently regulates them?

[Pete Wishart]

I am disappointed in the right hon. Lady, because she usually does better than that. She has clearly not been listening to what I have said. I have given three examples of new professions that have emerged since 1999 and that have benefited from separate regulation in Scotland, but there are more. Why would anyone want to re-regulate those professions, which have given such key benefits to the NHS in Scotland?

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

For the avoidance of doubt, will the hon. Gentleman clarify that it is his view that there are no health care scientists in England?

[Pete Wishart]

Of course there are health care scientists in England, but they are trained differently. Scotland has different educational institutions that require different regulation from those in England. That is why we are saying that it is important that these responsibilities rest with Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament.

[Mrs McGuire]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I have given way once to the right hon. Lady. I hope that she wants to make a new point.

[Mrs McGuire]

The hon. Gentleman has not answered my first intervention yet. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) would just face the front and fold his arms, the world would be a better place. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) argued that people are trained differently in Scotland and should therefore be regulated separately. Health care professionals such as doctors and nurses come from other countries where they have been trained differently, but we still regulate them in the same way when they practise in this country. His argument is therefore specious.

[Pete Wishart]

Doctors who come to the NHS in the rest of the UK are subject to UK regulation. The NHS in Scotland is a different beast from that in the rest of the UK. That is the point. The NHS has been developing for the past 10 years and we have to recognise that.

[Ann McKechin]

rose—

[David Mowat]

rose—

[Fiona O'Donnell]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I have a real choice here. I will give way to the shadow Minister.

[Ann McKechin]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is proposing a separate Scottish college of nursing, bearing in mind that the Royal College of Nursing certifies not only all nurses in the United Kingdom, but courses across the Commonwealth? Is he suggesting that Scottish nurses would not benefit from that level of certification?

21:30

[Pete Wishart]

Perhaps I will stick to the amendment and put the case for continuing to leave the matter in the hands of the Scottish Parliament.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman has got me animated about the issue because it seems so clear-cut. What would the position be for someone who trains as a health scientist in Scotland? Could they work in England or would they be regulated to work only in Scotland?

[Pete Wishart]

Reciprocal arrangements work across a variety of jurisdictions. Of course a health scientist trained in Scotland could work in England. We have a separate NHS, which has developed differently from the NHS in the rest of the UK in the past 10 years—that seems to have escaped hon. Members in the debate. It has new professions that require different regulation.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I have given way enough—I did not want to spend so much time on this, but I have been generous in giving way to several Labour Members. [Hon. Members: “Give way!”] Go on, then.

[Ian Murray]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, even at the second attempt. Does he agree with the NHS in Lothian, which covers my constituency, and the Health Professions Council, which gave written evidence to Holyrood when the Scotland Bill Committee sat? It stated:

“We observe that there is a widespread consensus that a consistent UK-wide approach to the regulation of health professions is both appropriate and beneficial to professionals and the public.”

Why does the SNP differ from that approach?

[Pete Wishart]

I have no doubt that that is exactly what was said, but the only evidence taken by the Calman commission was from two royal colleges, which talked only about doctors.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I have already given way to the hon. Lady. The UK Department of Health evidence to the commission concluded:

“The Department of Health is not seeking any change to the reservation of the health professions in the Scotland Act 1998. In practice, both the Government and the devolved administration have always sought to apply a UK-wide framework to the regulation of health”.

It is not interested in re-reserving the issue, and I do not know why we are.

We have a different NHS in Scotland, and it is recognised that the implementation of some policies would have to be different in Scotland. Given that the provision is clearly anti-devolutionary and not in the interests of the NHS in Scotland, we will not support it, not because of any knee-jerk response but because of the examples that I have mentioned and that I hope have been accepted by the Committee. We have a toehold in regulation across the UK, we will not give it up lightly and we will oppose the clause.

[Mr Reid]

I am fully behind the Government on the clause. If we listened to the advice of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), we would end up in a confused position. If we joined him in the Lobby tonight, some health professions would be regulated UK-wide and others would be regulated in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman referred to some dental professions that would be regulated in Scotland while dentists would be regulated UK-wide. That is clearly an anomalous situation.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the sky would fall in if we had an anomalous situation?

[Mr Reid]

We would end up with a much worse situation than the position whereby all professions were regulated UK-wide. The latter makes much more sense. I understood from the answers that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire gave to interventions that he wants all health care professions to be regulated separately in Scotland from the rest of the UK, although I note that the SNP has not tabled an amendment to that effect. It would lead to a strange situation, which would not benefit patients.

[Mr Davidson]

Surely the hon. Gentleman is in error to suggest that SNP Members did not articulate the fact that they want all the professions to be separately registered in Scotland. The spokesman said that he wanted doctors and dentists to be regulated separately in Scotland—even more evidence that he is a bad man.

[Mr Reid]

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct—[hon. Members: “Oh!”] I did not say in what he was correct. He was correct when he said that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire stated that he wanted all professions regulated separately in Scotland. However, my point was that SNP Members have not tabled an amendment to that effect, which I suspect indicates that even they lack confidence in their case.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Perhaps I could assist the hon. Gentleman in correcting my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson). He was wrong in omitting to point out that not only did the Lib Dems come sixth in Barnsley, they lost their deposit.

[Mr Reid]

I suspect that if I respond to that intervention, Mr Hoyle, you will rule me out of order.

To go back in order, if as the SNP suggests all health care professions—doctors, dentists and so on—are regulated separately in Scotland, it would add more cost and bureaucracy. It would also mean that a doctor who is qualified in Scotland and who wants to move to England would have to get separate qualifications, and vice versa. That would not benefit patients, and nor would it assist professional development.

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

rose—

[Thomas Docherty]

rose—

[Mr Reid]

The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) was first.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does the hon. Gentleman find it strange that a nation would want to regulate its own health professionals?

[Mr Reid]

The cures for diseases are the same throughout the world. The cure for measles in Scotland is not different from the cure in England.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr MacNeil]

Is the hon. Gentleman making the case for worldwide regulation?

[Mr Reid]

I was giving way to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir).

[Mr Weir]

I am listening closely to the hon. Gentleman. Do we not already reciprocally recognise qualifications within the EU, and is it not the case that doctors can come from other parts of the EU to practise in the UK? Therefore, what is the problem with the recognition of Scottish qualifications and Scottish regulation?

[Mr Reid]

Simply put, those arrangements would add a new layer of bureaucracy and waste time. Currently, a doctor can move from Scotland to England or vice versa with no problem whatever. The hon. Gentleman simply wants to put bureaucracy in the way.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) and the Minister, who represent the north-west of England and the south-west of Scotland respectively, are both in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) will probably be aware that many of their constituents, and the constituents of Members on both sides of the House, will travel to use services on both sides of the border. Does he not agree that this debate is another example of the tabling of Mickey Mouse amendments to slow down the process by a party that will come worse than sixth in the forthcoming elections?

[Mr Reid]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman on cross-border traffic, which is important, but he gives SNP Members more credence than they deserve. They did not actually table an amendment—they did not put that amount of work in—and are simply opposing the Government. If the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire had been consistent, he would have tabled a new clause to the effect that all health professions would be regulated separately in Scotland, but he did not bother to do so. He is simply opposing a sensible Government measure.

I meant to speak for only a minute or two, but all those interventions took up quite a lot of time. I conclude by reminding the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) that in the Henley by-election, the Labour party were fifth with a lower share of the vote than the Liberal Democrats got last week.

[Mr Davidson]

Is it appropriate at this point to mention that fifth is actually higher than sixth? I have been approached by a number of Members in the Lobby who have told me that the Liberal Democrats came sixth only because the SNP did not stand—

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think we both know that this is not quite a part of the clause 13 stand part debate. If what the hon. Gentleman is saying is not part of that, I call the Minister.

[David Mundell]

Thank you, Mr Hoyle, and welcome to this debate, which I can see you are already enjoying.

I did not intend to speak for long. I was looking forward to the erudite contribution of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) on why Antarctica should be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, and how after 12 years of devolution, Antarctica has been discovered to be an important matter for which the Scottish Parliament must have responsibility.

[Pete Wishart]

I am also disappointed about Antarctica. However, is the Minister pleased that Antarctica will now join time and outer space in schedule 5 of the Scotland Act?

[David Mundell]

I think that schedule 5 of the Scotland Act is the appropriate place for Antarctica.

[Thomas Docherty]

I would speculate that the reason the Scottish Parliament should have responsibility for Antarctica is that there are probably just as many Liberal Democrats in Antarctica as there are now in Scotland.

[The Chairman]

Order. We are dealing with health professions. We have not quite got to Antarctica yet, so I think we will ignore that part.

[David Mundell]

I accept your ruling, Mr Hoyle, although it is sometimes important to point out to Opposition members that for the first eight years of the Scottish Parliament there was a Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition.

[Mr MacNeil]

I would love to know why the Minister thinks that London rather than Edinburgh should have responsibility for whatever portion of Antarctica we are talking about. Is he ashamed of Scotland? Why should it be London? Why should Scotland not have that power? What is he ashamed of?

[The Chairman]

Order. We are discussing health. We are not discussing Antarctica.

[David Mundell]

We have learned tonight that London SNP has control over Edinburgh SNP, because it is the Westminster SNP Members who determine the response to the Scotland Bill, and not their colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, who have a completely different point of view on a number of these measures.

The Scotland Act 1998 provides that the regulation of certain health professions is a subject matter reserved to the Westminster Parliament. Clause 13 implements the Calman recommendation to reserve the regulation of all health professions, not just those specified in the Scotland Act. The clause re-reserves the regulation of health professions, and I can confirm that the Scottish Parliament’s Scotland Bill Committee has stated that it is not opposed to the re-reservation of powers to the UK Parliament. The Scottish Parliament will vote on the Scotland Bill on Thursday, and we await the outcome of that vote, as I have said previously. Further, devolution is not a one-way street, and the Scotland Bill, like Calman, is about delivering a balanced package that works for the people of Scotland, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) said. The Scotland Bill does just that: it updates the Scotland Act with a two-way transfer of powers.

Since Royal Assent of the Scotland Act, the regulation of any health professions not regulated by the legislation listed in section G2 of schedule 5 has been a matter that falls within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. The Westminster Parliament was, therefore, unable to introduce legislation to regulate such professions without such legislation also being approved by resolution of the Scottish Parliament. Although the Scottish Parliament has had the power to introduce for Scotland separate legislation in respect of the regulation of these health professions and any other health professions not included within section G2, it has chosen not to do so and instead has approved the use of the existing, reserved machinery orders made under section 60 of the Health Act 1999 to regulate new groups of health care professionals.

The Calman commission criticised this mixed economy and considered that the current situation was unnecessarily time-consuming and cumbersome owing to the need to obtain agreement from the Scottish Parliament. The commission also pointed out that the current mixed economy presented risks in terms of consistency that could lead to the fragmentation of standards across the UK and threaten the mobility of practitioners across all four countries, which is a point that Members have raised. The Government agree that there are risks with the current situation. The Calman commission also noted that the current processes gave the Scottish Parliament some influence over the regulation of reserved professions—for instance, where there are orders and regulations relating to the regulation of professions that cover both devolved and reserved matters. The commission also took the view that there should be a common approach to the regulation of the health professions.

The Government have accepted the arguments made by the Calman commission, so the clause re-reserves the regulation of all health care professions currently regulated by legislation. It also has the practical effect of reserving to the Westminster Parliament the subject matter of the regulation of any new health professions in the future.

Notwithstanding the reservation that the clause will deliver, the UK Government will continue to agree policy in relation to the regulation of the health professions with the Scottish Government. The UK Government, through the Department of Health in England, will continue to engage closely with officials in the Scottish Government—and, for that matter, with the Administrations in Northern Ireland and Wales—to develop future policy proposals concerning the regulation of health care professionals. This will ensure that the views of the Scottish people will be taken into consideration as we go forwards, but in a manner that will deliver a consistent approach to regulation that works for the whole of the UK.

[Mr MacNeil]

If in future a certain type of health profession develops that exists only in Scotland, is the Minister saying that regulation of it should be done in London?

[David Mundell]

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) was challenged to identify health professions that could exist only in Scotland—and failed to do so. The regulation will be dealt with in accordance with schedule 5. When we have had some identification of a health profession that could exist only in Scotland, we will be able to look at what the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have to say about it.

[Mr MacNeil]

It would be good practice in shaping and making law to prepare for any eventuality. I put a particular type of eventuality to the Minister, but he has not provided an answer. If there is a certain type of medical profession that exists only in Scotland, what will happen?

[David Mundell]

I am afraid that that represents the level of debate on re-reservation that we have witnessed tonight. The SNP’s opposition to re-reservation is based entirely on dogma and political viewpoints rather than on the interests of the people of Scotland. The Calman commission looked very closely at these issues and considered that the balance lay with re-reserving the powers. The Government support that re-reservation and nothing we have heard in this debate or the previous one—or, I suspect, that we would have heard if we had had a debate on Antarctica—would convince any Member who looked at these matters either objectively or with the interests of the people of Scotland at heart to support the SNP position. I hope that SNP Members will withdraw their frivolous opposition so that the Committee will not have to divide on the issue.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

21:47

Division 218

Ayes: 340

---

Conservative: 240
Labour: 51
Liberal Democrat: 47
Alliance: 1

Noes: 8

---

Scottish National Party: 6
Plaid Cymru: 1
Green Party: 1

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

22:02

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 27 January.)

The Chair put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D).

Clauses 14 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

Speed limits

Amendment made: 30, page 13, line 26, at end insert—

“(3ZD) Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (2) are subject to the negative procedure.”

( ) In subsection (3A)—

(a) the words from “the National Park Authority” to the end become paragraph (a), and

(b) after that paragraph insert “, and

(b) such representative organisations as they think fit.”’.—(David Mundell.)

Clause 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 22 and 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The occupant of the Chair left the Chair (Programme Order, 27 January).

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again tomorrow.

Business without Debate

Monday 7th March 2011 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Monday 7th March 2011 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Housing

That the draft Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (Consequential Amendments to the Mobile Homes Act 1983) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.—(Jeremy Wright.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Mobile Homes

That the draft Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment of Schedule 1 and Consequential Amendments) (England) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.—(Jeremy Wright.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

That the draft Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Jurisdiction of Residential Property Tribunals) (England) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.—(Jeremy Wright.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Capital Gains Tax

That the draft Penalties, Offshore Income etc. (Designation of Territories) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.—(Jeremy Wright.)

Question agreed to.

Pfizer (Sandwich)

Monday 7th March 2011 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Jeremy Wright.)

22:04

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for taking the time to be present this evening, as I know he has been all around the country promoting science and our technology base. I also recognise that he and the Government are taking the announcement of the closure of the Pfizer plant in Sandwich exceptionally seriously.

I watched what happened previously when large numbers of redundancies were announced at the site, and it is clear that this Government have distinguished themselves as a Government of action and commitment. The last Government did not seem too worried about the closure of the Pfizer manufacturing plant at Sandwich, with hundreds of jobs lost. I did not hear the then Prime Minister commit to addressing the loss of UK-based skills, nor did I see a taskforce established within days to work with the company and keep as many jobs on site as possible. This Government have not stood by. They have not watched from the sidelines; instead they have galvanised all their resources to try to mitigate the impact this closure will have both locally and nationally.

A fellow Member of this House—an Opposition Member—said to me, “Well Laura, at least it’s happened in the south-east. There are lots of jobs and opportunities for people there, unlike in the north.” May I therefore explain that although Thanet and Dover are located in the south-east, they do not look like the south-east? I represent the 64th most deprived district in the country, next door in terms of deprivation to Wigan and Wakefield. We calculate that the withdrawal of high-paid jobs at Pfizer, which is one of the very few high-paying employers, will bring the average wage in our area down to £17,700. We will therefore be fighting things out in the conference league, with wages that are the 15th lowest in the country.

Let us add up the total of the potential job losses in an area where skills are low and job mobility even lower, and which is still recovering from coal pit closures and the demise of the British seaside holiday. Some 2,400 Pfizer jobs are at risk, and they are the highest paid jobs in the local economy. There are 1,700 contactors on the site, including technicians, scientists and support staff. It is also expected that we will lose thousands of public sector jobs. Experian calculates that the knock-on impact of these redundancies could mean that an additional 5,000 jobs are at risk.

The Pfizer closure will also have a significant impact on the voluntary sector. Pfizer has been very generous in the past. At the last count, an annual sum of £250,000 was donated by Pfizer to voluntary groups locally; £460,000 was given by Pfizer staff to charities; and 200 local schools were supported to promote science. Every staff member was given five days of paid leave to help with local charity groups. This totals in one year much more than the $1 million given as a community legacy when Pfizer shut its operation in Michigan. It is a body blow to the community, which is so dependent on the voluntary sector.

We cannot stop Pfizer leaving the site; that is its decision and responsibility. However, I ask the Minister to help us with our discussions with Pfizer. Pfizer has been in Sandwich for 60 years, but has given its staff and the community just 90 days to readjust. We know that significant numbers of staff will be made redundant soon, with little time for support to be put in place to help them to set up businesses, or to identify investors who might want to buy some of the assets and keep those important jobs on the Sandwich site. I pay tribute to the local Pfizer management at Sandwich who are trying to put in place new opportunities. They, too, have little time to ensure that jobs stay in Sandwich before redundancies are issued. This is a great disappointment, as there are some very exciting opportunities. The site and the staff have real potential.

As the Minister knows, following the meeting he called with venture capitalists, there are some potential opportunities, such as large management buy-outs. In addition, the staff are considering setting up businesses, but will they have enough time to secure the finance and put the packages in place before there is a dispersal of the talented staff?

I am not asking Pfizer to change its exit date—2012 will be when it closes its activities in Sandwich—but that does not mean that it has to rush to redundancies now when so much is being put in place to mitigate the company’s decision. I am not sure that 90 days’ notice after 60 years is fair or reasonable. We need more time, the staff and contractors need more time, and our east Kent economy needs more time.

The Government also have a strong role to play, and with Ministers’ support much has already been achieved. With the Minister’s leadership and the support of the Prime Minister, the Government moved into action immediately. The taskforce, under the effective chairmanship of Paul Carter, has already put in place a range of new opportunities for the site. We are only 30 days into this process and this will be an endeavour for those with stamina. We are in this for the long haul, so we need the Government’s help to realise an exciting future for Sandwich. We need them to back the establishment of a life science centre on the current site at Sandwich, as a national resource, rather than just for our local economy. We seek economic incentives to support this centre in its early years, and we seek special tax credits for research and development that reach beyond the current criteria. This life science centre could be at the heart of a wider research and technology zone covering the whole site and going along the A256 corridor. We would also like the Government to look on this area as one of the flagship enterprise zones that the Chancellor advanced in such a welcome fashion in Cardiff this weekend.

The east Kent economy has been crying out for years for better transport links: the area is 70 miles from London, but can take two hours to reach by train. The Minister experienced a very lengthy train journey of two and a half hours because of both a slow train and works on the line, so he knows that, per mile, Sandwich to London is one of the slowest rail routes in the country. I therefore ask for the Government’s support for our bid to get the rail line from London to Thanet upgraded so that we can get to Thanet within the hour. That would revolutionise our local economy.

In conclusion, we need more time from Pfizer and we need the Government’s commitment for the long term. With that, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to turn our local economy around so that in years to come my east Kent colleagues and I can proudly state, “Yes, our area is part of the south-east economy. It does look like the rest of the south-east and our economy can eventually function like the rest of south-east.”

22:13

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on her heroic efforts to corral and bring together the east Kent MPs, Kent county council, Dover district council and Thanet district council within 24 hours to make sure that there was a clear plan for a changeover from the large “big pharma” site to the new model of universities and smaller businesses collaborating and developing things in the future. I simply wish to support her point about the disgraceful transport links that we have to put up with. We need to get the fast line put in from Sandwich and Deal through to London, and we need Manston and the A256 corridor to be developed. That would enable us to have more jobs and more money, and would provide more effective business options for the people of Dover, Deal, south and north Thanet, and east Kent as a whole.

22:14

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on securing the debate. The presence of other hon. Members in the Chamber is a reminder of the strength of feeling in Kent about this issue. The important contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and the presence of my hon. Friends the Members for North Thanet (Mr Gale), for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) and for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) shows that the issue affects a wider community than that in Sandwich.

We in the Government were deeply disappointed by Pfizer’s decision. I vividly remember the meeting at No. 10 Downing street with the new chief executive of Pfizer on 24 January. I thought I was going to meet the new chief executive and learn about his plans for the future, so I was shocked and disappointed when he revealed that he was proposing to announce, in a week’s time, Pfizer’s withdrawal from its Sandwich plant. Of course, I asked immediately whether anything could be done in terms of national policy to change his mind and whether there was something we had got wrong that needed to corrected, but he was insistent that the decision was based on Pfizer’s wider global view about the strands of medical activity on which it wished to focus. Sadly, some of the activities at Sandwich are ones from which it plans to withdraw. Since that conversation, in which Pfizer insisted that there was nothing we could do at the national level, the focus has quite rightly been on what we can do for the local community in Sandwich, the economy of that part of Kent and, more widely, for the life sciences in our country. I pay tribute again to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for South Thanet and her colleagues who are present for the incredibly constructive and energetic way in which they have tried to address that challenge.

We decided immediately to invite Paul Carter, the leader of Kent county council, to lead a local taskforce that would assess the impact on the local economy and look at measures that could be taken so that the local economy was not damaged severely by this decision. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and I are waiting for the report that he will bring to us, but it is already clear that three key issues have emerged, all of which were touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet in her speech, the first of which is transport connections. It is clear that this is a long-standing problem in the area and, as she has said, it is one that I personally experienced in my painfully slow journey to Sandwich the other day.

Clearly, there are some important transport challenges, but my hon. Friend will understand that I can make no commitment tonight on public expenditure issues, which are matters for the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Transport, but she, her colleagues and Kent county council have made very strong arguments about the need for a transport upgrade in the area. I understand the different things they are calling for, one of which is an improvement in the rail service. A powerful argument has been made that reducing the journey time to London to less than an hour would transform people’s perceptions of the site and its accessibility.

The second argument that has been made is about the case for a new station and how that would encourage investment and would encourage people to move to the area.

Thirdly, there is the whole issue of the airfield at Manston. Occasionally, I think that we have found Boris Johnson’s island. The existence of the runway and the great significance it could have for improving transport links has been drawn to our attention. I cannot make any commitments tonight, but that logic and the connection between the rail links, the new station and the future of the airfield have all been very well made and I know from my conversations with Councillor Paul Carter that he will be making those points in his report. We will then consider them very seriously indeed, because of the importance of the area and the severe blow that it has had with the withdrawal of Pfizer.

The second set of local issues concerns employment. My hon. Friend put it eloquently. After 60 years of presence in the area, during which time the researchers and staff at Sandwich developed some extraordinarily successful drugs, it is understandable that the prospect of 90 days’ notice is extremely painful for people. There is great interest among the venture capital community and others in what could be done to support MBOs—to support new contract research organisations, perhaps to buy particular physical assets and intellectual property that has been generated on site. I understand that going through that process in the tight time scale of 90 days is very demanding. That is one of the reasons why we in the Government have tried to keep ahead of events and move with all necessary speed.

I will take up with Pfizer the points that my hon. Friend made about the need to give sufficient time for such options to be properly explored. As she knows, I have already convened a brainstorming session of venture capitalists and others at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and I am keeping in close touch with the venture capital community. Yes, I will make the point to Pfizer that it has an obligation to ensure that such options are properly investigated.

The third thing that is on the agenda for the local community is the enterprise zone idea. I was at the Conservative party’s spring conference in Cardiff this weekend, speaking on growth. The Chancellor gave an important speech with a clear commitment to back enterprise zones. Again, I cannot give any commitment this evening, but I know that my hon. Friend and her colleagues and the leader of Kent county council will be eloquent in making the case for the area as an enterprise zone, and I well understand the arguments that they will put.

There is much work to be done on the exact design of an enterprise zone—to what extent it is a matter of rate relief, liberalising the planning regime or other special tax reliefs. All that, I am sure, will be unveiled at the Dispatch Box in a fortnight, when the House may be even more crowded than it is tonight. We have only a short time to wait, but both the definition of the scope for enterprise zones and the choice of the areas where those will be is important. I know that the case for this area of Kent as an enterprise zone will be made powerfully.

I see those as the big local issues. We are focusing on all of them, working with the taskforce—the transport issues, the employment issues and the enterprise zone. Perhaps I can briefly mention the wider context. Although the decision has been a blow for the local community in Sandwich, it has led to stocktaking about life sciences as a British-based industry. It is clear now, especially when we put the Pfizer decision alongside a similar decision by AstraZeneca at Charnwood, that there are some big structural changes going on in the industry. I referred to one—Pfizer’s decision to withdraw from some strands of research—but there is another issue as well.

There is a shift away from in-house research and development towards contractual arrangements with outside research organisations or contractual arrangements with university departments, where firms look for the original medical research to take place. Also, increasingly, the larger companies are waiting to see what small and medium-sized enterprises come up with and buying up the SMEs when they have clearly got the product. Just as the disappearance of Bell Labs was a wake-up call about changes in the structure of the IT industry 20 years ago, we are seeing an important change in the structure of the pharmaceutical industry.

The Government, and I with my responsibilities for life sciences, are committed to making sure that as these structural changes occur, Britain remains at the forefront of life sciences, and that we are sufficiently nimble footed and skilful that we ensure that as these changes happen Britain emerges from them with an even stronger life sciences economy than we have at present. That is why we have, for example, protected in cash terms the science and research budget and, within that, given particular protection to the Medical Research Council’s budget, supported by the patent income it receives from successful patents. We know that high-quality medical research is absolutely fundamental to ensuring that we have a strong life sciences industry.

That is also why we are looking carefully at how we can improve the environment for clinical trials in this country. I see a great potential future for the Sandwich facility as a place from which clinical trials are run, even if no primary pharmaceutical or medical research is undertaken there. It is a scandal that we have inherited a regulatory regime in which it takes 660 days from the decision to test a drug to the first patient receiving it in a clinical trial. When we on the Government Benches talk about the burdens of red tape, it is not simply an abstract issue; we have a real example of that burden in front of us. The Secretary of State for Health and I received an excellent report on that in January, and I know that the Chancellor is very aware of it. I am absolutely committed to working with the Secretary of State to try to transform the environment for clinical trials so that Britain’s declining market share in clinical trials is reversed. We have gone from having 6% of clinical trials to 2% in the past 15 years. That shocking decline under the previous Government must be arrested and reversed. We are trying to create a better environment for clinical trials, which could be of direct benefit for people at the Pfizer facility in Sandwich.

We are also looking carefully at the regime for venture capital investment, as we need to do everything possible to ensure that venture capitalists are keen to invest in this important sector. Again, we have seen a decline in venture capital investment in recent years, which we need to address and turn around. Finally, we must ensure that we have an environment in which contract research organisations—I suspect that we will hear more about those in the years ahead, as they will be an important part of the industry’s future structure—have a tax and regulatory regime that supports them so that Britain becomes Europe’s preferred environment for contract-based research.

If we put together our commitment to the local community, our willingness to focus on the specific issues that my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet raised—transport, employment, redundancy arrangements and enterprise zones—and our commitment to life sciences as an important British strength where we can do better and must not settle for decline and contraction, I hope that she will take some comfort from this debate that she has rightly secured.

Question put and agreed to.

22:28

House adjourned.

Ministerial Correction

Monday 7th March 2011 Ministerial Corrections

Monday 7 March 2011

Social Security

Monday 7th March 2011 Ministerial Corrections

The following is the response given by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb) relating to a question from the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) during the debate on the Draft Social Security Benefits Uprating Order 2011 on 17 February 2011.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Will the Government give the House a time scale in which it will consider these matters to do with CPI? Obviously, council tax also has to be taken into account.

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. We are, of course, driven by the Office for National Statistics, so we are not cobbling together our own index. It is undertaking careful work over the next two years. We will then look at its findings and consider whether it is appropriate to use a CPIH-type measure. We are governed by the ONS’s time scales.

I will comment briefly on benefits for people of working age. Unfortunately, last year the Government got themselves into a bit of a mess over uprating. As I have said, RPI was showing negative inflation, mainly as a result of falling mortgage interest. As a result, benefits such as additional state pensions did not increase at all. They would have done under CPI. Other benefits, mainly the disability and carers’ benefits, were the subject of what my notes call a bewildering fudge—I think that roughly sums it up. In the end, disability and carers’ benefits last year were increased by 1.5%, but on the proviso that the pre-election—sorry, that word slipped out again—increase in 2010 would be clawed back in 2011. In other words, that would have happened this year in this order. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says that we had to decide whether to pick up the ticking time bomb of that 1.5% clawback as well.

Members will be pleased to know that the 2011 uprating order before the House today contains no such sleight of hand. It is based on the straightforward proposition that, aside from increases in the basic pension and pension credit that have already been explained, the other mainstream social security benefits and statutory payments will increase by 3.1%, in line with the annual growth in RPI. There will be no attempt to recoup the value of the 1.5% fudge that we inherited from the previous Government.

[Official Report, 17 February 2011, Vol. 523, c. 1178.]

Letter of correction from Mr Steve Webb:

An error has been identified in the answer given on 17 February 2011. In the third paragraph of my response I meant to say CPI not RPI.

The correct answer should have been:

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. We are, of course, driven by the Office for National Statistics, so we are not cobbling together our own index. It is undertaking careful work over the next two years. We will then look at its findings and consider whether it is appropriate to use a CPIH-type measure. We are governed by the ONS’s time scales.

I will comment briefly on benefits for people of working age. Unfortunately, last year the Government got themselves into a bit of a mess over uprating. As I have said, RPI was showing negative inflation, mainly as a result of falling mortgage interest. As a result, benefits such as additional state pensions did not increase at all. They would have done under CPI. Other benefits, mainly the disability and carers’ benefits, were the subject of what my notes call a bewildering fudge—I think that roughly sums it up. In the end, disability and carers’ benefits last year were increased by 1.5%, but on the proviso that the pre-election—sorry, that word slipped out again—increase in 2010 would be clawed back in 2011. In other words, that would have happened this year in this order. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says that we had to decide whether to pick up the ticking time bomb of that 1.5% clawback as well.

Members will be pleased to know that the 2011 uprating order before the House today contains no such sleight of hand. It is based on the straightforward proposition that, aside from increases in the basic pension and pension credit that have already been explained, the other mainstream social security benefits and statutory payments will increase by 3.1%, in line with the annual growth in CPI. There will be no attempt to recoup the value of the 1.5% fudge that we inherited from the previous Government.

Written Ministerial Statements

Monday 7th March 2011 Written Statements

Monday 7 March 2011

London Thames Gateway Development Corporation

Monday 7th March 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

The public bodies review (20 October 2010) concluded that the functions of the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC) should be transferred to the relevant local authority or other London bodies. I am today announcing the first stage of that localisation. From 1 April 2011, LTGDC’s planning functions in the London riverside area will be returned to the London boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, Havering, and for part of Newham. This important first step towards complete localisation will be effected by the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (Planning Functions) (Amendment) Order 2011 which I am laying before Parliament today. The order reflects the coalition commitment to cutting the costs of quangos and increasing accountability, and also chimes with our approach to the Thames Gateway generally, where we have decentralised strategic oversight to local political leaders.

I expect further transfers of functions will take place during 2012.

Review of Statutory Duties

Monday 7th March 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)]

I am today announcing a comprehensive review of the statutory duties placed on local authorities by central Government. This is a further step in the drive to remove centrally imposed prescription and burdens and free councils up to meet the needs of their communities.

Central Government are committed to taking a proactive role to identifying and removing bureaucratic burdens and barriers that stifle local decision making. We have already freed local authorities from thousands of targets, ended the costly inspection regime and announced work to streamline central data requirements. We now need to be clear about the cumulative demands centrally prescribed duties place on local authorities and consider carefully whether they can continue to be justified.

Review of Statutory Duties on local government

Historically central Government have been prescriptive about how councils should serve their communities and many functions councils undertake have legal duties attached to them, set out in numerous Acts of Parliament.

The Department for Communities and Local Government will lead a comprehensive review of statutory duties with the aim of determining which duties actually support councils in carrying out their functions and which ones serve to create unnecessary burdens and should be removed.

A draft list of over 1,200 duties stemming from primary legislation that Departments across Whitehall are responsible for will be available online today at http://www.communities.gov.uk/localgovernment/decentralisation/tacklingburdens/. We aim to build the list further with contributions, comment and challenge from local government and the public. The House will be kept informed of progress.

I have placed copies of the initial lists of duties placed on local government both by my Department and by other Government Departments in the Library of the House.

Energy Council (28 February 2011)

Monday 7th March 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)]

I represented the UK at the Energy Council in Brussels on 28 February.

The Council began with a report by the Commission on the progress of negotiations in the Council working group on the proposed regulation on energy market integrity and transparency. The European Council had given a mandate for rapid completion of the dossier, which is essential for setting the rules of energy commodity trading in the EU.

The Council then adopted Council conclusions on the “Energy 2020” strategy and the communication on energy infrastructure priorities. Commissioner Oettinger summarised the content of the conclusions and highlighted the need for specific actions on 2050 work, including in particular support for infrastructure investment, energy efficiency, and the need to consider how the next financial perspective can best support the transition to 2050.

The main focus of the Council was a discussion of energy efficiency and renewables to contribute to the EU semester exercise (a new EU initiative to improve economic policy co-ordination). The EU semester process will be considered by the spring European Council later this month. Commissioner Oettinger noted the positive impact that energy efficiency and renewables could have on EU industry. Most Ministers supported the Commission’s approach and agreed on the importance of energy efficiency. I noted that the forthcoming energy efficiency action plan should focus on those areas where action is best taken at EU level or where there is direct added-value in co-operative efforts.

The Commissioner also updated the Council on the recent communication on the implementation of the renewables directive and on the southern corridor, where he said that he would present a long-term strategy to the Council in the second half of 2011. I noted the UK’s support for the idea of the southern corridor but the importance that any strategic work should not delay the commercial development of Azeri gas.

Over lunch, there was a discussion of north Africa and oil prices, and the internal energy market.

The Energy Council, as the formation of the Council in session, adopted a decision implementing the UN Security Council Resolution imposing sanctions on Libya.

Strengthening Women's Voices in Government

Monday 7th March 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Equalities (Lynne Featherstone)]

In December 2010 the coalition Government published its equality strategy “Building a Fairer Britain”. In it we set out two principles: equal treatment and equal opportunity. We committed to devolving power and control to citizens and local communities; giving them more choice and control over their lives and to promote greater participation in public life.

We also committed to reforming the institutions that currently exist to help Government develop and promote its equality policies and legislation. Following the review of public bodies we decided that the functions of the Women’s National Commission (WNC) which had the role of bringing women’s voices to Government should be brought back within Government. The WNC closed in December 2010.

Today I am publishing a consultation on “Strengthening Women’s Voices in Government” which sets out our proposals for a new approach to engaging and listening to women, and invites views and feedback on those proposals.

This new approach will modernise the way we engage with women in the UK to ensure that we maintain an effective dialogue about the key issues of concern to women of all ages and backgrounds in the UK today. It will transform the way in which their voices are brought to Government, delivering an engagement framework which is direct, inclusive and transparent, and which is, in principle and by design, open to all—individual women, grass roots and local community organisations as well as regional and national women’s organisations and wider organisations working on issues in which women have a key interest.

Copies of “Strengthening Women’s Voices in Government” will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and in the Vote Office.

Olympic Airspace

Monday 7th March 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

As part of the commitment to deliver a safe and secure Olympic and Paralympic games, the Government are today announcing their plans for temporary airspace control measures that will apply over London and the south-east during the games period.

The measures comprise an inner prohibited airspace zone and an outer restricted zone, approximately 60 nautical miles across, centred on the Olympic park.

Only certain categories of aircraft—those operating commercial services and subject to full security procedures—will normally be permitted to operate within the prohibited zone. Certain aircraft involved in, for example, police, medevac and Olympic broadcast operations will be exempted. Other operations at airports within this zone may also be considered for exemption subject to strict conditions, which will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Similarly, we are working with Battersea heliport to agree a basis on which operations there may be allowed to continue.

All types of aircraft will be permitted to operate in the wider restricted zone provided that they can satisfy certain requirements designed to ensure that all aircraft within the zone can be readily identified and monitored by air traffic control.

It is envisaged that the measures will be in place from 13 July to 12 September 2012, to cover the period of both the Olympic and Paralympic games.

These measures have been designed to help to protect key games locations from potential airborne threats. It is normal practice to implement airspace restrictions during large-scale events such as major sporting events, and similar measures have been put in place for previous Olympic and Paralympic games. The measures have been developed to be proportionate and to minimise the impact on the aviation community during the summer of 2012.

It is not expected that any airports will need to close as a result of the measures. There should be no impact on scheduled air services, and limited impact on most other types of operation outside the prohibited zone.

The Government, the Civil Aviation Authority and NATS will now work with airspace users and others to ensure that the planned measures, and their potential impacts, are fully understood and discussed before the regulations to implement them under the Air Navigation Order 2009 are made later this year.

Options for airspace controls over other Olympics venues outside the south-east are still being considered and plans for these will be announced later.

Copies of a leaflet entitled “London 2012 Airspace”, aimed at the general aviation community, showing the coverage of the zones and setting out in more detail the restrictions that will apply within them, have been placed in the Library.

Referendum on Law-making Powers

Monday 7th March 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Mrs Cheryl Gillan)]

On behalf of the Government, I welcome the result of the referendum on enhanced law-making powers for the National Assembly for Wales, which took place on 3 March.

The Government have fulfilled their commitment to hold a referendum—requested by Assembly Members—set out in the coalition’s programme for Government. The referendum has enabled the people of Wales to have their say in determining the powers the National Assembly should have.

The “yes” vote will mean that the Welsh Assembly Government can get on with the job of delivering better public services, and bring forward legislation in devolved areas without reference to Parliament. The Assembly will be able to legislate on subjects in the 20 areas covered by the original devolution settlement, and set out in schedule 7 to the Government of Wales Act 2006. All the areas previously non-devolved remain non-devolved, and are the responsibility of the Government and Parliament. There is no change in this respect.

It is now for the Welsh Assembly Government and the National Assembly to decide when to bring the Assembly’s enhanced powers into force.

The Government are committed to working closely with the Welsh Assembly Government and National Assembly to make these legislative arrangements work effectively.

House of Lords

Monday 7th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Monday, 7 March 2011.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

Census Day

Monday 7th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

14:36

Asked By

[Lord Newby]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to publicise census day on 27 March.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, were there a topical question for today, my noble friend might well have secured it, because this is the day when the first household forms will be sent out. Advertising for the 2011 census has already started. The first television advertising began on 21 February and will continue up to and beyond census day on 27 March. In England and Wales there will be a national campaign, including TV, online and outdoor advertising on, for example, billboards and bus shelters. Separate targeted advertising is aimed at black and ethnic minority audiences, students and young people who are traditionally hard to reach.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, given the importance of the census information and in light of the fact that in 2001 many people did not complete a form, and with a return rate of under 80 per cent in some London boroughs, how confident is the Minister that completion rates will be higher this time, particularly among households where English is not the first language?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, the Government share my noble friend’s concerns. There are areas of the country where returns are low, and those are the very areas where accurate information can often assist government decisions on resource allocation. I should remind the House that £100 billion-worth of resource allocation depends on the sort of information that the census provides. The advertising campaign is therefore constructed to that end. The organisers have been working in partnership with local authorities to plan and prioritise engagement, and advertising with voluntary groups, organisations and community leaders to promote the census.

[Baroness Coussins]

My Lords, have the Government identified what interpretation and translation services they need to complete the census, and how have the relevant specialists been recruited?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

A large number of specialists have been recruited and translations of the questions and information leaflets will be available in 56 languages. There will also be drop-in centres located in local communities to assist in completing the forms where that will be of help. Community leaders are being encouraged to become involved in helping to complete the forms.

[Lord Geddes]

My Lords, I may have misheard my noble friend, but in his original Answer, did he say that advertising was going to go on beyond census day; and if so, why?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am afraid that much of the effort involved in the census has to be made in chasing those who have not returned the form. The task of some 35,000 field staff will be to chase up the addresses from which no return has yet been received. That is the reason for the chase-up advertising.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, is it not rather ironic that all this effort is being put into the census when the same is not being done for electoral registration?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think that the noble Lord has made that point before when we were discussing other matters, and I appreciate his contribution on this. I am sure that he will agree that getting accurate information is important for proper and effective government.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

Does the Minister accept that there is a certain lack in the census? There is no way of taking into account illegal immigrants—the “invisible” people, of whom it is estimated there are many hundreds of thousands in this country—if they cannot be identified in any way, and do not wish to be.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, it is a household census; therefore the head of the household is responsible for accounting for the people within it on census day. When the Government examine the future of the census, the points that my noble friend has made will be borne in mind.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, it is rumoured that this will be the last census in its current form because of cost. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case? If it is, how will such data be collected in future? These data are important not only for current planning purposes but for historical purposes as well.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question. The cost of conducting a census is £487 million—an enormous sum which Governments have found has augmented over time. The Government are indeed looking at alternative methods. It may be possible to have much more real-time information—after all, at the end of the 10-year period, the data are already very out of date. A project beyond 2011 has been set up to provide and examine alternatives to the current paper-based method of collecting these data. It will report within the next three or four years.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, can the Minister tell us how many families there are in this country whose English is not sufficiently good to understand the census form?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

We cannot be sure, which is part of the reason why the census exists. It will inform that debate.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, given the importance of the information to be obtained by the census and the uncertainty about its future, will the Minister make certain that, on this occasion, very careful study is made of the value for money of the contracts that have been placed to carry it out?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Yes. Although the contracts have been placed under open tender, the Cabinet Office and the Government in general have a policy of transparency in contracting and of making sure that cost-effectiveness is at the top of the list.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

My Lords, the census form arrived in our household today and, on immediate reading, it seemed to state, “complete on 27 March or as soon as possible thereafter”. It is not immediately apparent to me—I may have to look at it again—that there is a closing date for putting in the information. Is there such a closing date on the census form?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The chase-up period will go on until 9 May. It may be necessary for people who are absent to complete the form after 27 March, but the Government’s objective is to have a snapshot view on 27 March. That is the end in mind. I should add that it is possible to complete and submit the form online in anticipation of 27 March, if one wishes to do so.

[Lord Christopher]

My Lords, my impression is that not many people have seen the form yet. I had the misfortune of getting it this morning. I glanced at it only very quickly, and will not ask the unkind question of whether the noble Lord has seen it, but I think that it runs to 32 pages. It provides some notes for what you should do if you make a mistake—well, there is some opportunity there, I can assure the noble Lord. So my question really is: what steps are proposed to monitor the accuracy of returns, even for those of good will who might wish to return them? I did the census 60 years ago, for £10, when every form was taken and completed by an operative, but we are now relying on the public.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am pleased to hear that the noble Lord received his form this morning; he is higher in the alphabet than I am, so mine might come a little bit later—but I have actually downloaded a form online. I will make sure that a copy of the form is available in the Library for examination.

Education Maintenance Allowance

Monday 7th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

14:45

Asked By

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many young people they estimate will be affected by the cancellation of the education maintenance allowance.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

My Lords, the EMA is currently paid to 45 per cent of 16 to 18 year-olds in full-time education at a cost of £560 million a year. Research commissioned by the previous Government showed that about one in 10 of those receiving EMA would not have continued in learning without it. We are currently considering the replacement arrangements with the aim of targeting support more closely on those facing the greatest financial barriers to participation.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that some colleges have estimated that up to 50 per cent of young people will have to leave post-16 education when the EMA payments stop, thereby joining the growing ranks of those not in education, employment or training? Has the department considered the economic and social impact of this? Would it not have made more sense to finalise the details of the new discretionary scheme before announcing the end of the EMA, to minimise the upset and uncertainty that many young people who do not know whether they will qualify under the new scheme are feeling?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

On the noble Baroness’s second point about sequencing, I accept the force of her argument. As she will know, the Government were confronted with a situation where they had to take urgent decisions rapidly because of the scale of the deficit, and we took those decisions first. I take her point, but we acted in the way that we did because we needed to start cutting the deficit quickly. On her first point, I am aware of the views of many principals of sixth-form colleges and young people, who have expressed concerns to me about the loss of the EMA. The noble Baroness referred to 50 per cent; I come back to the research commissioned by the previous Government which looked at the impact and stated, consistently across two or three pieces of work, that about one in 10 said that they would not have carried on. We will target the arrangements we work out on those who need help most, because I accept that we need to ensure that the children who face the greatest barriers get help to carry on in education and training.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his undertaking to concentrate on those young people who need the support most. Does he agree that young people in care, who have had the poorest of starts, need support to access education? Will he make certain that they do not lose out because of this change?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I agree with the noble Earl about the importance of children in care. It is a consideration that the Government will have to bear very much in mind as they work out exactly how to deliver targeted help. I accept in full the force of his comments.

[Baroness Walmsley]

Does the Minister accept that for young people in rural areas the cost of transport to and from a sixth form or college can be very high? Is that one of the priority areas that the Government are considering while studying what to put in place of the EMA?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I accept completely my noble friend’s point about the element of transport costs, particularly in rural areas where it makes up a proportionately larger amount of the costs a young person might have. It remains the case that local authorities have a statutory duty to make arrangements—either through provision or funding—for transport for those groups. As she will know, currently the discretionary fund operated by colleges does not allow payment for transport. While one does not want to get to a scheme whereby all the discretionary fund goes on transport, or to relieve local authorities of that statutory duty, nevertheless we are looking at the point she makes about the importance of transport, particularly in rural areas.

[Lord Tomlinson]

Is the Minister aware that there is no golden rule that said you had to make these cuts in educational maintenance allowance—that it is a matter of judgment? Is he further aware that it is our view, which we suspect will be shared by the majority of the people in this country on 7 May, that in exercising that judgment the Government got it right—oh! I mean that the Government got it wrong—and that this side of the House is correct?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I will pass on the endorsement by the noble Lord. I fully accept that it is about judgment. Overall in the settlement got by the Department for Education, particularly on the schools side, we managed to maintain cash flat per pupil and to fund a pupil premium. One would always like to have more but I accept the point about judgment. The Government made the judgment across the piece that the priority was to cut the deficit and get those interest payments down. In due course, we will be happy to be judged on that judgment.

[The Lord Bishop of Leicester]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that among the categories that may require special attention under the review are black and minority-ethnic communities who often place a high value on education but come from poorer homes and are more dependent on this kind of help than many others?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, the Government want to look at a number of groups carefully in the replacement scheme. One group is children in care. There are issues to do with rurality and transport, as my noble friend has raised. I also accept that there are particular issues of the kind that the right reverend Prelate has raised. In all this, we want to make sure that the most effective help is delivered locally to those children who need it most.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, are we now seeing an unfortunate pattern from the Secretary of State for Education—a rush to cut without any apparent concern for the consequences and no attempt to consult beforehand? Does the Minister not regret that, on EMAs, Booktrust, school sport, music tuition and of course the Building Schools for the Future programme, the Secretary of State has failed to undertake the normal processes of consultation that really should be part and parcel of good government? Is that not why he is getting so many of these things wrong?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I think I said in my first answer that, as with other departments, my department has been driven by the underlying need to grapple with the inherited financial situation. In those circumstances, where one is ratcheting up the debts, I do not accept that it is wrong to press ahead in dealing with those issues.

Immigration: Asylum Seekers

Monday 7th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

14:52

Asked By

[Lord Avebury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will exercise the power in Section 94(5) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 so as to restore the right of appeal against refusal of asylum to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people from Jamaica, Nigeria and Ghana.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, unsuccessful asylum claimants have a right of appeal to the UK courts. Designation under Section 94(5) does not deny a right of appeal to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual applicants from designated countries including Jamaica, Nigeria and Ghana. However, claims from nationals of non-suspensive appeal designated countries that are clearly unfounded must be certified as such and can be appealed only from outside the UK. There are no plans to change this.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, the UKBA has collected figures on LGBT asylum seekers since last July, immediately after the Supreme Court ruling that the wrong test was being applied to them. How many cases have been recorded for each of these countries since then? If the overwhelming majority of them were either granted asylum on their application or allowed an appeal notwithstanding the provisions of the Act, does my noble friend agree that the law should correspond with the practice, as it already does for women?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord suggested that the wrong test was being applied previously. We are happy with the new test in HJ and HT. He asked me to cite some statistics and I will write to him, but a clearly unfounded claim is one that is so clearly without substance that it is bound to fail even were all other aspects of the applicant’s claim accepted. Certification is subject to judicial review.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, if it is the Government’s view that the right of appeal already exists, as I understand the Minister to have said, in the light of the recent Supreme Court ruling that application for asylum should be accepted if it is satisfied that a gay person who lived openly would be liable to persecution in the country of origin, would it not be appropriate to amend Section 94(5) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act to add sexual orientation to the list of specific descriptions of named categories of people who have the right of appeal?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, no, because all cases are considered on their merits. If there is no reason to suspect that an applicant is not gay and he comes from a homophobic state, he will have a good claim for asylum.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, the Minister will understand the comments made by those who have been subject to these procedures—that, for instance:

“If you do not fit”,

the border agency’s,

“view of a stereotypical gay person then they don’t get it—how do I prove I’m a lesbian?”.

I am not asking the Minister to give a direct answer now but perhaps to take my question back to consider it, because I have not given him warning of it. In Section 94, there is the opportunity for the Secretary of State, when he thinks that it is appropriate, to add other attributes. Is the word “reasonably” implied when the Secretary of State has to consider those other attributes?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is right on her first point on the difficulty of reliably determining whether someone is gay or not. I accept that point. But if the claim is not clearly unfounded, the applicant will be able to put that to officials and, if necessary, to an appeal court.

The noble Baroness talked about Section 94. We do not think that it is necessary to make a further designation under Section 94 as she suggests.

People Trafficking

Monday 7th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

14:57

Asked By

[Baroness Doocey]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures are in place at King’s Cross St Pancras International station to prevent children being trafficked into the United Kingdom.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, all passengers arriving at King’s Cross St Pancras have been cleared for immigration purposes at juxtaposed controls in France and Belgium. The primary function of officers at St Pancras is to undertake checks for prohibited goods and restricted items. If there was any suspicion that a child arriving at St Pancras was at risk, the UKBA would refer to the appropriate authorities.

[Baroness Doocey]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that that means that a 12 year-old child can travel from Europe to St Pancras without any checks at all on their safety when they get here? Would he not agree that there ought to be a specialist child protection team at St Pancras to ensure that children trafficked into the UK are not being brought in and then used for sexual exploitation and benefit fraud?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, there is no need for a specific team at St Pancras as the noble Baroness suggests, because the necessary checks are carried out in France and Belgium by specially trained UKBA officials. Obviously, a child travelling on their own would arouse some suspicion and attention from officials, who are very likely to intercept them and satisfy themselves that everything is in order.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I think that the Minister is unduly optimistic about the way in which children come into this country. I declare an interest as the co-chairman of the All-Party Group on Human Trafficking. Is he aware that the majority of children trafficked into this country are never actually identified at all? Some are identified and go into local authority care, but very large numbers of missing children are not identified by local authorities as trafficked.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am certainly not unduly optimistic, and I was far more apprehensive about taking this Question than the previous Question. Trafficking is a hidden crime and, for that reason, is difficult to measure and detect. It is usually for sexual exploitation, labour exploitation or domestic servitude. Some 1,048 individuals were referred to the UK’s human trafficking victim identification and support framework, the national referral mechanism, from 1 April 2009 to 30 September 2010. Those are the ones whom we know about because they have been referred, so to an extent the noble and learned Baroness is quite right—this is a serious problem.

[Baroness Goudie]

My Lords, is it not correct that the European convention on human trafficking was amended at the end of last year and that the United Kingdom has decided not to sign up to that amendment? Would it not be right now, after what the Minister has said further to what we know about human trafficking, for the Government to sign up to that? The amendment would ensure tougher border controls, tougher recovery of money across borders and a longer time for victims to be taken care of. Will the Minister please take this back since the UK is, through its Government, one of the two countries that has not signed up?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is experiencing exactly the same difficulties as I did when researching this. There is the convention and there is the directive. We are confident that the UK is compliant with the Council of Europe trafficking convention, an issue that is already in place. The noble Baroness is referring to the EU trafficking directive. We are looking closely at that directive’s text and considering its merits. If we conclude that opting in to the directive would benefit the UK, we can apply to do so. The UK has a strong record in the fight against trafficking and already complies in both legislation and practice with most of what the draft directive requires.

[Lord Laming]

My Lords, the Government have been looking at that directive for some considerable time. Can the noble Earl assure the House that a decision will be made shortly, rather than allowing this situation to drift on indefinitely?

[Earl Attlee]

The noble Lord makes an important point. The issue is coming to fruition and when we see the final text we will determine whether we will opt in.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

Is the noble Earl aware that when a specialist unit was set up at Heathrow it found that, of 1,800 unaccompanied children, half were under 11 and one-third were deemed to be at risk in some way? Have the Government given any consideration of whether the age at which children can travel unaccompanied is appropriately set?

[Earl Attlee]

The noble Baroness makes an important point. I am quite confident that we have considered carefully the matter of the age of the child. However, where the child is obviously younger or more vulnerable more attention will be paid by the UKBA officials.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, can the Minister tell me what role the British Transport Police has to play, particularly in relation to those two passenger stations? Also, in view of the Government’s dangerous proposals to politicise our police forces through elected police commissioners, what changes are envisaged for the British Transport Police?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, this issue is primarily a responsibility of the UKBA, not the British Transport Police. However, if those police saw a child at St Pancras or at any other station who appeared to be vulnerable in any way, but particularly to trafficking, it would obviously be their duty to do something about it and to refer the child to the local authorities.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

Can the noble Earl tell the House how many prosecutions there have been in the past 18 months in respect of this serious criminal enterprise, and how many of those have been successful? Should not those agencies responsible for gathering evidence be greatly strengthened so that credible cases can be brought before the courts?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, some of these cases are extremely difficult to prosecute. What distressed me a lot was that there were very few prosecutions for sexual exploitation. However, the police and the CPS use every legitimate means at their disposal to disrupt this trade and make it difficult and unprofitable for the perpetrators. This approach has led to convictions for a range of serious charges including rape, brothel management and money-laundering. It is also important to note that where charges are brought against suspected traffickers they may not be charged with specific offences of trafficking, depending on the facts of the case.

[Lord Clarke of Hampstead]

My Lords, I suggest to the Minister that this is not a new concern. Forty years ago on Camden Council we were worried about vulnerable people turning up at Kings Cross, Euston and St Pancras and being at the mercy of evil people. In the Minister’s earlier Answer he said that, once located, vulnerable people would be passed over to the statutory authorities. Is he convinced that the local authorities—in this case, probably Islington and Camden—have sufficient resources and the proper trained personnel to deal with these people, who are in a terrible state when they have escaped the clutches of the people who bring them in?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point, but very few trafficked children appear at St Pancras for the reasons that I have described. However, considerable numbers turn up at Stansted and Heathrow, and both Hillingdon Council and Essex Council have made progress on improving some of their statistics, which in the past were not very good at all.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

My Lords, what co-operation is there between us and other member countries of the European Union that are also on the line that leads to St Pancras?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, when UKBA officials intercept a child being trafficked in France or Belgium, that child is quite properly handed over to the French or Belgian authorities. We are confident that they have the necessary procedures and facilities in place because they are signed up to the same conventions as we are.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that the UKBA officials in the juxtaposed zones in Belgium and France have the right capacity to identify people perpetrating this, given the difficulty that he has highlighted in doing so? Is there social work input into what they do? Perhaps he might write to me with the details of their training.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am convinced that UKBA officials are specially trained to be able to detect children being trafficked. There are tell-tale signs when something is wrong, and I am confident that they are properly trained in that respect.

Communications Committee

Monday 7th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Membership Motion

15:07

Moved By

[The Chairman of Committees]

That Lord Inglewood be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of Lord Dixon-Smith, resigned; and that Lord Inglewood be appointed Chairman of the Committee in place of the Earl of Onslow.

Motion agreed.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Monday 7th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Committee (8th Day)

15:07

Schedule 1 : Power to abolish: bodies and offices

Amendment 60A

Moved by

[Lord Berkeley]

60A: Schedule 1, page 17, line 23, at end insert—
“The Trinity House.”

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 67A, 88A, 139A and 165A. This is a group of probing amendments. I am keen to understand the Government’s intentions on the three general lighthouse authorities—Trinity House, the Northern Lighthouse Board and the Commissioners of Irish Lights—and to see how that connects, if indeed it does, to the possible changes to other maritime organisations, specifically the Marine Management Organisation, which we will discuss in Amendment 80 later today.

The Government have included two of the three GLAs in Schedule 7. I think that the schedule is now to be withdrawn, but it would be good to hear the Minister’s confirmation of that. In some ways, it is a pity that Trinity House will be removed from Schedule 7, given that, after all, Trinity House was founded by Henry VIII and most of us refer to Schedule 7 as a good Henry VIII clause. It is rather sad if that is to happen, but I am sure that we will all survive.

I am not going to go into the details of the general lighthouse authorities—I had the Second Reading of my Private Member’s Bill here a few weeks ago—but the issue within the Public Bodies Bill is a question of governance. The three GLAs are unique organisations in that they fix their own budgets and get the Government’s approval. Having given their approval, the Government make the ship owners pay whatever is needed to balance the books. That is not strong governance in my view. The previous Government allowed the charges to ship owners to go up by 67 per cent in one year, which was very excessive. More recently, the present Minister for Shipping, Mike Penning, has announced that he has sorted out the Irish question. In this context, that relates to the fact that ships coming into British harbours pay the dues that also provide a significant subsidy to the Commissioners of Irish Lights. That is good. Ministers have also announced that the budget for the GLAs will reduce by something like 17 per cent over three years. That is not enough but it is much better than nothing. Maybe there should be benefits in the structure as well.

Another inconsistency among the three GLAs concerns the Freedom of Information Act. The Northern Lighthouse Board is subject to FOI, whereas Trinity House is not. I know that discussions are going on between the Ministry of Justice and Trinity House but it is rather odd that there is this inconsistency. The Commissioners of Irish Lights cover Northern Ireland as well as southern Ireland and are generally seen to be most generous in their payment of their staff. A Written Answer I received a few months ago suggested that six of their senior executives were paid more than €1 million. That seems quite excessive for managing some lighthouses. They are not subject to FOI because they are partly managed by the Republic of Ireland.

It is good that the Government are cutting off the Irish subsidy by the end of this Parliament, but could the Minister in responding explain what, if anything, the Government intend to do about the governance structure of the three GLAs? There is not much incentive at the moment for them to cut costs or for the Government to make them do so. The shipping lines pay whatever the Government decide. Therefore, I would be very pleased to hear what the Minister has to say in response. I beg to move.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I spoke in an earlier fascinating debate on the Irish lights and other matters in this field. I hope that this is a probing amendment. I listened with interest to the questions. As a lad who was born and brought up in Harwich, which is now the hub of the Trinity House universe, I would be deeply opposed to seeing it abolished, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, appears to seek to insert into the Bill.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, the House is grateful to my noble friend for raising this matter yet again. As he rightly said, we had the opportunity to discuss these issues at the Second Reading of his Private Member’s Bill. However, there are some interesting dimensions to this, which we were not able to clarify entirely on that occasion. Indeed, it was suggested that I had made a slight slip—a rare occurrence, as the House will appreciate—when I referred to the payments to the Irish being a subsidy. As my noble friend has rightly identified, it is not a government subsidy; the money is paid by the ship owners and those who pay the dues. The payments are close to being a subsidy, given that people have no choice but to pay and the Government enforce them. Nevertheless, that is one indication of how careful one must be in dealing with these issues.

The Government are to be congratulated on having sorted out aspects of the finance of this issue to do with previous support, which was paid directly to the Irish for the Irish lights. Nevertheless, my noble friend has drawn attention to a number of interesting questions. On Second Reading, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, responded as accurately and as effectively as he could, anticipating that we would have further discussion in Committee. However, it would be helpful if the Minister responded to some of the contradictory aspects that obtain across this area, not least the freedom of information aspect with regard to Trinity House. I hope that he is able to throw light on these somewhat troubled waters.

15:15

[Lord Greenway]

My Lords, I admire the tenacity of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on this matter which, as the Minister well knows, we have discussed on a number of occasions. I declare a non-pecuniary interest as an elder brother of Trinity House and I will address my remarks mainly to Trinity House. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, I do not think that it would be within the powers of any Government of this country to enact something relating to a body set up in Dublin in the Republic of Ireland. Therefore, any thought of doing things with regard to Ireland must be out of order.

The noble Lord’s other main concern relates to the payment of light dues and particularly to the efficiency of the general lighthouse authorities. The previous Administration commissioned a report by Atkins, which looked into further efficiencies that could be made in addition to those that have already been made over a number of years, certainly in the case of Trinity House. Its recommendations were accepted and are being implemented through the new general lighthouse authority joint strategic board, which was set up by the Atkins review. In parallel, the Shipping Minister asked the GLAs to consider how they might achieve an additional reduction in expenditure, averaging 25 per cent over the period ahead, which Trinity House will deliver in full through a six-year programme. This programme has also been accepted by the Minister.

Any change to the existing governance arrangements of the GLAs would bring significant risks and costs. For this reason, I suggest that the amendments are unnecessary.

[Lord MacKenzie of Culkein]

My Lords, I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Berkeley for raising this matter again. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said, my noble friend is tenacious. However, I am sorry to say that I disagree with the points that he has made. We debated this matter extensively on 21 January and I want to reiterate a couple of points from that debate. The WS Atkins report went into considerable detail on the general lighthouse authorities. The British and Irish Governments have dealt pretty comprehensively with the so-called Irish question and the new strategic board has been set up which will drive further reductions in costs. At the end of the day, the shipping companies pay these costs.

Last Saturday I picked up a lovely little book about the Bell Rock lighthouse, comprising a series of articles written by an assistant lightkeeper in about 1904. The foreword to the book describes how the lighthouse authorities in the UK work. One of the interesting points was that, despite repeated reductions in costs around the turn of that century, the shipping companies were demanding that they should not pay light dues and that the lighthouse authorities be funded out of imperial taxation. Nothing has changed in 110 years.

I do not know many, if any, organisations that could have cut their costs and increased efficiency in the way that the lighthouse authorities have. There have been massive cuts in personnel, huge advances in technology, and that is the way forward. If technology moves forward and becomes affordable, I have no doubt that there will be further reductions in light dues. For the present, however, I see no useful purpose in pressing these amendments. I am pleased to note that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has said that they are probing amendments.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, this has been a useful debate—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, believes that to be the case—and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. This is a probing amendment and I accept that in my response. I understand the noble Lord’s purpose, because he has proposed for some time that the general lighthouse authorities that serve the coast of the United Kingdom and Ireland should be merged into one body. Indeed, mention was made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, of the Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has presented to the House. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie of Culkein, for his contribution that shows that a lot of progress is being made in this area. It is an opportunity for the use of technology that the authorities have taken advantage of. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for his involvement with those bodies, particularly Trinity House. I hope that my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree will accept that these are probing amendments. I respond in that spirit.

I should explain to noble Lords that the Commissioners of Irish Lights has functions in relation to Northern Ireland and to the Republic of Ireland. Moreover, it is a body established in Dublin under Irish law. In case people fantasise about people earning enormous salaries, no staff member earns €1 million in the employment of that body. It is not for the UK Parliament to purport to abolish or otherwise this body or its functions in relation to the Republic of Ireland.

A recent independent study by the consultants Atkins, to which reference has been made—it was a comprehensive review—addressed the provision of marine aids to navigation and concluded that the present arrangements, whilst complex, achieve the basic objective of ensuring the safety of the mariner and provide high-quality, comprehensive and integrated maritime aids to navigation all around the British Isles. Notably, Atkins recommended some changes to the governance of the general lighthouse authorities through the creation of a joint strategic board. Since last year, with the Shipping Minister’s endorsement, the joint strategic board has worked closely with the Department for Transport and the three general lighthouse authorities to identify further efficiency measures to drive down running costs.

The general lighthouse authorities are no strangers to minimising their costs, as the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie, said, by adopting new technology, estate rationalisation, joint operational initiatives and the generation of income from their commercial activities. These organisations have ensured that the level of light dues that pay for their work is 40 per cent lower in real terms than in 1993. Indeed, Atkins concluded that the general lighthouse authorities have a strong track record in identifying and realising efficiencies and cost reductions within their operation and support functions. These directly benefit ship owners through reduced burdens on the general lighthouse fund and the real-terms level of light dues.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has pursued this issue with terrier-like commitment, but I hope that I have been able to provide some clarity on the recent progress that we have made in this area of policy.

I am afraid that I am not in a position to answer the question on the Freedom of Information Act and its application to the various authorities, but I shall try to do so and will write to the noble Lord with that information. With that in mind, and in view of the general lighthouse authorities’ excellent reputation for delivery, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord. Before I withdraw the amendment, perhaps I may invite him to comment on Amendments 139A and 165A. In the light of the statement that the noble Lord made on the previous occasion that we debated this matter, it is not clear to me whether Trinity House and the Northern Lighthouse Board are meant to remain in Schedule 7 or whether they will be among those that are to be removed. My amendments would remove these two authorities from Schedule 7 to avoid them being changed; the Government have included them in Schedule 7 but they may want that schedule to be removed. My original question was: if the Government want them in Schedule 7, what are they going to do with them when they are in that schedule? Therefore, in theory, the noble Lord should accept my Amendments 139A and 165A on the basis that there will be no change for these two organisations.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank the noble Lord for his ingenuity in this respect. He should know that I have added my name to those opposing the question that Schedule 7 stand part of the Bill. Therefore, Schedule 7 will not apply to the Bill, and the noble Lord can rest at east that there will be no way in which these bodies will be included in that schedule.

[Lord Berkeley]

I thank the noble Lord for that explanation, which gives me great comfort. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 60A withdrawn.

Amendment 61 not moved.

Amendment 62

Moved by

[Lord Bach]

62: Schedule 1, page 17, line 25, leave out “Victims’ Advisory Panel.”

[Lord Bach]

I have played a very limited part in this Bill so far, so I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I do not get the spirit of it straightaway. I have been involved in other matters that have taken up quite a large amount of the House’s time.

I make it clear at the start that this is a probing amendment. However, that does not imply that we on this side are satisfied with the way in which Her Majesty’s Government are supporting victims of crime. It has often been said in this House, in particular, that for years victims were the forgotten people of the British criminal justice system. Sometimes they were not listened to; sometimes they were not consulted; and quite often they were not given the information that they were entitled to know. To sum that up, they were not treated as seriously as they should have been. However, I believe that there has been something of a revolution during the past 15 years or so, largely down to some fantastic victims’ organisations that have grown in strength over that period, becoming effective and powerful players, but also because of the work and extra resources that the previous Government—the Labour Government—put in to this part of the criminal justice system. In the past, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has been graceful enough to acknowledge that resources and effort were put in by the previous Administration.

As I understand it, victims’ panels, with which the amendment is concerned, have worked well and, importantly, they have been able to give victims direct access to government in its widest sense but to Ministers, too, and of course vice versa. However, we are told that the Victims’ Advisory Panel is to go. Some suggest that it may have gone already and I would like the Minister to comment on that.

15:30

Of course, we support the establishment of the first Victims’ Commissioner. It would be rather surprising if we did not because we appointed her in March 2010. There is no doubt that Louise Casey is held in the highest possible regard by all sides of this House and outside this House, too. Does it follow that that appointment, crucial as no doubt it was, has to spell the end of the Victims’ Advisory Panel? If the answer is yes, why does it have to end and why do victims’ panels have to go? What will take the place of those direct meetings between victims and those who run the criminal justice system, even going up as high as Ministers of the Crown? We would argue that it is crucial that, if the Government are really to understand what victims have to go through—what it is like to be a victim of crime—more sensible meetings should be encouraged.

I hope that the Minister can satisfy the Committee on this matter. We would very much welcome his and the Government’s views on the way they see the future in terms of victims and the support given to them. We are not overly encouraged by moves that the Government have already made in this area. Is it right that the large-scale surveys—I believe that they were known by the name “WAVES”—have already been abolished? As I understand it, those surveys provided, or were capable of providing, very useful information indeed for government about victims. If they have been abolished, why? Is it the Government’s intention to abolish the British Crime Survey? We know, or we have heard, that the victimisation module in that survey has already, effectively, gone. What are the Government’s intentions towards the British Crime Survey? The answers to this and other questions are of great significance, well outside the purview of this Committee. The general public are entitled to know what this Government’s policy is in regard to victims generally. I beg to move.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, about the Victims’ Advisory Panel. Let us be quite clear: the Victims’ Advisory Panel is not a body that gives help to victims. It does what it says on the tin: it is an advisory panel. It was established in 2003 and is a statutory, advisory, non-departmental public body, established to enable victims of crime to have their say in the reform of the criminal justice system. This is not a cost-driven proposal, although the abolition of the panel will save up to £50,000 a year.

The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, is valid: that the appointment of the Victims’ Commissioner, Louise Casey, has changed the priorities and many of the things that the Victims’ Advisory Panel aimed to do have now been overtaken by the Victims’ Commissioner. Since her appointment, the Victims’ Commissioner and her team have regularly met victims in the course of their work; they have met more than 300 groups and individuals since May 2010. The Victims’ Commissioner has organised workshops and focus groups with victims of crime, organisations that represent victims and their families and organisations that provide services to victims. She and her team have also held specialist meetings with young people who have been affected by crime and carried out in-depth telephone interviews with members of the public.

It is not true that the Government have turned their back on victims of crime—quite the opposite. We have looked at a relatively small body with a relatively limited remit and taken the opportunity to remove it while also taking on board the opportunity to use the Victims’ Commissioner and her work much more extensively. The proposed abolition will in no way limit the opportunity for victims to articulate their opinions. The existence of the Victims’ Commissioner is a more effective and flexible means to ensure that victims’ views are independently represented to government. The Government’s intention to abolish the panel is in no way a reflection on the efforts of its members or the important recommendations that it has made to improve victim and witness services.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

Did the coalition give any indication in the election that they were going to abolish the panel? What was the position of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party?

[Lord McNally]

One of my weaknesses as a politician is that I am never expert on the specific pledges made in election manifestos. The last one that I remember in detail is one that I helped to write, but I will not mention which one and for which party. When the coalition took office, we took a general view. I will not produce groans from the party opposite, but in the light of the financial situation that we inherited—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord McNally]

Absolutely on cue. That was the situation. I am not claiming that the £50,000 being saved by abolishing the panel will right the public finances. What is more important is that the coming into being of the Victims’ Commissioner, a creation of the previous Government, has overtaken the work of this relatively small body. I do not think that it is possible to put the interpretation on it that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, did, because the Victims’ Commissioner has in the past year been carrying out an extensive consultation with the public and victims, which will feed in very much in the way that the work of the panel has. As I said, I strongly doubt whether in either manifesto there was a commitment to this body one way or the other.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

I can tell the noble Lord that there was no such commitment in either case.

[Lord McNally]

I will not say anything about the noble Lord and his dedication to reading election manifestos in detail, but it is often said that the only people who read election manifestos in great detail are the opponents of the parties that write them. I am absolutely willing to accept that.

The proposed abolition of the panel is based on the understanding that the Ministry of Justice will, through the commissioner and as a matter of course, continue to consult victims’ groups and engage with a vast range of criminal justice system agencies and voluntary and community sector groups on matters related to the views of victims.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, there is a large number of groups doing very good jobs on this, so it is over-egging the pudding a little to say that closing this relatively small group with a very short lifespan, which has been overtaken by the work of the Victims’ Commissioner, is going to damage victim support in the way that was suggested. Indeed, the victim sector contains many organisations set up by victims themselves that focus on specific issues such as homicide and sexual violence. The commissioner provides a valuable function in helping the Government to engage with this sector by ensuring that future policy is informed by the views of an appropriately broad and diverse range of individuals and groups. The commissioner has been meeting victims, and these representative groups across the country tell her their own experience of what has been happening. She is currently consulting on a range of issues, including the treatment of young victims and witnesses in cases that involve adult defendants and provision for the bereaved. Additionally, the Ministry of Justice has invited the commissioner to consult widely on and to participate in two of the department’s priority strands of work: the development of a more transparent sentencing framework and victims’ views relating to the rehabilitation of offenders and ways in which the victim might contribute to reducing offending.

The Ministry of Justice will continue to consult and meet victims and victims’ groups. We have just commissioned a full review of the services and support offered to victims of crime. Officials have commenced, as part of the review, a series of workshops with victims’ representatives to consult them on future strategy. These workshops have been attended by the Minister with responsibility for victims’ issues, the honourable Member for Reigate, Mr Crispin Blunt.

The proposal to abolish the Victims’ Advisory Panel should not be taken to indicate any wavering in the coalition Government’s support for victims of crime. Although the panel was set up to offer advice to the Secretary of State for Justice on matters relating to victims, it has never provided any form of victim support. The Government remain committed to ensuring that appropriate support is available for the most serious, vulnerable and persistently targeted victims of crime and to ensuring that the concerns of victims of crime are heard. I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Bach.

On the specific question about WAVES, I will have to write to the noble Lord. I will investigate what has happened. On the crime survey, I have not been briefed that there is any threat to it, but I will inquire and write. I say to the noble Lord that I can understand why and, as I have said, I do not disagree that the previous Administration gave priority to the victims of crime. Building partly on their bringing in the Victims’ Commissioner, the removal of the Victims’ Advisory Panel is not the threat to victim support that he might have suggested in moving this amendment, which I hope he will withdraw.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

Before the noble Lord, Lord Bach, withdraws his amendment, I shall express my frustration that the amendment on the Valuation Tribunal Service was not moved, because I anticipated that it would give me my first, and possibly my last, opportunity to be fully supportive of the Government in the course of these proceedings. I take this amendment as a similar opportunity. First, I express my sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on his inability to remember the detail of everybody’s election manifesto. Secondly, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that I take his observation to mean that there was no reference at all to the Victims’ Advisory Panel in the two manifestos, from which it appears to me to follow that there was no commitment to keep it regardless of changes in circumstances. Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, made some perfectly good points, but they did not have much to do with the question of whether there was a need to keep this body. Fourthly, I thought that my noble friend made an overwhelming case in saying that there is no need for this panel now that we have the Victims’ Commissioner. The commissioner can take advice from whomever she wishes, so I support the Government.

15:45

[Lord Bach]

I thank all those who have spoken in this debate. The Minister has clearly persuaded at least one member of the governing coalition of the wisdom of his words, and I congratulate him on that. I thank him warmly for his full answer to this amendment and for dealing with the other questions that I asked. I look forward to his letter. I thank my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, too, for asking a very pertinent question. Like all good cross-examiners, he knew the answer to his question before he asked it.

Victims are a serious and substantial issue and I make no apology for talking about them in more general terms when I introduced my short amendment. I cannot say that I am totally satisfied with the Minister’s answer because I do not believe that the Victims’ Commissioner, a post that we set up and that the present Government very much support, was necessarily meant to be at the expense of the advisory panel, which is due to be abolished. There seems to be no reason why the two should not work hand in hand. Maybe there would not be as many advisory panels as there were before the commissioner was appointed, but the direct contact that there was between Ministers and victims of crime under the advisory panel system should be encouraged; it was of considerable use and advantage to Ministers.

My noble and learned friend Lady Scotland, who is in her place today, reminds me that she used to chair one of the panels. She says that she got a great deal of information and knowledge from it that might not be so available to Ministers in the future. This is meant as no criticism of the Victims’ Commissioner, who is an outstanding public servant, as the Committee knows well. I just ask the Government to think again about whether they should get rid of the concept of this advisory panel altogether. They should ask themselves whether the panel did not add something to the very difficult relationship between victims of crime and government.

[Lord McNally]

On the point about the thinking behind this, I note that a year before the Victims’ Commissioner took up her post the then Minister wrote to all the members of the advisory panel, whose terms were all coming to an end, asking them to stay on for an extra year until the commissioner was appointed. The panel members agreed to work on until May 2010, which suggests that even the previous Administration might have thought that the arrival of the Victims’ Commissioner would call into question the future of the panel. That relates to the question that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, asked me earlier about whether the panel had already been abolished. There was this hiatus because the previous Administration had not appointed a new panel. I suspect that it was thought somewhere that there would be an overlap between the Victims’ Commissioner and the work of the advisory panel.

[Lord Bach]

The Committee will be grateful to the Minister for mentioning that point, but it does not take away from the fact that the previous Government were not committed to scrapping the Victims’ Advisory Panel. At the time, it would have been quite understandable for a Minister, knowing that an election was due and that whoever became the Victims’ Commissioner would want to look at the position once he or she had taken their place, just to write that letter. Is it really the main, or an important, motivating force of the Government that it is worth saving £50,000 or whatever per year and that the good work done by the Victims’ Advisory Panel should be put on one side? There is a case for saying that the Victims’ Advisory Panel should continue in some form—perhaps a modified form. However, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. We will consider carefully whether we will bring this back again on Report. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 62 withdrawn.

Amendment 63

Moved by

[Lord Warner]

63: Schedule 1, page 17, line 26, leave out “Youth Justice Board for England and Wales.”

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, it is appropriate that we move from discussing victims to discussing the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales because many of the victims of young offenders are themselves young people. I am moving this amendment in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, because I am deeply concerned about the Government’s decision to abolish the YJB, particularly regarding the inconsistency of that decision with the content of their own, perhaps I may say, rather creative White Paper, Breaking the Cycle, with its emphasis on prevention and rehabilitation.

First, I declare an interest as the first chairman of the board between 1999 and 2003 when I left to become a Health Minister, which I suppose is a logical kind of progression. I was very involved in developing the policy on the youth justice reforms, of which the board was a part. In deciding to abolish the YJB, the Government have shown very poor understanding of the history of unsatisfactory youth justice policies that led to the reforms.

Putting responsibility for youth justice back into a government department with many other responsibilities would simply repeat the mistakes of the past—dare I say, especially post-1979. It was the failure of the Home Office to work with other agencies and to deal with the special needs of children who offend that led to the establishment of the board after the highly critical 1996 report by the Audit Commission entitled Misspent Youth. Given that the Government think that the board’s job is done, which I find surprising, does the Minister really believe that young people will stop offending because the Ministry of Justice is in the driving seat? We should stop pretending that the board’s work is complete, for reasons that I will outline.

The history of youth justice is one of fantasy and error. The fantasy is that young people will grow out of offending, so we do not need to do too much. For some young people that may well be true, but for many the culture of offending that surrounds their daily lives is deeply established, difficult to resist and requires specialised interventions that are bespoke to young people. The error is to avoid the uncomfortable fact that many of the agencies involved with young people who have offended have no history of working together to tackle these complex issues and are reluctant to commit resources to this area without much prodding.

The purpose of the YJB was to oversee the work of the multi-agency youth offending teams and to keep on the case of their participating agencies, as well as to produce research and new ideas of what works best with young offenders. That work continues to need the attention of a national body which is independent of government and composed of members and staff with expertise in dealing with young offenders. This expertise has taken a decade to build up. Now the Government want to throw away all the hard work that has been done because of some misguided idea that they can save a bit of money and get the board’s work done by a few civil servants and, perhaps I may say, a motley crew of transient Ministers—that goes across the political spectrum—both of which are groups with no lasting investment in the work of youth justice. This is a costly error of significant proportions both for young people and the communities affected by their offending behaviour. The Government will find this out in a few years’ time as youth crime figures rise and more young offenders are banged up in costly, overcrowded establishments with fewer and fewer proper educational or behavioural change programmes.

Not everything that the YJB has done has been perfect; mistakes have been made. The reduction in research expenditure, for example, was a mistake. But the board’s overall achievements are considerable. Over the past 10 years, there has been a 30 per cent reduction in the number of young people brought into the youth justice system, from 90,000 to 60,000 young people. This policy of diversion, started in my time, has gathered pace since then, but it takes investment in and commitment to preventive programmes and independent board leadership to do this in a criminal justice system that is all too often preoccupied with short-term considerations. Stopping young offenders reoffending is one of the hardest things to do in criminal justice, but the latest figures show that between 2000 and 2008, the volume of reoffending by young people dropped by 25 per cent. At the end of 2008, the number of young people held in custody was under 2,000 compared with around 3,000 when the YJB was set up. It was the board that introduced more intensive supervision in the community to give the courts an alternative to custody. It is these reforms and improvements that the Government are now choosing to put in jeopardy with their ill-considered abolition of the board.

It is not just me banging on about something I helped to establish; independent reviews have said much the same thing. In 2004, the Audit Commission’s review of the reformed youth justice system said:

“The new structure works well. The YJB sets a clear national framework with minimum standards and takes a lead role in monitoring progress and developing policy”.

Dame Sue Street, a former Permanent Secretary in her government-commissioned 2010 review of the YJB concluded that:

“Overall, the YJB earns its place as a crucial part of a system which aims to tackle one of the most serious social policy issues in the country”.

Another government patsy, the National Audit Office, in a report published in 2010 said:

“The board has been an effective leader of efforts to create and maintain a national youth justice system with a risk-based approach, and in recent years key youth crime indicators have been falling substantially”.

The Public Accounts Committee endorsed the NAO report and the central role of the YJB in its report published less than a month ago. The PAC went on to say in that report:

“The planned abolition of the Youth Justice Board has arisen from a policy decision and not as a result of any assessment of the board’s performance. The Board has developed and maintained a distinctive focus on youth in the justice system and has contributed to positive outcomes in recent years. There is a risk that some of the factors that made the Board successful will be lost in the transition”.

It is not a risk, but a racing certainty that absorbing the YJB’s functions into the Ministry of Justice will be a major setback for an effective youth justice system and will have to be reversed in the future.

When the youth justice reforms were designed in 1996 and 1997, we gave careful thought to and took expert advice on the issue of putting the YJB’s functions in the Home Office. We decided that innovation, monitoring and encouraging local performance, tackling bad performance, reducing custody, increasing prevention and leading change would not be advanced by placing the functions in a government department. I would suggest that most objective observers would say pretty much the same thing today. Even as we consider this Bill, my intelligence is that a bureaucratic struggle is going on in the Ministry of Justice about who gets these functions, thereby reducing job losses in the successful part of the MoJ that wins the struggle. Despite its chequered career, which compares unfavourably with the YJB, the National Offender Management Service seems to be the front runner to absorb the work of the board. Can the Minister give a categoric assurance that under no circumstances will any of the YJB’s functions be transferred to NOMS or the Prison Service?

Before I close, perhaps I may be permitted to detain the House briefly with an anecdote from my time as YJB chairman which illustrates my concerns. We discovered that the Prison Service was in breach of its contract for providing education by keeping youngsters in their cells and not sending them to education classes. After repeated warnings and threatened sanctions, nothing changed, so I authorised the withholding of a monthly payment to the Prison Service. This captured the attention of top management and led to a major row, played out in front of the then Home Secretary. Eventually, the Prison Service got its money, but only after a significant improvement in performance. Frankly, I cannot see the MoJ’s civil servants deploying challenge mechanisms of that kind to underperforming large-service providers, but perhaps the Minister will tell us that a series of Rottweilers is now staffing the MoJ.

I close by giving the Minister some youth justice advice from an old hand. It is not unusual for people of previous spotless character to fall into bad company. They suddenly find themselves in a successful gang after being ignored by everyone for years. “What is wrong with a bit of vandalism?”. But it is never too late to change, and to go in for an intensive course of restorative justice and see things from the victim’s point of view. I am prepared to set the Minister up with an intensive programme of rehabilitation before Report in the hope of returning him to the straight and narrow. We might even be able to find a compromise between absorption into the Ministry of Justice and staying as an NDPB by using the model of an arm’s-length executive agency with independent non-executive directors. When I was working in the YJB, we never gave up on anyone, even Ministers. I beg to move.

16:00

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for the time, care and attention that they have devoted to meeting and briefing those of us who are involved on this Bill, particularly on this contentious issue.

In 1809, elements of my regiment, the Rifle Brigade, were greeted by those whom they were relieving during the mismanaged and ill-fated expedition to the island of Walcheren with the words, “Good luck, boys. You, too, are being made the sport of theory”. These came to mind as, incredulously, I read in the briefing paper on the abolition of the Youth Justice Board the statement:

“The Government believes that independent oversight of the youth justice system is no longer required”.

With that coming on top of the impact statement for the Public Bodies Bill’s stating that the Bill will have no impact on either the criminal justice system or human rights, I can only conclude from the proposed abolition of the one body responsible for overseeing youth justice within the system and the oversight of the human rights of young people involved with it that, as in 1809, theory has been allowed to subsume common sense.

The Youth Justice Board has been publicly recognised by Ministers as having played a critical role in transforming the delivery of youth justice, creating a safer, more distinct secure estate, reducing offending and reoffending by young people, and overseeing the successful establishment of youth offending teams, of which the Minister, Crispin Blunt, has said:

“The multi-agency YOT approach to justice that is embedded in local communities and heavily focused on rehabilitating offenders is the right way forward. One of my aims in my job is to adapt the adult system on the lessons from the youth system”.

If it has achieved, and is achieving, so much, why remove it? The secret of its success is that one organisation has provided continuous and focused oversight of a very particular part of the criminal justice system. Abolish it, and you risk all that has been achieved, and could be achieved in the future, by maintaining the momentum of progress.

In his letter dated 3 March to those of us interested in this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said:

“The government is committed to maintaining a dedicated focus on the needs of children and young people in the youth justice system”.

The letter also states:

“We are not seeking to revert the system to that which operated in the 1990s”,

and,

“Our current proposal, subject to the outcome of the Rehabilitation Revolution consultation … is that the main functions of the Youth Justice Board should be delivered within the Ministry of Justice’s Policy Group”.

But the Minister is proposing precisely the system that operated and failed in the 1990s.

I first became aware that all was not well with the administration of youth justice in the first week of my appointment as Chief Inspector of Prisons in December 1995, when I was alerted to the appalling treatment of and conditions for young offenders, particularly those under the age of 18 held in Prison Service custody. At that time the Social Services Inspectorate was responsible for inspecting all facilities for children in this country under the age of 18, except for those in the hands of the Prison Service, which claimed Crown immunity from the provisions of the Children Act 1989. This was something that I immediately campaigned to have changed and eventually happened following court action by the Howard League, but that is another story.

I therefore invited a social services inspector to come with me on my first inspection of a young offender institution at Onley—a split site, which holds both those between 15 and 18 and 18 to 21 in separate accommodation—to assess the conditions for and treatment of children who were held there. She told me that if it had been a social service or local authority children’s custody centre it would have been closed because of the lack of acceptable facilities or a suitable regime for children.

I then found that, as I had feared and as remains the case today, no one in the Prison Service was operationally responsible and accountable for children in prison and, therefore, there was no one whom Ministers could task with making the necessary improvements or chase when these did not materialise. For some inexplicable reason, the Home Office and the Prison Service believed that the young offender estate could be directed and overseen by bureaucratic diktat from people in policy branches. The results that I saw on the ground, over and over again, confirmed by experts, proved how wrong they were. On what evidence does the Minister think that substituting the Ministry of Justice for the Home Office will make it right now?

Against this backdrop, I well remember the collective sigh of relief among all those involved with youth justice when the Youth Justice Board was first introduced because they could now work face to face with someone responsible and accountable, who could come round and see for him or herself what they were doing on the ground, rather than impersonally with faceless bureaucrats behind desks in Whitehall ministries. I was naive enough to hope that making someone responsible and accountable for, amongst other things, the treatment of and conditions for children in prison, would be followed by similar appointments for other groups of prisoners. Because we were responsible for monitoring and hopefully influencing the treatment and conditions of children in custody, my inspectorate worked very closely with the YJB from the outset, passing on all our observations and recommendations as soon as possible, and very soon we began to see improvement because the YJB was able to override deficiencies in Prison Service management by requiring it to satisfy conditions and treatment criteria laid down in contracts.

The Minister will be familiar with the Crime and Disorder Act 1998—Chapter 37 of 1998—which established the Youth Justice Board. I will quote only from Clause 41(5)(f), which states that, among other functions, the board’s functions shall be,

“to identify, to make known and to promote good practice in the following matters— … the operation of the youth justice system and the provision of youth justice services; … the prevention of offending by children and young persons; and … working with children and young persons who are or are at risk of becoming offenders”.

How successful has it been? In addition to what Ministers have said, the Public Accounts Committee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Warner referred, said in its report:

“The Board has been an effective leader of efforts to create and maintain a national youth justice system, with a risk-based approach, and in recent years key youth crime indicators have been falling substantially”.

Like the Public Accounts Committee, I do not pretend that the YJB as currently constituted is perfect; improvements could and should be made both to its place and role in the criminal justice system hierarchy and the scope and methods of its activities. However, those can be rectified through the traditional review process. They do not justify the abolition of something that has proved itself to be a sensible agent of progress. The ideological reasons behind its abolition have been hinted at already by the noble Lord, Lord Warner.

My reason for pointing this out is that there appears to be an inherent contradiction between what is proposed in the Bill and what is in the Ministry of Justice Green Paper, Breaking the Cycle, from which I quote two statements. First,

“A ‘Whitehall knows best’ approach has stifled innovation both at national and local level”.

Secondly,

“A top-down approach has concentrated on process instead of results. Prisons and probation services were assessed on the basis of hitting multiple targets and whether they had complied with detailed central requirements. There was insufficient focus on whether they were delivering the right result for the public and communities”.

The Cabinet Office appears to be saying in the Bill that, yes, trying to run operational functions top-down from Whitehall clearly does not work and the practice is condemned. Yet although the alternative—appointing a named person to be responsible and accountable for independent oversight of operational functions—is successful where Whitehall has failed, it is no longer required because its laid-down role conflicts with the government policy, as confirmed in the letter from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, from which I have already quoted, which states:

“The YJB has primarily an oversight and a commissioning role, and it is this role that we propose to continue in the Ministry of Justice”.

Change is the name of the game. The rehabilitation revolution has been publicised as a “once in a generation” opportunity for change, ignoring the fact that it is only seven years since the last “once in a generation” change with the introduction of NOMS. It seems the Cabinet Office must make the only change possible, namely reverting to the “Whitehall knows best”, top-down approach that it has condemned, pretending—because it says so in its impact statement—that reintroducing failure will have no impact on the criminal justice system.

I thought that the Alice in Wonderland nature of all this had been exhausted until I read some words of the Minister for Prisons, Crispin Blunt, published on 14 January. He said:

“With Ministers making themselves more accountable, independent oversight of the youth justice system is no longer required, and the Ministry of Justice is able to lead an effective system going forward, building on the improvements that have already been made”.

What on earth does he mean by “more accountable”? Ministers have always been responsible and accountable for the YJB, as the chairman of the YJB has been to them. Is Blunt implying that it needs to be in the Ministry of Justice because accountability will be easier to exercise in the same building, or is he frightened by any suspicion of independent oversight? It is unfortunate that, in the recent past, there has been a lack of clarity about whether it was the Secretary of State for Justice and the Prisons Minister or the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families and the Children’s Minister who were ultimately accountable for the YJB, but that is a matter for Ministers, not the YJB, to resolve. It is important that the YJB chairman should know precisely to whom he or she is accountable. Lest Ministers think that I am a lone voice in all this, let me again quote from the Public Accounts Committee report, which I read only after I had prepared my remarks to the Committee:

“The abolition of the Board raises a question about how a national focus on reducing offending by young people and reducing the use of custody will be maintained”.

On previous occasions in this House, I have wished that the clocks should now show the letters “PANT”—for “People Are Not Things”—instead of “0:23”; Ministers responsible and accountable for the conditions for and treatment of young people in contact with the criminal justice system must surely realise that, because so many of them are damaged and vulnerable, they need care that is positive and personal, transparent and consistent, provided and led by people. An impersonal, commissioned approach to that task, conducted by bureaucrats in policy departments, is neither practical nor sensible, as has been proved. I hope that, faced with that reality, Ministers will not be tempted to think of delegating oversight within the Ministry of Justice to the National Offender Management Service. NOMS would be a wholly unsuitable organisation because, first, it is not a service; secondly, it is all about adults; thirdly, within it, the Prison Service has already gobbled up the Probation Service; and, fourthly, its management structure is about commissioning and not oversight.

I will not mince words. On the basis of what I have seen, I regard the flagrant abolition of a personal system, responsible and accountable for the care of vulnerable and impressionable young people, reverting to a failed impersonal one, as nothing other than thoroughly irresponsible. The Government have had the courage and good sense to listen to reason about other parts of this Bill. I appeal to the Minister to adopt the same approach to the proposed abolition of the Youth Justice Board.

16:15

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

I support many of the coalition Government’s initiatives on criminal justice, which makes it absolutely surprising to me that, among all the good initiatives, they should go in for the idea of abolishing the Youth Justice Board. I strongly support the noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment.

It seems extraordinary to me that a government department, the Ministry of Justice, which has a huge remit and numerous issues that it needs to resolve, would want to take in-house dealing with youth justice. If it chooses to do that, there will be an inevitable loss of expertise and specialisation in relation to child and youth offenders, who are, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, wholly different from adults and need to be looked after separately.

There is a huge importance in continuing the good work of reducing reoffending—and there has been a substantial reduction in reoffending—but it needs to go much further. To achieve this, we need a separate body from government to monitor and support that important initiative of reducing reoffending. Could the Government think again and consider that if it works, why break it?

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak to this amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Ramsbotham. During my time on the Front Bench for the Liberal Democrats, I have been a firm advocate of the work of the Youth Justice Board. Even now, I continue to be so, despite the fact that it may affect my promotional prospects in the coalition Government. I would go even further. Despite my criticism of the plethora of criminal justice legislation in the life of the previous Government, I have held out YJB as a success. Credit must be given to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, followed by Professor Rod Morgan and now Frances Done. Each of these individuals, as chair of the Youth Justice Board, has provided sound leadership and positive outcomes. Their contribution to the work of the YJB should be recognised and applauded.

My interest has not been limited to the YJB; in fact, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will recollect that he advocated a debate on a women’s justice board, and I was delighted to support him in that initiative. It is hardly appropriate for me to opt out of my support for the Youth Justice Board.

I am delighted that my noble friend Lord McNally has written to noble Lords in advance of this debate. I thank him for that, as it helps to clarify the Government’s stance on this matter. I commend my noble friend for maintaining a dedicated focus on the needs of children and young people—precisely the objective of the Youth Justice Board. I am delighted that he intends to retain the youth offending teams which deliver youth justice on the ground—precisely the objective of the Youth Justice Board—and that those are not going to be abolished. Again, that is very much a sound judgment.

I am also assured that the department does not intend to dilute in any way the commissioning of a secure estate that is driven by the needs of young people and that the YJB’s oversight and commissioning role will be preserved. As the noble and learned Baroness has just mentioned, the question therefore arises: why mend the system if it is not broken? Would it not be better to retain the YJB and to amend those aspects of its role that the coalition Government want to change, in line with their commitment to localism?

The YJB has a positive story to tell. It has diverted young people from the criminal justice process, which is remarkable when we think that 74 to 75 per cent of young people offend within two years of leaving a penal institution in this country. It has also helped to reduce the reoffending rate, the effect of which can be seen in the reduced numbers in our penal institutions. I suspect that its success depends, to a great extent, on the fact that it is an arm’s-length body. That factor may be compromised if the main functions are to be delivered within the Ministry of Justice policy group.

I suggest to my noble friend the Minister that the best way to proceed is perhaps to allow the YJB to continue its present functions but at the same time to introduce pilot schemes in some areas, to see which of the two systems is better able to meet the needs of young offenders. Perhaps my noble friend could look at this suggestion and come back on Report so that we can be satisfied on the most appropriate way to tackle this problem. It is right that we devise a system that is effective. Public confidence will be shaped by the quality of the service that we provide rather than by looking at a simple argument of reducing the resources.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and supported by my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham. It troubles me that something that has proved to be so valuable is being done away with. Look at the numbers of young people under 18 held in custody at any one time, which have reduced significantly. Whereas in December 2000 there were 2,704 young people in custody, in December 2010 there were 1,918. The bulk of the reduction in the numbers of young people in custody has taken place over the past two years; at their peak, custody numbers were as high as 3,200. There has been a significant reduction in the numbers of young people in custody while the Youth Justice Board has been at work, saving the taxpayer the huge sums of money needed to keep those young people there.

I am grateful to the Government for the briefings that they have allowed us to have on this area. I am deeply grateful for the commitment that the Government have shown to vulnerable young people, starting with the work done by the right honourable Iain Duncan Smith. I also admire very much the work of Tim Loughton MP in his area as Minister for Children, so I am puzzled by this proposal. As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for children and young people in care and leaving care, I am well aware that 50 per cent of the girls and 25 per cent of the boys and young men in custody have come out of the care system. Very many of those young people have come from deeply damaging backgrounds. They are often troubled and need a system that is child-centred and attends to their needs. It is still far from that, but there has been much good progress.

On Friday, I visited Wetherby young offender institution, particularly to see its Keppel unit, which caters for the neediest young people in YOIs. Most children in the criminal justice system are kept in young offender institutions. What I saw there was that being recruited to work with these young people were officers who particularly wanted to work with children. Generally, officers come from the adult system to work with young people in custody, so they have no particular interest when they get trained up to do this work—they have no vocation to work with children—yet they work with these children, who are often deeply vulnerable, in the secure estate.

What I found at the Keppel unit particularly was a positive ratio of young people to prison officers. Within the system, there is always supposed to be a designated personal officer for the young people. The idea behind that is that many of these young people have never experienced what it is to have a relationship with an interested elder man. Many of them have not had fathers or any stable familial experience. It is tremendously important to them and to their rehabilitation that they have something of that kind. Unusually at the Keppel unit, the ratio with prison officers is something in the region of 2:10, so each young man has a personal officer and two support officers. Sitting down with them and speaking to them, I heard—and this has not been my experience of other young offender institutions—of the very positive experience that they had with their prison officers.

Another issue that comes up again and again when visiting these secure units is the cliff-edge that young people experience when they leave the secure estate. No matter what good work takes place while they are in custody, they move out into the community, they are lost, they do not get the support that they need to get back into education and they do not get the right accommodation. This has been vigorously addressed by the Youth Justice Board. Frances Done, its chair, has been building consortia of local authorities. That has brought chief executives and chairs of local authorities into the secure estate and highlighted to them their responsibility to look after these children once they leave. I pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham in ensuring that local authorities recognise their responsibilities, particularly to looked-after young people. He referred to the Munby judgment in this area.

The Youth Justice Board has also overseen the introduction of advocacy services for young people in the secure estate. This has been a very positive step forward. Advocates can go and speak to young people about their needs—for instance, when they move on from the secure estate—and be their voice to ensure that those needs are addressed. Unfortunately, the contract for this expires in, I think, 2013, so without the Youth Justice Board one has to be concerned that there will not be advocates in future. I would appreciate an assurance from the Minister that consideration will be given to looking at the rules in this area so that we can perhaps enshrine advocacy as a right for children in the youth justice system. Many of these children will see their parents very seldom, if they even have parents to visit them, so they need someone to look after their interests.

I am troubled by this proposal from the Government. I am grateful for the care that the ministerial team is taking to reassure us that careful consideration is being given, but I hope that more can be done by the Government to meet the concerns of my noble friend and all the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.

16:30

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of an advisory group to the Prison Reform Trust, which by sheer coincidence is meeting tomorrow to consider its response to the Green Paper, Breaking the Cycle. I join my noble friend Lord Warner in congratulating the Government—that is perhaps the first time I have done so since joining your Lordships’ House—on a refreshingly open approach to an issue on which I fear that my party did not excel in general when in government. That said, the Youth Justice Board was a commendable feature of that Government’s policy and I entirely endorse what all the speakers today have said about it.

The reality, though, is that this country has a fairly shameful record on youth justice, only partly alleviated by the very good work of the Youth Justice Board. It is true that, thanks in good part to the board, the number of children and young offenders now in custody has diminished over recent years, but it very much needed to. Over many years, we had, and I suspect that we still have, a significantly higher number of children and young people in custody than most other countries in the European Union—something like six times more than France and 100 times more than Finland, with a figure in the UK of around 25 per 100,000 in the population.

Looking at the composition of that group of young people, one can perhaps understand the reason for their entering the justice system. Thirty-nine per cent of children in custody have been on the child protection register and/or have been neglected or abused. Forty-eight per cent have been excluded from school. Eleven per cent of children in custody have attempted suicide. Indeed, the latest figure is that one young offender commits suicide every month while in custody. The youth offending team officers report that children who have learning impairments or difficulties more frequently receive custodial sentences than those who do not. Fifty per cent of young offenders are committed to custody for non-violent crimes. There is a real issue over the number of such children. What is perhaps even more striking is the level of educational attainment and the IQs of those in custody. Twenty-three per cent of young offenders in custody have an IQ of less than 70. Another 36 per cent have an IQ of between 70 and 79. We are dealing, on any view, with a significantly disadvantaged part of the population.

The Youth Justice Board has done excellent work, particularly, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, mentioned, in co-operating with local authorities in tackling this problem. However, there is little financial advantage to those authorities in so doing. Two councils have been singled out in the documents that I have just read in preparation for tomorrow’s meeting: Leeds and Hull. The latter is still a Liberal Democrat-controlled council. The former was until recently, effectively, a coalition-controlled council; it was a Conservative and Liberal Democrat administration. There is no party-political point to be made here. Both authorities invested considerably in dealing with young offenders. The Prison Reform Trust concludes that they saved the Government millions of pounds but did so at the expense of their own council tax payers and services. There is a role for local government in dealing with this, but it is one that imposes burdens on local authorities, which must be borne in mind as part of a developed approach to dealing with these issues.

The Prison Reform Trust has yet to make its conclusions known or to determine its response to the Green Paper. However, it looks as though it will suggest that the sentencing guidelines that have recently been published should be supported. The guidelines state:

“Before imposing a custodial sentence as a result of re-sentencing following breach”—

many of these young offenders find themselves the subject of custodial sentences following the breach of a previous order—

“a court should be satisfied that the YOT and other local authority services have taken all steps necessary to ensure that the young person has been given appropriate opportunity and support necessary for compliance”.

There are also recommendations for bail legislation. Just as we criminalise young people at an earlier age in this country than anywhere else in Europe, so we remand them in custody at a younger age than anywhere else in Europe. That should be reviewed, too.

The Prison Reform Trust will also make some observations on the assumption, which I hope will turn out not to be correct, that the present proposals for how the functions of the Youth Justice Board could best be delivered by the Ministry of Justice will stand if that remains part of the Government’s policy and if Parliament approves. Two particular concerns are likely to emerge. One is that the responsibilities of the Youth Justice Board for commissioning a secure estate and placing individual young people in custody should be fulfilled by MoJ staff working within the youth justice unit, rather than NOMS. While commissioning and placing in the juvenile secure unit are clearly important parts of this role, they are not well met by current young offender provision. The secure estate team should be separate from those dealing with adult custody so that independent decisions are made that make custody truly appropriate to the needs of vulnerable children. All this suggests the key importance of independence and the ability to work with local partners, particularly local authority services and the local community sector, which has a clear role in helping to resolve the huge problems faced by many of these young people.

Like other noble Lords, I hope that the Government will seriously think again about this matter. I cannot see what is to be gained by translating the functions of the Youth Justice Board into what is effectively a bureaucracy, thereby diminishing its visibility and public accountability and the capacity to work at the appropriate level—that is, locally, in conjunction with other partners—and reducing the independence that ought to be brought to bear on a crucial social issue of this kind. I hope that the Government will think again about this.

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords, I cannot resist following the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, as he used the word “bureaucracy”. We are faced with a point of principle comprising the difference between administration and management. Ministers manage and civil servants administer. To bureaucracy—regrettably, perhaps—the process is more important than the outcome, which does not make the bureaucrat a good manager. Ministers are short of time. They would do all the good things to which expert noble Lords around the House have referred if they could and if they had the time and energy to do them. However, if they cannot, to ensure that they get done they need to delegate their management to somebody else.

I am very sympathetic in principle to the idea of being able to collapse functions back into departments but in this case the Government should think very carefully about whether that is an appropriate thing to do. It seems to me from what has been said that the management challenge is considerable and that the possibility of Ministers having sufficient time to guide their administrative colleagues in the department to do the things in the right way is pretty remote. Therefore, we should think carefully before we take the delegated responsibility to manage away from the Youth Justice Board. It is not so much a matter of independence—we tend to use that word rather loosely as regards non-departmental public bodies—but of giving a group of people the responsibility and space to manage complicated matters which, arguably, are better managed outside the department rather than inside it.

[Baroness Linklater of Butterstone]

My Lords, as is clear, there is widespread concern around this House about the Government's plan for the abolition of the YJB, and indeed more widely among those organisations which work with children in trouble. I add my voice most wholeheartedly to theirs. This concern arises for a variety of reasons. Despite the consultations which have taken place with civil servants, the detail of the practicalities of how any change will actually work once it has been subsumed into the MoJ is a cause for concern, particularly if the quality and scope of what the YJB is doing and achieving are to be sustained. It has developed an extremely important role and expertise in this very specialised field.

From my recent contact with the YJB and the many other agencies that work with children who offend, or are at risk of offending, I know how good and important the YJB’s work has become, particularly in the past few years. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for his vision in setting it up in the first place. However, there is considerable anxiety and distrust about what is likely to emerge beyond the immediate future if the YJB is abolished. There is particular concern, which has also been echoed around the Chamber, that elements of the YJB’s work will be taken over by NOMS, which is specifically an adults’, not a children’s, service. Indeed, it is not really a service at all, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, rightly said. NOMS inevitably lacks the expertise required for children and is therefore quite inappropriate. I hope that when my noble friend the Minister replies, he can assure us that NOMS will not take over YJB functions.

This is because children who offend are not small adults to be taken over like a series of parcels. Indeed, they are the most vulnerable, disadvantaged, complicated and challenging individuals in our society. They are children who have experienced a “disproportionate experience of loss”—indeed, one in eight has actually experienced the death of a parent or sibling—while 76 per cent have had an absent father and 33 per cent an absent mother. Thirty-nine per cent are on the child protection register, 75 per cent have lived with someone other than a parent at some time, and 40 per cent—I repeat, 40 per cent—have been homeless. The rate of children with special educational needs or who are underachieving is 46 per cent, while 90 per cent of boys who offend have been excluded from school. Finally, around 85 per cent of those in custody have mental health problems.

This is a tragic picture. Those alarming children who we see on street corners, possibly collecting ASBOs, are quite likely to have no real loving home to go to that any of us might recognise. The gang members who carry knives may be doing so because they themselves are in a state of fear from what others may do to them, and the gang is their only family. This is why a specialist body for children in trouble should be maintained, just as in medicine and teaching there is a distinction in provision between children and adults. We have a duty of care to all our children, which is or should be a priority of government and all its agencies and sectors. This should never be more true than when things are going wrong.

In my experience, while troubled children command considerable care and concern in the public mind, children who are in trouble do not. These children tend to have not our sympathy but our censure. I am not arguing for sympathy, but I am arguing for the knowledge, skill and understanding that are vital to how we manage and treat such needy children so that they do not offend or reoffend. Our society should be safer as a result. To do this, we need on the ground not only the multiplicity of agencies that are the bedrock of provision but a body that has the experience, knowledge and understanding to stand at the interface between all the elements of the justice system and give leadership and coherence to the very complex whole. The YJB does exactly that. It works with the complexity of the youth justice system that spreads across three government departments—the MoJ, the Home Office and the DfE—as well as the DH and DCLG, and the range of local agencies, to bring some coherence and leadership to a complex framework for youth justice services.

16:45

A review of full searches in the secure estate—one of the YJB’s most recent bits of work—relating to children and young people has just been completed, so what is now a routine practice in many secure establishments but is both traumatic and distressing for many children, especially young adolescents, should be taken forward only on a risk-led basis. Another project on children’s views on safeguarding, carried out in conjunction with the Children’s Commissioner, covers complaints, full searches, helplines and separation, which in “other speak” means the segregation of children. It has just been published and will have implications for the way in which these issues are handled in the secure estate in future. Earlier, as we have heard, the YJB rolled out youth offending teams, which form the underpinning structure on the ground, and youth offender panels, which successfully involve the public in dealing with offenders and promoting restorative justice. It has also successfully developed ISSPs and intensive fostering as alternatives to custody, and much, much more.

The YJB has in the process been on a steep learning curve and has come into its own over the past few years after a difficult start. The national leadership that its work demands cannot, and should not, just be lifted out and carried on by other less experienced bodies. I now quote, as others have done, something that I hope merits repetition. The Public Accounts Committee concluded:

“The abolition of the Board raises a question about how a national focus on reducing offending by young people and reducing the use of custody will be maintained”.

This comment is gently put but needs strong endorsement, for, as we have already heard, our record of incarcerating children is one of the worst in western Europe and a source for condemnation by many. However, in the past two to three years the YJB has helped to make significant inroads into the numbers in custody. They are still far too high but the signs are that the downward curve is steady. Now, pressing issues wait to be addressed, such as the use of restraint in custody—which, shamefully, is now on the increase—and even children sustaining fractures. There is a lot of work to be done.

We sacrifice the role that the YJB now plays at our peril, and the children it serves will suffer. I thank the Minister for his letter and for the attention he is now giving the subject. I sincerely hope that he will listen very carefully to the almost uniform expression of concern that we have heard today. He may also like to consider as a possible alternative, on which there could be some debate, that the YJB could be given the status of an executive agency in parallel to NOMS, which is also an executive agency. It would have its own identity and chief executive and, importantly, a degree of separateness. Of course, as we have heard, it would also ultimately always be answerable to the Minister. This, as its admirable chair Frances Done says, would then give the YJB the ability to get on with the job. That is what it needs and what the children whom it serves need too. I sincerely hope that, by the time this issue comes back at Report, my noble friend will have some words of comfort to give on this very serious suggestion.

I quote, once again, Dame Sue Street’s review of the YJB carried out about 18 months ago. The report says that,

“the YJB earns its place as a crucial part of a system which aims to tackle one of the most serious social policy issues in this country”.

It does not deserve to lose that place.

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, so much that needs answering is building up around my noble friend on the Front Bench like a snow drift that I feel, if I add too much, he will not have his hands free to start digging. Therefore, I propose to make only two points at this stage, although I fear that there will be much more to be said after he has given his answer.

My points arise from the fact that in my party, as in others, there is a convention that when you intend to make a strong stand against your own party, you are honour bound to write to all Ministers and to the Whips. I dutifully wrote to my noble friends on this Front Bench and to the responsible Minister in another place. That responsible Minister, for whom I have a great deal of time, Mr Crispin Blunt, wrote me a letter, which I regret I do not have with me, that contained two points which I clearly remember and which I thought worth mentioning.

The first was that I inferred from it—I think not wrongly—that the principal motives he was giving for this move were the fact that the reoffending rate was stuck at around 75 per cent, which is far too high. It is worth saying that that results from a change in the population in which the reoffending occurs. At least two noble Lords have pointed out a 30 per cent reduction in reoffending and a substantial reduction in the YOI population. That is because the YJB has been faithfully carrying out a policy of which we all approve, and of which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State also approves, which is to keep young people out of custody. Who do you keep out of custody first? The answer is those least likely to immediately offend again. So you have a diminishing number of harder-nosed inmates who are more likely to reoffend, and when they come out they do reoffend. What is surprising is not that the statistic has not gone down, but that, as a result, it has not gone up. That is a mark of success by the YJB.

The second point I draw to your Lordships’ attention is that, in his reply, the honourable Minister, Crispin Blunt, suggested, indeed asked me—I will not say implored as it gives the wrong impression—to get in contact with some youth offender team leaders before I contributed to this debate. I suppose he suggested that in the expectation that my case would be weakened and his would be strengthened by the process. However, the opposite is true. There was one who, I thought a little timidly, did not wish to be committed, even though I said that everything was unattributable, but the others were quite clear in their own minds that this is a serious threat. A number of them thought that it would inevitably result, as your Lordships can clearly see, in a reduction in the quality of service, control and care which these young people receive. They said that the YJB had started off being bureaucratic, but that it had learnt not to be and in the past two years, in particular, it had made great progress in that direction. They said it had been a wonderful gift to them in providing a means of sharing best practice round the country. All these disparate and very complicated teams could work out the best standards to apply and learn from each other regularly. They said that they had succeeded in raising the profile of juvenile offenders when it had been, most unfortunately, too low before and that people now knew what they were about.

I have some experience in the administrative side of this area: I have considerable experience as a Minister and three and a half years of very relevant experience in the Home Office. I am sure and I hope that my noble friend will attempt to reassure us but, although he is saying that they will take all the personnel from YJB and simply move them into the Ministry of Justice so that it will still be staffed by people with straightforward, hands-on experience in their own area, I do not think he will tell you who will replace them when they retire. I fear that, as they will then be integrated members of the Civil Service, they will be replaced by integrated members of the Civil Service who have not had such experience. Indeed, I am told that those who are understudying the job at the moment are having to come out of their offices and learn for themselves what they have not learnt from their own experience.

That means that in two or three years’ time, whatever assurances we are given now, it will be back to bureaucracy. For all the reasons that have been iterated so variously, powerfully and persuasively around the House so far, I strongly advise my noble friend to listen to noble Lords and to whatever else it may be necessary for me and others to say after his lengthy reply, which I now eagerly await.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, I did not intend to speak in this debate, but in listening to the speeches, I could almost hear the Minister’s reply. I just add three short points. First, when the coalition began, I was extraordinarily encouraged by its approach to offenders and rehabilitation and felt that it was developing a real understanding of what would make a difference and, as the noble Lord said, the factors that lead to the offending of young people in particular. Secondly, I was encouraged because I felt that we now had a Government who would listen and, on listening to evidence, could change their mind. I think that that is the sign of a mature Government. The press may make something of the Government changing their mind, but I think that ordinary folk see that as a strength.

The three points that I want to make are as follows. First, all the evidence points to the fact that, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said so eloquently—I will not repeat speeches that have been made—bureaucracies do not run organisations well; we have to find alternative structures. I can say that from a long career as a director of social services, having been in three non-departmental public bodies and having reorganised at least three huge departments to ensure that the service was delivered more directly. The Youth Justice Board has learnt—a point that I will repeat. As the chair of the Children and Families Court Advisory and Support Service, I know how long it takes to change a service to something that delivers not simply the service as before but one with outcomes—not outputs—for children that make a difference. My second point is based on that. The present Government should be looking for structures that represent people; not structures that meet a particular dogma or even, dare I say, a manifesto. The Government have already made changes; they could look at this one.

My third point is very different from those that have been made by others—I shall not repeat all that has been said about the vulnerability of those young people, which I know as well as anyone in the House. At the moment, there is a decrease in reoffending. If we take the long view—and I have the long view, having been in social work since 1963; I assure your Lordships that I am not that old, but I have been working there for a long time—we know that what leads to offending is young peoples’ life chances. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has continually talked to us about children who go through the care system and end up in our prisons, young offender institutions or the mental health system.

At the moment, there is an increase in the number of children coming through the care system. I can judge that only by the fact that, a few years ago, CAFCASS was dealing with 86,000 children; at the moment, we have 145,000 children in private and public care. They are children coming through the care system and children who will be in divorce. I often stand up for single mums, but we know that broken families give children less life chance.

Let us look at what is likely to happen in future. I hope that local authorities will be able to develop their services, but with the necessary reductions in their budgets, that will be very difficult. Unless those preventive services are on the ground and we stop the large number of children coming through the courts and into the care system, it is inevitable—because all experience tells us—that we will have an increase in the number of young people in the young offender, prison and mental health systems. Therefore, it is crucial that the Government hold on to the professional expertise and to what works. I am not saying that the Youth Justice Board is the end of all that might be wonderful because everything needs review at some point, but we know that it is better than going back into departments where people do not have that professionalism and expertise because it is very difficult to build them fast. If the Government want to hold their position in caring for children and keeping the numbers down, then they need to hold on to those people who know how to do it, who know how to manage those teams and work with them and who know about multidisciplinary working with young people in the very difficult climate that we all know we are facing as a result of the economic position.

17:00

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, those of your Lordships who were in the Chamber about an hour and a quarter ago when I was assiduously seeking to gain some brownie points from my Front Bench in order to have some cash in the bank to spend later will know that later has now come. Before I say anything else, I perhaps ought to declare some kind of interest in that I chair a mental health trust which runs a low-secure unit and provides mental health services to a young offender institution in the vicinity. That does not make me an expert in the sense that many of those who have spoken are experts, but it gives me an interest in the matter.

I do not want to make many points because they have all been made, and I cannot think of a word, so far, with which I have disagreed. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, understated the position: there has not, so far, been a word that I take to be supportive of the Government’s current position, including, if I read them aright, the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Eccles, which I took to mean, and I agree with them, that this is not an issue of whether Ministers are accountable—of course they are accountable—it is a question of how that accountability is best exercised and through what machinery it is best exercised. I share the views expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Ramsbotham, and others that this line that independent oversight of the youth justice system is no longer required is, frankly, a heresy that flies in the face of all historical experience. We are all agreed that when the YJB was set up, the system was a mess and needed improving. We are all agreed that it has been improved. What we do not agree is that because there was a mess that has been to some degree improved we should now go back to put the whole thing into the same type of machinery that created the mess in the first place. That is the proposition we are being asked to adopt.

My final point, except one, is that I am slightly saddened by all this because of the link that has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, with the admirable White Paper Breaking the Cycle. This is inconsistent with the spirit of Breaking the Cycle. It is certainly an approach that, if persisted in, could alienate many of us, including me, who very much support the thrust of Breaking the Cycle and who believe that it is productive and a sensible way forward. I really do hope that the Minister will be able to give us some hope of further thought, discussion and compromise on this.

Indeed, I was much attracted by the idea that was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, of a possible NDPB with non-executive directors. That could be a better mechanism, but, whatever else, we need something other than just abolishing the YJB, the proposition that is implied in the schedule at this stage. I do hope that my noble friend will be able to give us some hope of change.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I shall, at what looks like being the end of this debate, be very brief. I, too, am a huge supporter of the Youth Justice Board, particularly in its latter years. Frances Done has done a quite remarkable job, as I think we have all said. We have had such a compelling debate that I really cannot bring myself to believe that the Minister will be able to reject such a range of compelling arguments.

I will make just one point that is pretty much based on what my noble friend Lady Howarth has just said. I really do think that built into the system as it is there will be a likely growth in the number of young people who are deprived and who are in huge danger of continuing their life in the criminal justice system. Just think back to Keith Joseph and his “cycle of deprivation”. That said it all. Let us face it; we did not do much to reduce the number of those coming into that cycle until quite recently. I hope that what we have seen the beginning of will contribute to that, but we need to look much more widely. Early intervention will certainly be one of them—and I mean very early—as well intervention as at other stages at which problems are identified.

I thank the Minister for the way in which he has kept us informed and for his latest letter on 3 March. I am concerned that the type of big society that the Government are backing will have different approaches in different areas. We have the Youth Justice Board, which does a marvellous job of co-ordinating different departments and putting the whole view to others to take note of. However, in the future, so far as I can see it, we will have individual bodies with their own views, which the Government encourage. What about the bodies that, frankly, do not think that this is a priority? My question to the Minister is this: what are the Government going to do to encourage them to change their minds? They must have something up their sleeve —I will not call it a bribe, but I think that that is what I mean—to change their policies and to realise just how huge the long-term cost will be in not addressing this whole subject.

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal]

My Lords, on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition I give my wholehearted support to the amendment moved so ably in the names of my noble friend Lord Warner and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. I declare an interest because, as the Minister knows, I too was a Minister with responsibility for the YJB at a number of stages.

I bow to no one in my admiration and affection for the Minister, and I commend him for his bravery in seeking to reply to what has been an overwhelming debate. However, I urge him, perhaps with great expedition, to take immediate advantage of the very kind and generous offer which my noble friend Lord Warner made to him and to submit himself to the intensive supervision and treatment so that he can be restored to his previous good conduct. We know that for someone who has always been of good behaviour, returning to good behaviour is easier when the treatment is swift and direct, so let me assist.

I hope that it is by way of comfort when I say to the Minister that when considering this amendment I reasonably anticipated—although I did not see who would be here—that one would expect to hear from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Elton, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, my noble friend Lord Beecham and the noble Baronesses, Lady Linklater and Lady Howarth. I have to confess that I was surprised that their ranks were swelled by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and I was warned that the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, could be added to the list, because he was not on it before I entered the Chamber.

All that I can say to the Minister is that when I was in a similar position to that which he now occupies and was privileged to be a Minister, the one thing on which I could absolutely rely was the trenchant support which the Youth Justice Board would rightly receive from all sides of the House. One of the first leading the charge when he sat on the Liberal Democrat Benches would always have been the noble Lord, Lord McNally, ably assisted or led by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. He is only lucky that several other noble Lords are not also here—the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and others—to swell the ranks. But he can imagine what they would all be saying to him at this moment. The Tory Benches have been distinguished today by our hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Elton, but the Minister knows well that the Chief Whip—the great noble Baroness, Lady Anelay—had she been on the opposite Benches, would have given two barrels in relation to these issues too. I hate to tell the noble Lord that my estimation is that he has been holed below the water and that his ship is sinking fast. Of course, there are a number of things he can do to rectify that situation.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, believes that the Youth Justice Board has done a splendid job and has achieved much. What I do not understand is why he thinks that the job of the YJB is over when the vulnerability of those young people, who are still ensnared by criminality and the tentacles of dysfunction, means that they persist in needing the specialist care and holistic treatment which the YJB so ably provides. I say holistic because, as has already been made clear in the very eloquent and informed speeches which have gone before me, the YJB encompasses issues which are far broader than those which remain the preserve of the Ministry of Justice.

The board’s success has rested in no small part on its ability to draw together issues which are the responsibility of a number of different government departments—the Ministry of Justice, the Department of Health, the Department for Education, the Department for Communities and Local Government, and my old office of the Attorney-General—together with local and other public authorities in the third sectors. As such, youth justice is now a national system, albeit that it is primarily locally delivered. It really has enabled an array of agencies in criminal justice, which need to work in an integrated way with a range of organisations providing services to children and young people, to do so. As a consequence, the youth justice system is necessarily complex and I know that the noble Lord understands that complexity. Therefore I am puzzled as to how the innovative multi-agency work that the Youth Justice Board does so well, and which it has hitherto been able to develop by working in unison with all the other agencies, is going to be continued.

17:15

Much of what I would have said has, thankfully, already been said by many noble Lords, so I will not subject the Minister to the pain of having to listen to me recite all those comments, but I will say to him that I agree with every single word that has been spoken in this debate. The YJB has been able to do something quite remarkable. It has honed the skills and expertise it needs to make a difference to those vulnerable young people who need its care. That journey, as the noble Lord will recall, has not always been an easy one. Experience has enabled the YJB to cut away much of that which was unnecessary, leading to an efficacious, fair and effective system. When I say “effective”, it is effective in terms of delivering real change and real opportunity to some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged young people in the country, and I am not talking just about those who perpetrate crimes because, as the noble Lord will know, many victims of crime are also young people who have benefited from the work that the YOTs and other agencies which work with the YJB have been able to deliver.

No one in this debate—indeed, from talking to those outside this House, no one at all—has been able to come up with a solution that better delivers that which is needed for our young people, so I urge the Minister to think very carefully about all the suggestions that have been made on how we could amend or change some aspects of the YJB. However, I also ask him to consider the strength of feeling that exists around the House. It is a strength of feeling driven not by any sort of political agenda, but by real care and real commitment to those who have been powerfully engaged in this area for a long time and want the very best for our children. I further ask him to think carefully about the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who sits just behind him. Having been part of a Government, the noble Lord was entrusted to deal with exactly the same issues. He remembers how difficult it was to do that without the agency of the YJB to assist him. I never had the trauma of doing that, and I think it would be wise if in the future we asked no Minister to be placed in that position.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, the noble and learned Baroness sees an open goal when there is one before her, but she has approached it with charm and a great degree of kindness. Thinking of which quotes come to mind, I considered Sir Robert Peel who said during the Corn Law debates, “You must answer them, for I cannot”, but I know that that is not my responsibility this afternoon. I shall settle for Denis Healey’s “When you’re in a hole, stop digging”. I fully acknowledge the widespread feeling around the House about this matter and I am sure that feeling and indeed that passion will be noted by my colleagues.

I have noted, as did the noble and learned Baroness, that we have had all the usual suspects on parade, plus one or two others. I am keeping a tab on the noble Lord, Lord Newton. Earlier today, he went 4-3 ahead in terms of interventions that are supportive of me when I am at the Dispatch Box, but that lasted for only an hour and now he is back to 4-4. I went to Braintree the other week to speak to the Braintree Liberal Democrats and had to spend a good part of the evening hearing what a wonderful Member of Parliament the noble Lord was, so his lack of support is even more hurtful.

However, I understand where people are coming from on this. I understand also what the YJB set out to do and what it has achieved. A number of noble Lords have pointed out that it does not have a perfect record, but it is neither my job nor my wish to detract in any way from its achievements over these past 10 years. In 2000, there was a need for the YJB to provide coherent leadership and to establish a new youth justice system. However, the youth justice landscape has changed immeasurably since then. We fully intend to retain the youth offending teams and a dedicated secure estate, which are not being abolished with the Youth Justice Board. However, Ministers should be accountable for youth justice.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and others for their comments about the Green Paper. It was rather unkind of him to describe Ministers as a motley crew; I would prefer to acknowledge the fact that all Ministers are birds of passage. It was a little unfair to describe the idea of bringing the Youth Justice Board within the Ministry of Justice variously as vandalism, bureaucratic diktat, Whitehall-knows-best, reintroducing failure and care by people who do not care. Those are not fair descriptions of civil servants in large departments, who carry out considerable management functions without the advantage or otherwise of arm’s-length bodies. If those descriptions were true, everything would be opted out from our Civil Service.

I note some of the views expressed about NOMS, although it already has responsibilities within the youth justice system. I shall try to say where the department is coming from at the moment but then perhaps address some of the specific points which rained down on me during the debate. In doing so, I immediately pay tribute to the record of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, with whom I had a very good discussion, as I did with the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, about the origins of the Youth Justice Board. They both gave a vivid description of the situation prior to the board coming into being. It is not true that the youth justice system is the poor relation, nor is there any danger of it being so under our proposals.

The youth offending teams will remain in place. They are perhaps the greatest of the Youth Justice Board’s achievements. The holistic approach at local level of the youth offending teams has achieved real success and we want to build on that. Our reforms will build on the progress made by the YJB while restoring direct ministerial accountability for the delivery of youth justice.

The Government believe that youth justice, which involves the incarceration of children, is an important issue for which Ministers, not unelected arm’s-length bodies, should be accountable. The principal aim of the youth justice system, as established by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, is to prevent offending and reoffending by children and young people under the age of 18. It is a system in which local authority-led youth offending teams have the primary responsibility for delivering youth justice on the ground. These YOTs comprise representatives from local authorities, health, education and children’s services. The system also includes a dedicated national commissioned secure estate for young people. Both these crucial delivery elements will be retained and neither will be adversely affected by the reforms we are proposing.

This is not because the YJB does not itself deliver front-line services. The YJB was established by the 1998 Act to provide leadership and coherence to the new system by exercising oversight functions. Its abolition is therefore a separate issue to the future of the youth justice system because its functions are to oversee local YOTs, disseminate effective practices, commission a distinct secure estate and place young people in custody. These functions are, of course, crucial in support of the effective delivery of youth justice and will, therefore, be transferred to the Ministry of Justice under our proposals, with an appropriate senior and visible level of leadership.

Since its establishment, the YJB has undoubtedly helped to transform the youth justice system. It oversaw the establishment of local youth offending teams and has fulfilled an important role in reducing offending and reoffending by young people by spreading best practice and helping to make youth justice a priority for local authorities. It has also put the delivery of youth justice at the forefront of local authority partnership working and has driven up standards in a discrete secure estate for young people. As I have said before, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, as the first chair of the Youth Justice Board, must take credit for bringing a level of coherence to the system and for raising the profile of youth justice issues.

There were good reasons why the YJB was initially established at arm’s length from government. This gave it the autonomy to make much needed changes and enabled staff with expertise in front-line delivery to lead the national rollout of youth offending teams. However, a decade on, the context in which youth justice is delivered has changed enormously, with youth offending teams now fully embedded at the local level and children’s services delivered through children’s trusts. The Government therefore believe that the oversight function of the YJB should be performed in a different way. Further, Ministers are ultimately accountable for youth justice and it is therefore right that they alone should be responsible for overseeing its delivery. Bringing the YJB function into the Ministry of Justice represents the most effective way to continue to secure the best outcomes for young people.

In reaching this decision the Government have taken into account the recommendations of the review of the YJB by Dame Sue Street, to whom I have also spoken. It should be pointed out that whether or not the YJB should be abolished was not within the scope of her study. The issue was also covered by the Ministry of Justice’s own review of public bodies.

We remain committed to maintaining a dedicated focus on the needs of children and young people in the youth justice system, while ensuring that there are appropriate and proper links to the wider criminal justice system, and that this system serves to protect the public. We also want to capture and replicate some of the best elements of the Youth Justice Board. The YJB successfully brought together staff from a number of different backgrounds, including staff with a direct experience of youth justice, social and health services, police and probation officers. This mix of skills and knowledge enables us to inform Government policy, both in Westminster and Cardiff, while also maintaining effective links with local delivery.

17:30

We want to continue to harness this expertise and experience, and I take on board the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about how you renew that within a department. As such, and in terms of developing transitional arrangements, we are consulting on how best to maintain a specific focus on youth justice as part of the discussions on the Green Paper, Breaking the Cycle. We are committed to making sure that as few young people as possible end up in the youth justice system in the first place and that those who do so face consequences for their actions while getting the support that they need to get back on to the right path.

We also recognise that a successful transition will be achieved only by working with the Youth Justice Board itself. I pay tribute again to the chair of the YJB, Frances Done, who has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, for her contribution to a successful transition. As I have said, I am grateful to the chair, the chief executive and all the staff of the YJB for the constructive way that they are working on the transitional plan with the Ministry of Justice. Our proposed national governance arrangements aim to build on the recent success of a youth justice system which has seen a significant reduction, as a number of noble Lords mentioned, in the number of first-time entrants, the frequency of reoffending and the number of young people in custody.

Our current proposal, subject to the outcome of the rehabilitation revolution consultation, is that the main functions of the Youth Justice Board should be delivered within the Ministry of Justice’s policy group. Bringing the functions of overseeing the youth offending teams and commissioning a secure youth estate together within the policy group ensures continuing leadership of the youth justice system.

I went through all of that to get on the record where the Government are coming from on this issue. I note what a number of noble Lords have said about this and am smart enough to know that, if the noble Lord, Lord Warner, wanted a Pyrrhic victory this afternoon, he could probably get one—although I am not sure how good our Whips are. It would be absurd not to take back what has been said this afternoon by all parts of the House.

However, it seems that an enormous amount of what has happened has been attributed to the Youth Justice Board. No credit is given to the possibility that it could be done in a different or better way, while retaining what is best within the YJB. I fully appreciate what has been said. I have argued, both in this House and outside, that it is not rocket science to notice that, time and time again, in youth offending four or five elements come up: a dysfunctional family life; illiteracy, innumeracy and truancy—as one of the guys showing me round a youth offender institution said, “The trouble is that most of these kids have had only passing contact with education at any time in their life”—as well as drug addiction and alcoholism and, as I said before, broken homes. That is not an endless list, but those are issues on which intervention is possible. The House is not divided on that.

Where the House and this debate may find itself slightly out of kilter is with the way our national media sometimes treat these problems. I have already been described as “McWally” by the Sun for suggesting that there might be a different approach to treating young criminals. That is clever because it only changes one letter of my name, which I had never noticed before. I also believe that if you are a Minister of Justice and you have not been attacked by the Sun, you must be getting something wrong.

There has been a lot of emphasis on the Youth Justice Board, perhaps quite rightly so, but without enough attention to the success of the youth offender teams—another key, holistic, part of the reforms, which I would like to see carried into other parts of the youth justice system. A lot of the things that were said as part of the general debate were—

[Lord Elton]

The noble Lord said that not enough attention was paid to the youth offender teams. I specifically asked the Government to pay more attention to the youth offender teams, which do not want the Government to go on with what they are now proposing.

[Lord McNally]

The noble Lord gives me the opinion of the youth offender teams. It is always a bit dubious when noble Lords claim to know the opinion of a section under inquiry. In fact, we are also in contact with youth offender teams, but I take the point that he mentioned them.

I am trying to see whether there is anything that I should particularly answer beyond these points. As I said at the beginning, it is a cheap shot to say that bureaucracies cannot run things. The term bureaucracy is easily slung around. I take the point that we should concentrate on structures not dogma. The issue is not dogma but whether, within the constraints that we face, we can organise this more effectively. I take on board the criticisms and we are listening.

If the noble Lord, Lord Warner, wishes to test the opinion of the House, that is his right to do so. He is a former Minister and there are a number of others around. One of the problems as well as pleasures of being a Lords Minister is that, when you are in a position like this, you cannot make policy on your feet. You can take it back to colleagues and you can listen. I have listened and I will take the issue back to colleagues, if the noble Lord, Lord Warner, is in a mood to take that in the spirit that it is offered. I cannot promise beyond that, as he knows. As many have said, gathered together in the House today is an enormous level of ministerial, local government, social service and charitable experience that any Government willing to listen should listen to. I will take this away and am also happy to talk further with the noble Lord on the matter, but that is as far as I can go today, having set out where we are trying to go and why.

[Viscount Eccles]

There has been no mention of money or expenditure, which is not what this House has come to expect when discussing parts of this Bill. Does my noble friend have anything to say about that?

[Lord McNally]

The Youth Justice Board has at its disposal about £500 million a year, most of which is spent in procuring secure places. It is not that cancelling the Youth Justice Board would save £500 million or £400 million a year or whatever—I think that the estimate is something like £6 million over the period of this spending review. We are not arguing this as a money-saving exercise. Our judgment is that, successful though the Youth Justice Board has been, it has done its job and we want to try to do it differently within the Ministry of Justice while keeping much of the ethos of the Youth Justice Board and much of the lower structure at local level that has been the basis of its success. However, I am interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has to say to my reply.

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Warner, will be minded to make up his mind at this rather early stage and decide whether to test the opinion of the House. There is one thing that I would like to impress on the Minister—that no matter how hard his hand may be pressed to his heart when he gives an undertaking that something will be kept for ever out of NOMS or that personnel will be recruited for ever from outside the Civil Service, his hand will wither and he will pass away and the statute will survive. Therefore, I hope that the rock-bed minima that we will require before agreeing to this part of the Bill can be expressed, and the Government must undertake to express them, in a parliamentary instrument, which, if it is to be revised, will have to have the approval of Parliament again. That is the only way in which to preserve a ministerial undertaking beyond the life of one Parliament—and, sometimes, for even less than that.

The other thing that I am tempted to dwell on is the context in which the Government are making up their mind. The Minister is operating in two contexts. One is a political context in which a coalition is committed to a bonfire of the quangos. I could make a long speech about that, but I remind my noble friend the Minister that the function of a bonfire is to get rid of rubbish. You do not hack fruiting branches off a healthy tree and chuck them on a bonfire. That should not be any constraint on the Minister.

Then there is the administrative context at the heart of a substantial government department. I have been in such a place and I, beyond anybody, admire the independence and rectitude of the Civil Service. But in this case, the Civil Service is faced with swingeing cuts in personnel. The Minister asks for advice on how to set up a body of 12 people, each of whom he appoints, whose chairman he appoints and all of whose functions he can dictate—that is all in the statute setting up the body under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. It is entirely his responsibility and he is entirely answerable for it already. The question is where that advice is coming from; it is coming from a department, which has, as far as I know, been asked only for the positive arguments and how to sell this measure to Parliament. When there is a prospect of those 12 places, and the 301 people employed by the body, suddenly being drafted into the department, diminishing the need for redundancies by that number, the department is not going to drag the seabed to find arguments against.

I hope that my noble friend the Minister will encourage his honourable and right honourable friends to stand aside from where they are at the moment—in the heart of their department—and look at this from outside, as we do, as people passionately concerned for the future welfare for the children of this country.

17:45

[Lord McNally]

That is the second intervention that has reminded me what a bird of passage is ministerial office, for which I am duly grateful. I take note of the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Elton. What would have happened if I had said that I was going to stand firm? I have said that I would take the matter back; I cannot make any more promises than that. I would be interested in having further talks with the noble Lord, Lord Warner, but I am interested to hear what he has to say having listened to this debate.

[The Earl of Listowel]

I am grateful that the Minister has undertaken to take the concerns of the whole House back to his colleagues and to reflect on what has been said, but I have a couple of questions about specific points.

First, on advocacy and social work provision in young offender institutions, advocacy has been put in place by the Youth Justice Board for a number of years now. I declare an interest as patron of Voice, an advocacy provider in several young offender institutions. It seems very clear to me, when I speak with advocates and visit young offender institutions, that this service is very much valued by the young people but also by the governors of those institutions. They can be particularly helpful in working to encourage local authorities when people are resettled to provide them the services that they need to resettle successfully. Will the Minister in the interim, between this and the next stage of the Bill, look at the role of advocates and, at the next stage, give some reassurance about advocacy provision under the new arrangements?

The second point that I should like to ask him about is social work provision in young offender institutions. My noble friend Lord Ramsbotham referred to the Children Act 1989 and how there was some lack of clarity about whether it applied to children and young people in the secure estate. The Munby judgment established that local authorities were indeed responsible for the welfare of young people, particularly in care, in prisons. Social workers were appointed by the last Government to each young offender institution. In the course of time, the Government gave responsibility for running those posts to local authorities, but there was no agreement among local authorities on how they should be funded. Sadly, half or perhaps more than half of those posts are vacant. I would be grateful if the Minister could look at this situation in the interim, between now and the next stage, and give some reassurance that there will be a continual push to ensure that those vacancies are filled and that the important work that those social workers provide for those young people is delivered to them as needed. We have heard today how vulnerable those children are and their need for expert support in young offender institutions.

[Lord McNally]

I shall certainly take that back. Part of the problem with the two issues that the noble Earl raises—both the advocacy commitment and the social worker commitment—is that they are responsibilities of local authorities. One thing that we have made clear in this approach is that we intend to make local authorities much more responsible for the delivery of these parts of the youth justice system. However, we note the point and can return to it at Report.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken in this debate, especially the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, who appears to have damaged his career prospects in doing so.

I began to feel a bit sorry for the Minister as the afternoon wore on. He dealt with the debate with his customary charm and evasion, and I pay tribute to those skills—particularly with some of the noises coming from behind him. If he thinks that he has trouble with me, I think that he has a lot more trouble with the noble Lord, Lord Elton.

It is interesting that five former Ministers spoke today from different Benches. They all showed a healthy scepticism about the ability of government departments to take on these jobs. It is worth bearing in mind that it is not just a load of head-bangers like me who are saying that but some of the Minister’s colleagues, who have spent their time in the salt mines of government. I note that the Prime Minister was not entirely overwhelmed by the performance of the Civil Service this week in some areas of its activity, so if the Minister gets too energetic in defending the MoJ’s civil servants, he may want to think about whether he will join the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in the doghouse in terms of his ministerial prospects.

There is quite a lot here for the Minister to dwell upon. Perhaps I might just correct him and others who spoke this afternoon: they are youth offending teams not youth offender teams. It helps you to convey a sense of knowledge about the sector if you get the titles right, I have always found. I will not spend long talking about the issues that were raised but I will spend a few moments on the secure estate. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, raised the interesting point about money. He was quite right to do so, because the secure estate gobbles up most of the Youth Justice Board’s budget. It will gobble up a lot more money if the good work that Francis Done and others have done is not continued to keep down the number of young people going into custody down. The Government might find that any savings they make by taking some of these functions in-house will, in a few years, result in a some surprises in the Ministry of Justice’s budget if not such a great job has been done as that carried out by Youth Justice Board in commissioning services and keeping youngsters out of custody.

The noble Lord, Lord Elton, raised an interesting point, which I would certainly want to reflect on before Report. It was an important point about whether one can ensure the good behaviour of future Ministers in this regard.

The Minister mentioned that his colleagues wanted the adult criminal justice services to learn from the advantages of the youth justice service. That is a praiseworthy objective, but it seems to me that he is more likely to achieve that if he looks at the instrument that was used with the youth justice services to try to drive change. It took a long time to get some of these programmes—their structures, relationships and working practices—changed when the Youth Justice Board was set up. The youth offending teams did not all say, “Hurrah! Parliament has passed the Crime and Disorder Act and we’re all going to change our practices”. It took a lot of hard graft to get people to do that. You are seeing the results of that hard graft coming through in the work of the Youth Justice Board in the past few years. Before you throw it all away, you need to think about how long it takes to get change in most public services.

I will reflect on what the Minister said. I am after not a Pyrrhic victory but a real victory. I am very encouraged by some of the responses from across the House on this amendment. I will reflect on everything that was said, but in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 63 withdrawn.

Schedule 1 agreed.

Clause 2 : Power to merge

Amendment 64

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

64: Clause 2, page 1, line 14, at beginning insert “Subject to section (Restrictions on ministerial powers),”

Amendment 64 agreed.

Amendment 65

Moved by

[Lord Whitty]

65: Clause 2, page 1, line 14, after “may” insert “subject to the requirements of section 8”

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 65 and to speak to the associated amendments. My noble friend Lord Warner just said that he was beginning to feel sorry for the noble Lord, Lord McNally. It may be that my compassion is more easily triggered than his, but my feeling sorry for Ministers started very early on in this Bill—particularly for the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who has had to sit through the bulk of it.

These amendments are designed to improve the procedure for this Bill, both during the remaining stages of the primary legislation and in how we deal with secondary legislation in what remains of the Bill when it is eventually passed. The first five amendments in this group are essentially paving amendments for Amendments 113 and 119, which are the substantive ones and appear quite late in the Bill. It would have been better had we found a hook to hang them on earlier in the Bill, but Clause 8 deals with the procedure for developing the secondary legislation. In other words, these amendments are designed to help, whether the Front Bench opposite believes that or not. It was unfortunate that from the beginning the Government refused the suggestion of a Select Committee, but the amendments provide an alternative to that in relatively straightforward terms.

As I do not really need to remind the Government or the Committee, we have already seen great chunks of the Bill having to be dropped, partly on substantive grounds and partly on procedural grounds. We have lost forestry and much about the Ministry of Justice quangos which were to be merged or abolished under the Bill. I understand that we are about to lose the whole of Schedule 7 and I think we applaud the Government’s flexibility on that, but they ought never to have got to this stage and the Bill should not have been constructed as it was.

We need a clear and more formal explanation from the Government of why these great lists of quangos are deemed suitable for abolition or merger. I appreciate that before each Committee session we get a list of the quangos that are likely to come up for decision during it, but they do not really suffice. Today, for example, for our enormously important debate on the Youth Justice Board, which excited great interest here in Committee and beyond, we had five lines explaining the reasons for abolishing that board.

My next amendment deals with an organisation for which there are two lines of explanation. Again, I appreciate that the Minister and his colleagues have sent us several other letters to try to explain this more clearly. However, it would be much more sensible if a clear explanation were put before Parliament, rather than one in the form of regulations and incomprehensible cross-references between clauses and existing legislation, of why the Government deem, for example, that the Youth Justice Board or Ofgem, or any of the regulators, should be abolished and the context in which those decisions are being made. There will shortly be a debate about the Equality and Human Rights Commission, for which we have two whole pages of explanation. It is central to a lot of our law and our approach to society, yet we do not have a realistic explanation of why the change is proposed. As a result, the Government have had to concede a lot of the Bill at the first hurdle.

The Government have also conceded that in some other areas they will in any case need primary legislation. Late the other night, and during the previous Session of Parliament, it was conceded that the self-regulating replacement for the Security Industry Authority would need new primary legislation with statutory backing. If that is the case, the point of having this in secondary legislation falls and the point of these lists—and the whole structure of the Bill—begins to fall. The amendments that I propose here would allow us to proceed with the Bill as it is, unsatisfactory though I think most of the Committee by now deems it. It would at least mean that we were assured that when we came to the secondary legislation stage, both Houses would have before them a very clear explanation to debate and vote on before proceeding with the abolition or the merger of any such bodies.

18:00

This would cover everything that is in Schedules 1 to 6—Schedule 7 we will shortly drop—and it would mean that Parliament could have a sensible debate. If we were convinced by the explanation given in prose by the Government, they could proceed in the normal way to secondary legislation. If we were not convinced, they would have to withdraw the intent on secondary legislation, and if they still wanted to do it they would have to revert to primary legislation in the way that they now propose to do, and not only for the organisations that I have suggested. In the area of competition authorities, for example, it has been made clear by the sponsoring department that the Government cannot simply change them thorough secondary legislation provided for under this Bill, but will have to have separate primary legislation to change the whole competition regime—and quite rightly, too.

Even at this late stage, if we adopted the provisions in these two main clauses we could ensure that there was an adequate debate and that we made the decisions on a firm basis. Amendment 113 simply suggests that before Ministers come forward to trigger the secondary legislation under the Bill, they place such a document before both Houses before we proceed. Prior to any discussion of the Youth Justice Board, and before the secondary legislation emerged, we would therefore have had a very clear explanation of why the Government thought that change should be made. The outrage that people felt about the YJB, forestry and other issues would have been ameliorated had it been clear that there would be another chance to have that substantive debate.

Amendment 119 recognises that you cannot just deal with these proposals, individual organisation by individual organisation. There is the whole question of what the government strategy is for various areas of our non-departmental public bodies. I declare a past interest in relation to consumer bodies: until six weeks ago I was the chair of Consumer Focus, one of the bodies in Schedule 1. The future of Consumer Focus, which is effectively to be transferred to the third sector, is inseparable from the overall approach to consumer representation in government policy on a number of fronts.

There are other bodies. We will be debating Passenger Focus later with regard to rail and bus transport. There is a consumer body for water, and those that are represented by Consumer Focus under the Energy Act and the Postal Services Act, including the one that we are due to debate next week. There is a whole range of different structures in statutorily provided consumer bodies, sometimes taxpayer-funded, though not always, and sometimes mandatorily industry-funded. This Government’s original intention, which I applauded, was to look at that landscape as a whole; it was the intent of BIS, the main sponsoring department, to look at it in that light. In fact, it has lost a lot of Whitehall battles, and I am sad that that is the case. We are now debating each of those bodies separately and we will come up with different solutions, aggravating what is already a hotchpotch of consumer representation in that landscape.

On an even bigger scale, the same applies to economic regulators. There are economic regulators that appear in several of these schedules—Ofcom appears several times—while some appear only in Schedule 7 and therefore, I guess, they can relax. Others appear once or more in Schedules 1 to 6; Ofgem, Ofcom and the Office of Rail Regulation are all in here. Again, when the Government first came to office, they promised us a review of economic regulation and of what is appropriate for an independent regulator, what is appropriate for a government department, what is appropriate for lighter-touch regulation and so forth. It was an agenda that I did not entirely agree with but at least it would have been coherent. If we proceed under what is laid down in the Bill, however, we will take one view of what is appropriate for the regulation of energy regarding the balance between Ministers and the regulator and a different one for telecoms. Maybe that is justified, but it is not a priori obvious that it is justifiable. A clear and adequate explanation is therefore needed for this House, and I suggest in Amendment 119 that on bodies like economic regulators you should have that overall discussion in Parliament before you move to specific secondary legislation dealing with particular bodies.

There could be other groups of bodies that arise in the Bill; indeed, we are about to come on to a load of environmental bodies. The very first amendment that I moved in this Committee session related to scientific advisory bodies. It is not clear why some scientific advisory bodies are to be dropped and others are not. There must be a general explanation of the science policy across government that makes those decisions clear but it has not been put before the House; we have dealt with them on an individual basis. Most of us would hope that Ministers received some independent scientific advice before they took important scientific decisions; hitherto, by and large, independent advisory committees with experts on the scientific areas concerned provided them with such advice. So there are groups of bodies that need addressing.

My main point here is that the Government, having proceeded on this list basis, now need to rescue it a bit and bring us back to what would be a normal parliamentary procedure, with something like a White Paper or a Green Paper, before they actually proceed area by area and organisation by organisation. I appreciate that the Government do not want to do all that in primary legislation. I have been a Minister too, and I understand that sometimes the complications of having to wait for primary legislation to change what appears to be a relatively small part of the machinery of government is very frustrating. However, it has to be done with the approval of Parliament in some sense. If you are taking the process away from primary legislation, at least this House—and to some extent, I suspect, colleagues down the road—would like to see clearly the way in which you are doing it and a clear basis for it. I think that Ministers realise now that a series of schedules and lists is not the way to do it and is not adequate. My amendment would help them in future to assure people that we would have that debate further down the line and assure them that, when secondary legislation came to be proposed, it would be done on a straightforward and understandable basis.

As we all know, the tradition is that we do not vote against or amend secondary legislation. That convention would be stretched if we had not previously had the kind of debate that I am envisaging in these amendments. I am asking the Government at least to recognise that at some stage we need to have that debate and that parliamentary decision on the basis of a formal document from the Government. This would make the Government’s life easier; at least, I hope so. It would certainly help us to get the Bill through the primary stage rather faster, and I wish that the Government had come forward with such a measure earlier. For the moment, I beg to move.

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, I support my noble friend. I spent part of my previous career sitting on various quangos, some of which are included in the Bill. I must say that I thought that the quango-sitting that I did was very useful, that our contribution was a good one and so on. I would like to think that they would not simply be closed down and consigned to what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, described as the “bonfire of the quangos” without adequate examination by Parliament. That is exactly what my noble friend is suggesting: before the quangos are dispensed with, there should be a thorough examination, Parliament should determine whether or not they were valuable or useful and should continue to operate and, unless that happened, the quangos should continue to operate. Perhaps they would do so in a different form but the functions would not be dropped; there would be some provision for the functions that they had carried out to be performed in future. I hope that my noble friend’s arguments will attract support from the Government. The amendment seems to be very reasonable, proposing that Parliament must have the final say. That is very important, and I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept it.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I am not sure I have any brownie points left in the bank after various earlier exchanges but I hope I have a few. I express my sympathy with the general thrust of the point that was made very well by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and which has just been supported. I imagine it will be further supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter.

There is, as I have said on several occasions in the House, a complete lack of intellectual coherence in the approach that is being adopted towards different bodies, particularly in respect of those parts of the Bill relating to the Ministry of Justice. I will not go on again now—although I will later—about the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council, which I formerly chaired. However, we have a curious situation in which the AJTC is in—and for the moment stays in—Schedule 1 but the other two justice councils, which were in Schedule 7, have been cast out. The Civil Justice Council’s terms of reference were those on which those of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council were modelled. Nobody has explained why what is right for the Civil Justice Council is wrong for the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council, with which it overlaps. Picking up the fundamental thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, there is a case for a coherent explanation, across the board, of what the Government are doing. I hope we may get at least some assurance on that in the course of my noble friend’s response.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, as predicted, I support these amendments. Amendments 65, 69, 77, 85 and 101 in this grouping all refer to the exercise of powers being subject to Clause 8. I therefore invite the Committee to look at Clause 8, which sets out the matters to be considered by the Minister, and to look at Amendment 107 in my name. It is not before us today because it was discussed earlier in Committee—on day one, when it was grouped with an amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Pannick. Your Lordships may remember that their amendment was accepted, contrary to the wishes of the Government. Although my amendment was not voted on at that point, I hope that might mean that the Government will therefore accept Amendment 107 in due course.

Amendment 107 is fundamental to the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty, which is in front of us at the moment. It seeks to amend Clause 8, which requires consideration to be given only to the efficiency of the bodies concerned and their accountability to Ministers. However, Clause 8 as it stands makes no reference to the purpose of those bodies as set out in legislation. Therefore, my amendment, although not before us now, would add to the matters to be considered under Clause 8,

“achieving the aims and objectives of the body where these are specified in legislation”,

where this and another place have created a body for a particular reason. That does not, to my mind, mean that those bodies can never be abolished, changed or merged. It means that their objectives, and how those objectives should be achieved if they are still relevant, should be taken into account when any question of merger or removal is on the cards. As predicted, I thoroughly support the amendment, and this grouping, in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty. However, that is slightly on the assumption that a body’s purpose will also be considered under Clause 8 at the point at which it would be implemented.

18:15

[Lord Borrie]

My Lords, it has been a long time since we last discussed these matters in Committee. Perhaps I may be forgiven for forgetting that I had added my name to that of my noble friend Lord Whitty on one of the amendments that we are now considering—Amendment 85. Since I did so, I cannot see any great reason to be in favour of one amendment but not the others. I am particularly glad to see Amendment 113 in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty. Surely it is essential that the Minister, when making an order under these provisions, should give the reasoning behind the change of status—the transfer or modification—from one to another. Surely one wants a ministerial explanation.

I have, however, come to doubt—this is really a question to my noble friend Lord Whitty—the need for the first five of his amendments, including the one that he is moving. He asks that, in relation to orders to transfer the functions of one body to another, or to modify a body’s functions, the Minister should pay attention to Clause 8. However, Clause 8 itself says:

“In considering whether to make an order … the Minister must”—

I emphasise—

“have regard to the following objectives”,

which include efficiency, effectiveness and accountability. I do not disagree with the point just made by my noble friend Lady Hayter, but I ask the mover of the amendment to clarify why he wants to insert certain phrases that seem to indicate simply that the Minister must consider matters referred to in Clause 8, when that is what Clause 8 itself says.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I, too, hope that the Minister will welcome this group of amendments. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, they are helpful amendments, which do not seek to change, amend or delete any body or group of bodies listed under Schedules 1 to 6. The amendments simply require the Minister concerned to lay before both Houses of Parliament, for debate and approval, a report setting out the Government’s reasons for changing the status of any body or group of bodies listed in the schedules before making the order enabling that change in status to be implemented, with a few exceptions where primary legislation will still be needed. Orders can be only accepted or rejected but not amended, and the Government will seek to push them through considerably more rapidly and with considerably less debate than would apply had the change in status been made through primary legislation.

The amendments of my noble friend Lord Whitty will enable a somewhat fuller discussion to take place. They will also enable Members of both Houses, as well as the public and interested parties, to comment and express their support, opposition or reservations over what the Government propose for the body or group of bodies in question in a proper and open public debate before the Government make a final decision on whether to proceed with the order and its detailed provisions. Such a development would at least begin to address the democratic deficit that the Government are fostering through the absence of any pre-legislative scrutiny, followed by seeking to change or abolish by statutory instrument bodies with important roles, which were in many cases set up by Acts of Parliament.

There would also be another advantage in that it would enable the Government to reflect further on their proposals and intentions on which bodies, or groups of bodies, should have their role and status changed or abolished. It is already clear that this Bill was cobbled together in a great hurry, which is why there has been so much backtracking, albeit welcome backtracking. This has not happened because this is a listening and open Government but rather because this is a Government who seem to think that instant decision-making is the same thing as effective decision-making.

The requirement under these amendments for a report to be made to both Houses that would have to be debated and approved would encourage the Government to think carefully about the necessity and justification of what they are proposing, and would ensure that the implications have been properly thought through and addressed and that the proposals have been subject to challenge and scrutiny in a way that would never be achieved through the laying of a statutory instrument. A statutory instrument is not meant to be the way of implementing what in many cases will be significant change but rather constitutes the detailed implementation of a change which has already been the subject of properly parliamentary scrutiny and debate. That proper parliamentary scrutiny and debate is not happening under the terms of this sweeping Bill, with Ministers all too often simply hoping to get away with saying that the full case for what they are proposing, the implications of their proposals and how it is intended to implement the changes, as well as the details, will have to await the statutory instrument.

I am sure the Minister knows that the Bill has been rushed and is ill thought out and that proper, pre-legislative scrutiny, for a start, would have been beneficial to all concerned, not least to the Government themselves. The usual excuse for the rush—namely, to make quick savings to reflect the Government’s exaggerated claims about the financial situation—was not given because the Government are unable to provide costed figures on savings that might result from the Bill, or even costed figures showing that there will be any savings at all. I hope that the Minister will now accept these amendments and show that the Government’s repeated words about openness and transparency are not simply smooth and meaningless platitudes.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I hope that I might, without abusing the rules of Committee stage, make a brief further intervention as I had not anticipated the thrust of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on her Amendment 107, for which I apologise. It may be helpful to the Minister if I give him notice of this. As I understood it, the noble Baroness was complaining that the provision in Clause 8 about efficiency, effectiveness, economy and accountability was not sufficient. I hope that my Amendment 106A focuses on that point at least as clearly by saying that one should also take into account,

“fairness, openness, transparency and justice”.

I would like to see some values incorporated into what the Government have to take account of in these matters. Even if my noble friend cannot give me an assurance on that today, I hope that he will reflect on it.

When I made a somewhat similar point to the previous Government, the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, immediately took the point and brought forward an amendment to introduce values in a similar context into the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Therefore, I hope that that precedent will carry some weight, whether today or in the future.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for initiating this debate with his amendments as it is agreeable to return to the way in which the Bill operates, having discussed individual bodies at length. The noble Lord gave very good value, as he always does. I thank all noble Lords who have participated. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, drew the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and, indeed, that of my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree, to Clause 8. We are still looking at Clause 8 as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee asked us to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has a slightly jaundiced view of the way in which the Government have established dialogue on the Bill. We are genuinely seeking to introduce a necessary vehicle to deal with the reform of public bodies. I think that there is general agreement on that across the Committee. The previous Government had such a policy and we seek to pursue it in our turn.

The group of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would require that, before laying an order under Clauses 2 to 6, a Minister must lay before Parliament a report setting out the reasoning for any change in the status of a body or bodies he or she proposes to make, with the said report being subject to debate and approval by resolution in each House. Amendment 119 would introduce an additional requirement for a report where an order affects a body or office within a particular set of categories. I hope the noble Lord will agree with that summary of what he is seeking to do.

The Government agree that Parliament should have access to appropriate information regarding any proposals to use powers under the Bill. The government amendments that we have introduced in Committee reflect this. In the first instance we have sought, along with Peers from across the House, to introduce a new requirement for Ministers to consult in relation to proposed changes under the Bill. Secondly, government amendments have been tabled which would require any draft instrument laid before Parliament to include an explanatory document which includes details setting out the reasoning behind the order.

These requirements give Parliament ample opportunity to scrutinise the reasoning behind the laying of an order. Amendment 113 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would effectively require an additional affirmative resolution process for a report concerning a proposed order before the order itself could be made. This amendment risks Parliament being asked to debate a report on a proposed order prior to the consultation on the said order having been concluded. Additionally, it would create a new burden on Parliament itself and on departments as they seek to deliver on the reform package to which the coalition Government are committed.

Amendment 119 would require a Minister making an order affecting a group defined as an economic regulator or a consumer body to place a report before Parliament setting out the reasons for the proposals in the context of that group of bodies as a whole. The Government, of course, recognise that changes to public bodies should not be considered in isolation. I assure the noble Lord that this was not the case for those reforms set out by my right honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 14 October. In this instance all reforms were agreed at Cabinet level and involved extensive dialogue between departments. I particularly appreciate the spirit of the noble Lord’s amendment in relation to relatively discrete groups of bodies such as the so-called economic regulators, where a shift in regulatory practice for one could potentially impact on regulatory stability across the sector, and where it is therefore right that Government act in a proportionate, joined-up manner.

As I said at Second Reading—I am happy to reiterate it—the Government intend the economic and regulatory functions of bodies such as Ofcom and Ofgem to be excluded from the powers of the Bill for precisely this reason. I do not believe that it is necessary to place such a requirement in the Bill, because the Government expect Ministers to consider such issues as a matter of course and because our Amendment 118, which requires Ministers to produce an explanatory document with a draft statutory instrument setting out the reasons for an order, will provide another opportunity to inform Parliament of such matters. For example, where a change is proposed to a consumer body or any other body, the Government will be required by Amendment 118 to give reasons for the order that relate to considerations including efficiency, accountability and effective delivery of public functions.

I take note of this debate, in which there have been valuable contributions—not least the ideas on Clause 8 proposed by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter—and I hope that, given my assurances with regard to our commitment to sharing information with the House, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

18:30

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

Before my noble friend sits down, will he briefly animadvert on the nature of the explanatory document that he has it in mind to produce? Explanatory Memoranda about Bills often state that they are there only to explain the content, not to provide evidence that has led to formation of the policy. Furthermore, such memoranda frequently state that they are explaining only those matters that are obscure or not clear in the Bill. What is required to be helpful to the deliberative process is an undertaking that these memoranda will contain evidence explaining the policy.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

A requirement under our amendments will be that the explanatory documents are properly reasoned and describe not just what a statutory instrument proposes but the reasoning behind the change. They will also include an impact assessment. The idea is that these should be full documents. I understand what my noble friend is saying and I am grateful for his intervention, because Explanatory Memoranda to Bills frequently explain only what a particular clause might seek to do, not its implications. The requirement is that the explanatory documents should explain the reasoning behind a Minister’s approach to laying a statutory instrument.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. Indeed, at one point he used the word “agreeable”, which perhaps raised my expectations too much. This short debate has demonstrated a need for the Government to provide a clearer explanation of what they are doing in this area. I saw the noble Lord’s Amendment 118 and, like the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, I thought that that related to Explanatory Memoranda of the type that normally relate to content, rather than strategy and context. If the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is saying that the content of the explanatory document will go somewhat wider, I accept that that goes some way towards what I am arguing for.

In relation to the procedural points made by my noble friends Lord Borrie and Lady Hayter, when these amendments were drafted there was another amendment—we have now considered it—in addition to her Amendment 107, which would have strengthened Clause 8 and made more sense of it. I had hoped that that could have been sorted out later, if the Government had stated that in principle they were accepting these amendments. However, Clause 8 as it stands asks the Minister to take these matters into consideration but does not require him to explain them to Parliament in any form. I am concerned that Parliament should, at some stage in the process, hold a substantive debate on the total strategy that lies behind the reason for abolishing or changing the nature of a particular body.

That remains an outstanding issue. When we reach Amendment 118, I hope that the Minister can expand further on how he sees this issue. However, the essential point is that Parliament by this Bill is giving up the right to revert to primary legislative procedure in relation to an organisation that was originally set up after full debate on primary legislation. We need a clear explanation if we are going to cut corners in that way. I still hope that we get there in the secondary, if not in the primary, legislation. If the Minister, before we consider Amendment 118 or at Report, can put a few bones on that, I should be extremely grateful. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 65 withdrawn.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed.

Amendment 65A

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

65A: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Report on the merger of the UK Film Council and the British Film Institute
(1) Before making an order under section 2 in respect of the UK Film Council, the responsible Minister must report to Parliament with details on which body will be responsible for performing the following functions currently discharged by the UK Film Council—
(a) supporting film exports;(b) protecting intellectual property and combating film theft;(c) providing film research, statistics and market intelligence; and(d) providing co-production support and diversity initiatives.(2) One year after an order has been made to merge the British Film Institute and the UK Film Council under this Act, the responsible Minister must report to Parliament on—
(a) the performance of the British Film Institute in discharging its function to promote the UK as an international filming location and to raise the profile of British films abroad;(b) the performance of the British Film Institute in discharging its function to develop new and emerging talent in film production throughout the UK;(c) the performance of the British Film Institute in discharging its function to ensure that a broad range of films are available for the British public; and(d) the criteria used and funds allocated and distributed by the British Film Institute for film production in the UK.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, the Bill deals with the questions of whether certain functions undertaken by government should be devolved to public bodies and how to ensure that these bodies are accountable. The Government are supposed to check whether a function needs to be carried out at all and then to apply certain tests to determine whether a public body is the “right delivery mechanism”.

Our case is that film policy fits these tests and that government has been right to establish public bodies to deal with the delivery of its objectives. The issue is which bodies and how they are to be brought into a relationship of accountability to Parliament. The purpose of the amendment and those in the group is to review and, if possible, to learn lessons from the situation that has arisen because of the precipitant decision of the Government in July 2010 to abolish the UK Film Council. The purpose of the amendment is also to safeguard the position of its main successor, the British Film Institute, and thereby give an opportunity to your Lordships to celebrate the outstanding achievement of British talent and skills in the recent Oscar and BAFTA ceremonies.

I declare a past interest as former director of the British Film Institute. I thank my noble friends Lord Wills and Lord Judd for putting their names to these amendments. My noble friend Lord Puttnam apologises for not being present. He was here last week when we nearly reached consideration of the amendments; indeed, that would have been well timed, because it was the night after the Oscar ceremonies, for which we were on tenterhooks. Unfortunately, he is now abroad and cannot be with us today.

By all accounts, this was one of the best years for British films in the BAFTAs and one of the best years for British nominations in the Oscars across all the technical specialisms, as well as in acting, producing and directing. I am sure that I speak for all noble Lords in sending our warmest congratulations to all those involved. “The King’s Speech” joins nine other British films that have won an Oscar for best picture. Colin Firth richly deserves his best actor accolade. Tom Hooper is the latest British director to be honoured and joins Danny Boyle, Sam Mendes, Anthony Minghella and Dickie Attenborough—to name but a few of the most recent winners. With the winners for the best original script, David Seidler, and best supporting actor, Christian Bale, Britain kept up its remarkable record of success. We are good at making films.

On another occasion, I should like to draw attention to the excellent work being done, perhaps behind the scenes, at the National Film and Television School in Beaconsfield, which had another good awards season, with 40 graduates involved in the BAFTA nominations and 25 working on films that garnered Oscar nominations. We are good at films and at training people for film.

“The King’s Speech” was supported by the UK Film Council with lottery funding and is already the most successful British independent film of all time. It has taken a staggering £42 million so far in the UK and has grossed $278 million worldwide. It is reaching new audiences. Indeed, one could say that it boldly goes where no British film has gone before. As a result of the modest investment made by the UK Film Council, millions of pounds will be recycled back into supporting the UK film industry. In that sense, the film perfectly makes the case for the UK Film Council’s work.

The last Government were considering a merger between the BFI and the Film Council but wanted the bodies themselves to come up with a workable proposal. In abolishing the UK Film Council by press release, the Government threaten one of the outstanding achievements of the past 10 years, during which time film became one of the UK’s real success stories and a hugely dynamic part of the creative industries and the creative economy. Not all of this can be directly attributable to the UK Film Council, but it is worth noting that the UK box office has grown by 69 per cent over the past 10 years and is now worth £1 billion per annum. The UK film industry now contributes more than £4.5 billion a year to the UK’s GDP and returns more than £1.2 billion to the Exchequer in tax payments. The UK film industry directly employs around 36,000 people and, in total, supports about 100,000 direct and indirect jobs. Over the past 10 years, inward investment—mainly US films made here—has surpassed £5.4 billion and film exports have reached a record £1.3 billion. The Film Council, over its lifetime, has invested over £160,000 of lottery funding into more than 900 films and shorts, which have won more than 300 awards, entertained more than 200 million people and helped to generate over £700 million at box offices worldwide.

I said earlier that the Government had been precipitate in abolishing the UK Film Council. Contrast, if you will, its demise with the careful way in which the previous Government set up the body a decade ago—a process in which I played a small part. Working from an initial proposal from the BFI, a working group co-chaired by the right honourable Tom Clarke MP, the Film Minister, and Stewart Till from the industry consulted widely across industry and abroad before the report, A Bigger Picture, was delivered to the Secretary of State and then implemented. Many of the findings of that report are very relevant today.

Film is both art and business. The British director John Boorman once called it the business of “turning money into light”. It is creative and innovative, it powers growth, it stimulates employment, it drives tourism and, as the Americans have recognised from the earliest days, it can promote both cultural and physical goods. If we are to diversify the British economy, we need to support and nurture our creative industries. Film is a collaborative industry and it ought to be at the heart of our drive to develop the creative industries, drawing as it does on so many other allied industries, increasingly in the new technologies.

However, we in Britain have a schizophrenic attitude to film. Is it a coincidence that the Royal Opera House dominates Covent Garden, that the National Theatre draws eyes across the Thames and that the Royal Festival Hall stands proud beside it, but that the National Film Theatre is hidden under Waterloo Bridge, every screening potentially ruined by the traffic grinding its way across above it and audiences constantly frustrated about how to find their way in, let alone watch a movie?

The machinery of UK film is complex, with many moving parts, and there is a need for a single body to continue the work of turning the UK film sector into a professional, co-ordinated and powerful industry, capable of making and distributing movies that will earn back their investment across the world. Every Government in the world, including that of the USA, support their film industry. We have the talent and the facilities—our records show that. What the industry wants is a long-term, stable partnership with government.

When I first put down this amendment to the Bill last year, I did not know at that time that the majority of the functions of the UK Film Council were to be transferred to the BFI. Although I regret the way in which this was done, I support that decision, which I think was the right one. I am confident that the senior management and the board of the BFI will rise to the “challenge”, as the Minister Ed Vaizey put it, of becoming the,

“new strategic body to oversee the future development of film in this country”.

However, closer inspection of the plans gives me cause for concern. I understand that only 44 of the 76 UK Film Council posts are to be transferred to the BFI, as no funding is earmarked for several of the functions currently undertaken, including support of film exports, protecting intellectual property and combating film theft, and providing co-production support. Can the Minister give us some explanation of what is to happen to these functions and why it was felt that they were not central to the future development of film in this country?

Of the 44 posts that are transferring out of the UK Film Council, I understand that four are to go to Film London, which is to take over the functions of the British Film Commissioner and be responsible for promoting the UK as a base for making films across the world. Film London is a good body with an excellent track record, but separating out the functions of inward investment not only from the BFI but from the eight regional film agencies, which are combining to form Creative England, and the film agencies in the three nations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland seems an odd way of restructuring this vital area. Can the Minister give us an idea of how this will work in practice and what benefits will flow from the new arrangements?

18:45

I understand that the UK Film Council’s research, statistics and market intelligence function, which provides crucial underpinning of data and evidence to help to inform policy, will be transferring to the BFI. However, I also understand that the DCMS will not be providing funding to support it. What sort of Alice in Wonderland world can this be? If the work is worth doing, surely it is worth paying for. I do not see the department, with its own cuts and reductions in staff, doing this. Can the Minister confirm that this function will be funded going forward?

Finally, I understand that the vesting day for the BFI to take over responsibility for former UK Film Council functions has now been brought forward to April 2011, which seems rather tight, given that so much change is under way and that so many staffing and other transfers have still to be negotiated. Perhaps the Minister can reassure us on that point and give us an update on progress.

These are serious questions, which, along with the more general points that I have been making, are the basis of the second part of Amendment 65A. If we believe that our film industry is important to us as a nation both culturally and because of its growing economic contribution, and that it is right that the Government should delegate some or all of their responsibilities to such a body, then it surely follows that this body should have a relationship with Parliament. Therefore, Amendment 65A would add to the Bill requirements that the Government inform Parliament where the missing functions currently undertaken by the UK Film Council are to be transferred and that, one year after the closure of the UK Film Council and the transfer of certain of its functions to the BFI, a report should be made to Parliament about how the new arrangements are working. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on these issues.

Given what I have been saying about the schizophrenic nature of our approach to film, it occurs to me that, should the Committee agree with our proposals, we might come back at Report with a suggestion that an annual report on film be presented to Parliament, perhaps at the end of February each year, so that we can have the opportunity, every year, not only of discussing the place of film in the United Kingdom but of celebrating our ongoing successes at the BAFTAs and the Oscars. I beg to move.

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, in rising to support the amendments that my noble friend Lord Stevenson has so eloquently presented and to which I have added my name, I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration of interests as set out at Second Reading of the Bill on 9 November last year.

The success of “The King’s Speech” at the Oscars, at other awards ceremonies and at the box office this year has been widely celebrated, as indeed has the success of other British films. These are tremendous achievements. “The King’s Speech” was a tremendous achievement for the writer, the director, the actors and everyone involved in its production, and that includes the UK Film Council. As Iain Canning, one of the producers of that film, said, the film,

“wouldn't have been made without the UK Film Council”.

As we have heard and as your Lordships will know, the UK Film Council is now no more. It was abolished last year by the Government by press release. It was hard to understand why the Government took that decision last year, but it is even harder to understand today when we see the tremendous success of these films in which the UK Film Council has played such an important role. The UK Film Council was a flourishing public body competing in a ferociously competitive marketplace. It has helped to treble the turnover of the British film industry in the past 10 years. It supported the development of new filmmakers, funded imaginative and innovative British films, and ensured that British audiences could have access to all the glories of the cinema, with a wider choice of films made available to audiences throughout the country.

So why did the Government do this? In what last year the Observer rather charitably called an,

“impassioned defence of his decision”,

the Secretary of State explained that it was “simply not acceptable” to use taxpayers’ money to fund an organisation that pays its top eight executives more than £100,000 each. That was the justification that he gave. However, the Secretary of State was wrong in saying that. In fact, there were only six such executives, and if that was to be the criterion for scrapping the UK Film Council, why hand its functions over to the British Film Institute, whose latest accounts submitted to the Charity Commission show that seven of its staff received remuneration packages of more than £100,000? That is seven—one more than the number of people in the UK Film Council receiving such packages. It is not clear whether this exercise will save money overall and I would welcome any comment that the Minister may have about whether we will see any savings from bringing those two bodies together.

I entirely accept that no organisation has a right to an eternal existence but, if politicians are going to butcher successful organisations operating in a world of which they seem to have very little knowledge and understanding, they would be well advised to have good reasons for doing so. That is all the more important when the organisation in question depends for its success on a very rare combination of skills: a commercial eye for an audience, an intimacy with the medium, a human empathy with creative artists, the ability to nurture and to develop them, and an inspirational excitement about the cultural and economic benefits which film can offer and which my noble friend Lord Stevenson so eloquently set out. Such organisations are very hard to create and when they work as well as the UK Film Council was working, they should be cherished, not arbitrarily destroyed.

This organisation was scrapped without consultation, just through a press release, and, as far as I am aware, Ministers have not even had the elementary courtesy at any point since then to say anything in praise of the UK Film Council's remarkable achievements, not even about its role in the creation of “The King’s Speech”. I note the contrast with the debate which we had earlier today when the noble Lord, Lord McNally, under assault from all sides of the House, still found it possible to pay tribute to all the good work done by the Youth Justice Board. By contrast, Ministers who take responsibility for this in the other place—I obviously make an exception for the Ministers on the Front Bench in this House who are completely blameless in this respect—have not even had the elementary courtesy to say one word in tribute to the organisation which, apparently, they have so arbitrarily scrapped.

Why should the exceptionally talented people who work for the UK Film Council hang around working for a public body when they all have so many other options—much more lucrative options, in most cases—and when they are treated with such discourtesy by the Secretary of State who will determine the future of film in this country? I understand that the haemorrhaging of talent has already begun. Able and experienced professionals are leaving the public sector for other jobs and no doubt more will follow. Successful organisations such as the UK Film Council exist in a fragile ecology and politicians meddle at their peril.

Of course, there are profound challenges facing film in this country but this casual and ill thought-through decision is not the way to meet them. My noble friend Lord Stevenson has already said that last year the British Film Institute and the UK Film Council discussed a merger and both sides decided, after lengthy discussion and after securing legal advice, that there would be significant problems in making it work. That is not surprising. They are very different organisations. One is essentially a cultural organisation and the other is an industrial organisation. They may sound as though they are all in the same industry and they both have the word “film” in their titles, but culturally, organisationally and in terms of their focus they are very different organisations. It is not surprising that they should have found a merger difficult to work through. That is not difficult to understand at all. It is entirely predictable that much the same sorts of problems are now being encountered in trying to bring these two organisations together. I hope that all responsible Ministers are taking an active interest in the discussions between the BFI and the UK Film Council and can find a way of making this merger work.

Amendment 65A draws attention to some of the unease that has been created by how the functions which have been discharged by the UK Film Council will be discharged in this new era. All mergers, all kinds of takeovers, whatever you want to call this current process, are difficult in every industry and every business. It is notoriously difficult to make them work successfully. I hope that Ministers are not just standing by and relying on all the talented, highly motivated and able people on both sides of this debate to bring this off themselves. Ministers may have to intervene to bring about a successful conclusion and I hope that they will do so.

In responding to the amendment, I ask the Minister to say whether the Government will ensure that the UK Film Council’s research and statistics unit will carry on that essential work long term. I understand that the funding is guaranteed for one year but will they ensure that it is carried on long term? Without a market intelligence function like this, the BFI will be making decisions in the dark. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell the Committee what estimate has been made of the impact of not funding film exports. Film exports under the guidance of the UK Film Council have grown by 92 per cent. As my noble friend Lord Stevenson has already said, in 2008, film exports amounted to more than £1.3 billion. At a time when the Government are placing so much of their hopes for economic recovery on growth in exports, why are they taking away the support function from such a crucial industry? Can the Minister name other crucial industries where support for exports has been similarly scrapped?

Can the Minister also say who will take over the UK Film Council’s role in opening up film to as wide and diverse an audience as possible? How will the BFI demonstrate a strategy which reflects its new responsibility for the entire film sector and not just BFI-related exhibition and distribution? What can the Minister say to assure this House that the BFI will be committed to representing the interests of the film industry as a whole as well as the UK Film Council has done in the past? That is crucial as technology and the economic structure of the industry are changing very fast. What can the Minister say to reassure the film industry and this House that the BFI will address effectively such key issues as film theft, piracy, pay-TV platforms, which are especially important now that Sky has become so market dominant in acquiring film rights for television, and the smooth transition of the film industry to new digital models? As I have already said, the BFI has essentially been a very successful cultural body, so what can the Minister say to reassure everyone that it can successfully take on this complex and demanding new role?

In the coming years, Ministers—I direct my remarks to Ministers in the other place—will be judged by how far the film industry measures up to the benchmark now set by “The King’s Speech”. Ministers may move on to new jobs in Government or to none but the Ministers responsible for this decision now risk being remembered as the politicians who carelessly and needlessly destroyed an important part of the infrastructure of the British film industry. They now have to prove that what they have put in its place will be an improvement. I very much hope that they can do so. These amendments give the Government an opportunity to offer reassurance that they now understand that. I hope that they will take it.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I add my support to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Stevenson and join him in congratulating those who won the Oscars. I perhaps should not forget the BAFTAs, which are more local and also well worth winning, as the same pattern of achievement was there.

I want to address the Committee on this amendment as I had the very good fortune to be the first person designated as the Minister for Intellectual Property, a role which I know that the new Government have also taken on as a ministerial post. The enjoyment from that role came from being involved not only in helping to drive forward businesses but in assisting in the development of cultural industries. I was under no illusion while doing so that Governments do not create business; they simply do their best to set out the conditions in which business might be able to thrive. The advantages of doing that are that, certainly in this country, we are unlikely to make much of our living doing many of the things which we have traditionally done, but we make a very good living from being successful in the creative industries.

19:00

My noble friend Lord Stevenson has pointed out that film adds between an additional 6 and 9 per cent per annum to the value created. The data that I read when I was responsible for the matter showed that the creative economy as a whole grew consistently by between 7 and 8 per cent per annum. Almost no other part of the United Kingdom’s economy had a growth pattern that came anywhere near that level of achievement. I recognise immediately some of the difficulties in measuring economic performance, but very good research from Queen Mary, London University, and other universities, has come back pretty consistently with the figure of between 7 and 8 per cent and one or two estimates which were higher. That is a fantastic achievement.

That is why I want to look particularly carefully at what might disrupt elements of that achievement and I will do so by focusing on subsection (1)(b) of the proposed new clause. The difficulty that the industry described most frequently—as, incidentally, did the music industry—was the wholesale theft of the properties being created and the tendency for people to steal intellectual property such as a new film almost as soon as it was made.

We had a range of options to try to deal with that problem. For a start, trading standards officers locally would try to identify the criminals involved and get their hands on the contraband. On occasion, the police made that effort as well. I have to say—and I mean no complaint by this, because trading standards officers and police forces have many other priorities—that it was seldom at the top of their priority list. The result was that a great deal of the great value in a great product made in this country was consistently lost. Of course it is true that American, French and other films are also stolen, but today we are concerned with what has been achieved in our film industry.

The efforts that had to be made to stop the damage being done to the industry were highly specialised, not only in the companies that made films, which of course had real concern about their property being stolen, but in the British Film Institute, which tried to work with and assist those companies in responding to that wholesale theft.

It was not a simple matter of a fixed pattern of theft. The development of the internet world and digital technology meant that the character of the crime and the way in which people could perpetrate it kept changing. That meant that consistent attention had to be paid to how people stole the intellectual property. Some people—of course, nobody in your Lordships' House—thought, as they did with the music industry, that this was a good fun, picaresque event, involving a modern-day Robin Hood banditry that was perfectly acceptable. You could steal a band's music; you could steal someone's movie; it did not really make a difference; it was all part of the public good and in the public domain so it was all right. I took a different view for a couple of reasons, which I shall sum up briefly for the Committee.

First, you cannot have a viable industry creating great products if people feel that they can steal the product easily. That is why the function referred to in the amendment is vital if we have serious intent to protect the industry. My second reason is that many of the people who were detected in the theft of intellectual property, particularly in music and film, turned out to be criminals who were also involved in a number of other activities, including people trafficking—it was often people who had been trafficked who were selling these products in car boot sales, public houses and so on—and drug distribution. It was often a way of incorporating those individuals in a wider range of crime. There was strong evidence, not least from the police forces, for which I was very grateful, which indicated that we were addressing a problem wider even than the damage being done to the creative industries.

How precisely are we to protect that intellectual property from theft? If we do not, I am genuinely fearful that the film industry will go into decline, as have many parts of the music industry. I ask the Committee not to underestimate just how steep a downward curve that industry has faced.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall]

My Lords, I add my support to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Stevenson. I do so as someone who served until the general election on the Select Committee on Communications of your Lordships' House. Shortly before the election, the committee produced a detailed report on the state of the UK film and television industry as it was then—that is only just over a year ago.

A lot of the evidence taken by the committee then was in the wake of another huge success for the British film industry, although of a rather different nature from that of “The King's Speech” which we have been celebrating today. That film was “Slumdog Millionaire”, which also had huge success at the Oscars and elsewhere and depended for some of its success not on money from the UK Film Council but on a small amount of money, very early in the film’s development, from Channel 4. The reason that I mention that in relation to the amendment is that, as my noble friend Lord Wills just remarked, the UK film industry exists in a very fragile ecology. Its fragility concerns how difficult it is not so much to get things finished as to get them started.

The UK Film Council’s intervention, which allowed “The King's Speech” to be made, was at the beginning of that process. Anyone who has spent time over the past few weeks reading all the interviews and material generated by the success of “The King's Speech” will know that Tom Hooper, his screenwriter and the other people—the small group who believed in the project—struggled to get it going. Always, when we look at UK films that have big success, we think, “Of course. Why would it not be successful?”. It is not like that. One valuable thing that the UK Film Council has done, which is mentioned in the amendment, is to collect data and research on all the various ways in which the UK film industry is active. Those data reveal that the industry is in constant flux. It has moments of huge success and, at other times, moments when its success falls away.

In my view, that is partly because the industry has a relatively small domestic market. It has to get out there and sell itself into a wider world market before it can really start to make money. That is why film export is so important and why it is therefore necessary for the Government and the Minister, when she comes to reply, to explain how the film export aspect of the work of the UK Film Council will be supported and continued as we go on. The American film industry has a massive domestic market, and films can be a success in America using just that domestic market. Our film industry cannot rely on that market. It has to get out there and sell itself. The success of “The King’s Speech” is remarkable in that it has become a worldwide success. That is very hard to achieve from a UK base, and anything that is likely to undermine the continuing success of UK film by not properly supporting the export side of it is very much to be regretted.

I would also like to mention one other thing that is not specifically mentioned in this amendment, but I hope the Minister will find something to reassure the Committee about it when she comes to reply. It is about supporting film artists at an early stage in their career. Whether you are a director or a writer, the difficulty of getting your work funded at an early stage in your career is extreme in this country. That is probably an issue everywhere, but it is certainly so here. Among its many functions, the UK Film Council has over the years put some money into development and into making sure that a certain number of screen writers get to develop their work. I would like to feel that the Government understand the importance of this function and that when they come to review the way in which the functions of UK Film Council are to be transferred to the BFI that aspect of what it has been doing will be protected.

It is a very great matter of pride to all of us when a film such as “The King’s Speech” comes along and has such extraordinary success at home and in America, but it is an extremely long, hard journey to get a film such as that up and running and to get it to be as successful as that film has been. We cannot afford to lose any of the potential support for UK film makers.

19:15

[Baroness Benjamin]

My Lords, I, too, support Amendment 65A, particularly subsections (1)(d), (2)(c) and (2)(d). I declare an interest as an actress, broadcaster and producer. I shall speak first on subsection (1)(d) and the subject of diversity. For nearly 40 years now, I have spoken about the need to reflect diversity in film and media and, over those years, there have been many attempts to address the issue. Yet, sadly, this year, it was glaringly noticeable that there were no black or Asian nominees in the BAFTAs or the Oscars, which I find shocking in the 21st century. This is why I am supporting this amendment to ensure that provision is made actively to continue to address this situation.

I fear that this will not be undertaken because there is currently no diversity strategy in place at the BFI beyond a diversity programming group, which delivers various seasons and the Lesbian & Gay Film Festival. I find it difficult to understand that a modern organisation such as the BFI is without a focused diversity strategy that is actionable and measurable externally throughout the film industry. Diversity requires strong leadership from an individual to ensure success. It cannot just be an add-on to a blanket organisational remit. There is far too much proof that, although people mean well, there are always other priorities. The BFI says that it is passionate about diversity, but how will it demonstrate that to a diverse talent pool that wants more of what the UK Film Council’s diversity department has been delivering for the past few years?

My concern is that without an industry-focused diversity strategy there will be no further collaborations between the Film Fund, which distributes the funding, and the film sector to provide career-enhancing opportunities for diverse talent, which, in broadcast terms, relates to the new Equality Act. I fear that without a diversity strategy no one will actively provide real job opportunities, either in front of or behind the camera, thereby sending a clear message to the sector that diversity is not a vital necessity in order to reflect modern Britain. This will be disastrous.

Over the past few years, the UK Film Council has supported diversity projects to support the sustainability of diverse talent through proper training opportunities. These have been wide-ranging. They included: funding scriptwriters, runners and make-up artists; graduate fellowship schemes through Diversity in Visual Arts; funding digital shorts for disabled film-makers; supporting a mentoring scheme with Skillset and Women in Film and Television; and pioneering an outreach project with Pinewood Studios that hopes to encourage a greater diversity of applicants for apprenticeships and jobs. Ultimately, diversity offers the UK’s highly skilled but fragmented and diverse workforce the chance to strengthen their careers through strategic support. The industry is united in a single vision to ensure the inclusion of modern voices, so it is imperative that the BFI continues to uphold this vision and puts in place a diversity strategy overseen by experienced people. I urge the Government to ensure that that happens.

I now move on to subsections (2)(c) and (2)(d). I want to highlight the need to allocate a percentage of funds for films targeted at children and young people. The state of UK children’s film production is dire. In 2010, the UK Film Council made only six grants totalling £113,500 towards children’s and young people’s films. This works out at 0.75 per cent of the UK Film Council’s budget for filming in that year. Over the years, it was always believed that little was being done to produce culturally significant, good-quality British films for children, but it is clear to see that children’s films are a highly popular genre, as recent reports on UK film audiences in 2010 show that most of the popular films received U or PG certificates and so were classified for children.

Yet the problem for British film does not lie with trying to attract an audience to watch the films. Instead, it occurs with trying to keep the money made by successful children’s films in this country. Many of the most profitable and lucrative films since 2006 have been British-born stories and ideas, yet they were not necessarily UK film productions, as we do not have the money to make large-budget blockbusters. These are films such as “The Chronicles of Narnia”, “Harry Potter”, “Pirates of the Caribbean”, “The Golden Compass” and, most recently, “Alice in Wonderland” and “Fantastic Mr Fox”. The accomplishments of these films show that, through investment in quality children’s films, large profits can be achieved and this can bring about a good return. It also shows that, by investing in ourselves, we will be able to keep profits at home and put them straight back into funding and making even better British films for children.

The real question at hand is how the British film industry can benefit from UK children’s film productions. On 21 January 2011, BAFTA, along with members of the Danish film industry, hosted an event entitled, “Is Something Rotten in the State of Children’s Cinema?”. The event focused on the work done by the Danish Film Institute, since the UK is facing similar issues to those dealt with by it a few years ago. Denmark now has a strong film industry in which Danish kids’ films take 38 per cent of all box office takings. This can be linked to its film Act in 1997, under which an allocated 25 per cent of the state-funded film budget is put directly into funding children’s films. This figure has been ring-fenced, which has allowed Danish film-makers to produce films specifically for children. From 1999 to 2008, the market share of Danish films for children and young people was a staggering 41 per cent of the total and, in 2010, it rose to 50 per cent. What the Danes have done to create this success is quite simple; their film industry has made sure that there has always been a seat at the table for children’s film. This in turn strengthens the partnership between Danish and international producers and creates a balance between Danish and foreign participants in the technical and creative areas of production.

If the Government encourage the BFI to adopt the Danish model and if the BFI actively promotes the availability of funds for UK children’s film productions, this will attract co-production, create an active UK children’s film market and establish a creative outlet for our talented British creators so that they too can stand on the world stage and be honoured, like those who created celebrated films such as “The King’s Speech” this year. An agreed percentage of funds should be allocated to UK film productions for children and young people to enable this to happen, so I support this amendment.

[The Earl of Clancarty]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on tabling Amendment 65A, which I support, as it is an imaginative amendment that seeks to discuss the UK Film Council and the British Film Institute and how their continuing respective functions will relate to each other. It quite deliberately uses the term “merger”.

I will speak to the work of the British Film Institute and to my concerns and hopes for this important organisation in the light of the changes that are to be made. Its multifaceted work does not have a primarily commercial imperative. Its work is inherently good for British culture and British society as a whole. Film has become, as in other countries but particularly in Britain throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, part of the lifeblood of the nation, so the BFI is as relevant today as it has been in the past and will be in the future.

Over decades, the BFI has done tremendous work, not least in saving, restoring and rediscovering British films that would otherwise be lost because of the fragility of the film medium. My own father, Terry Trench, worked in the post-war British documentary film industry, mainly as an editor but sometimes as producer or director. His films are among the close to a million titles that the BFI now holds in its national archive. My father was one of a number of still often unsung heroes of the original British documentary film movement, although now there is a much greater interest in this tradition, due in no small measure to the BFI—the success of its DVD compilations such as “Land of Promise” are a testament to this.

Indeed, the BFI is keen to allow work to be as accessible as possible to the public, although, given the copyright issues, this is not always easy. As it happens, the very first film that my father edited was directed by Anthony Asquith. The BFI recently restored Asquith’s early features, including “Underground”, leading directly to something of a critical reappraisal of his work. At present, the BFI is in the process of restoring nine of Hitchcock’s silent films in readiness for a retrospective in 2012, which in the year of the Olympics will garner considerable international interest.

I think on reflection that it could be a good thing if the UK Film Council was merged with the BFI—I choose my words carefully. However, I hope that this will not lead to the current BFI becoming some type of junior partner within this cinematic coalition, as with clear overall leadership its current role could and should be kept intact and necessarily as properly funded as the UK Film Council, which I understand from Ed Vaizey’s announcement on Thursday stands to benefit from a well deserved multimillion-pound injection of financial support, just as the BFI faces an undeserved 15 per cent cut in funding.

Ideally, the BFI would become the guardian of film of the past, the present and the future—the Paul Newman Butch Cassidy role to the UK Film Council’s Robert Redford Sundance Kid, if you will. However, if the overall framework overburdens the BFI and then threatens its current work, the merger will be a disaster, whatever extra funding the UK Film Council in effect receives, as there will be no legacy to aspire to and no heritage to make. In the light of this, I call on the Government to look carefully at the balance of funding and to reappraise those cuts, which are aimed at the heritage of the national film industry.

We are still fighting the same ideological battles as 50 years ago, even though the stages for such battles might have changed. My father worked for the state-funded Crown Film Unit, a much respected quango that was set up to replace the GPO Film Unit, whose work of course included the celebrated “Night Mail”. What then happened in 1952 to the Crown Film Unit, fresh from its recent BAFTA and Oscar-winning triumphs? A newly elected Conservative Government abolished it, the reason cited being financial in a time of austerity. I hope very much that the BFI goes from strength to strength and that the Government will continue to support its important work.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I have a brief observation to make. We heard a very enthusiastic speech from the Prime Minister in recent days about regenerating the imaginative drive of British industry. We are good at the creative arts and we are good at universities. Why do we have this generalised bureaucratic approach to sweeping legislation instead of getting down to the task—the real discipline—of looking specifically at each of these sectors and the things that are happening in them and devising the strongest possible arrangements to support them in maximising their success? Their success is beyond doubt and it is absolute madness to have been through an episode in which the talent that had got together and that was fulfilling the job so convincingly has been undermined, demoralised and fragmented by what has been proposed. How on earth does this relate to what the Prime Minister was talking about at the weekend? I ask the Government, even at this late stage, not just to try to patch up what has happened and try to find some acceptable solution but to look at the whole thing again and ask how they can really ensure that they have the strongest possible and most dynamic arrangements in place to enable the film industry, and indeed the universities, to succeed as they should.

[Earl Cathcart]

My Lords, I was not going to speak in this debate, but two things strike me. Here, I ought to declare my interest in that, in my past life, I was the chairman of a film production and distribution company.

First, my gut feeling about the merger is that it would be much better to have one body speaking to the British film industry and combining all the functions of the two existing organisations. This would reduce overheads, produce greater efficiencies and allow the new body to focus on the important issues for the film industry—in other words, to be one strong voice for the British film industry. Before these amendments came before us today, I asked one or two noble friends who are in the business for their views. I am told that not all but many eminent practitioners think that the Government in this instance have got it just about right.

Secondly, I am not 100 per cent sure why these amendments are being discussed today in our deliberations on the Public Bodies Bill. I did not think that either the UK Film Council or the British Film Institute were public bodies. They are not statutory bodies, so as excellent and as passionate as this debate has been, surely it should have been conducted outside the confines of this Bill.

19:30

[Baroness Rawlings]

My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate with, as is so often the case in your Lordships’ House, contributions by dedicated and knowledgeable Peers who are passionate about their subject. I am grateful to those who introduced these amendments but I want to be clear from the outset that the Public Bodies Bill is not the right place to debate the abolition of the UK Film Council or the transfer of functions to the British Film Institute. The UK Film Council is a company limited by guarantee. The British Film Institute is a registered charity established by royal charter. Neither is a statutory body, so neither has a place in the Public Bodies Bill.

However, Amendment 67B, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Wills, and Amendments 77A and 85B, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson, Lord Wills and Lord Judd, would include the UK Film Council and the British Film Institute within Schedules 2, 4 and 5. Amendment 65A, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson, Lord Puttnam and Lord Wills, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, would create a duty for the Government to lay before Parliament a report following a merger under Clause 2.

I will consider these amendments together. In answer to the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, about recognition from Ministers of the success of “The King’s Speech”, as recently as last week the Minister, Ed Vaizey, praised the UK Film Council in a speech at the UK Screen Association. That is on public record. The Government remain absolutely committed to supporting the British film industry. The decision to abolish the UK Film Council should not be misconstrued as an attempt to undermine the industry. I urge noble Lords to consider the substance of our proposals before coming to conclusions as there is a certain amount of support for this merger even from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. While the UK Film Council is being abolished, its most important functions will be retained, many of which will move across to the British Film Institute. These functions include the distribution of lottery money, support for films in the regions, the media programme and the certification unit that is essential to film tax relief.

The noble Lord, Lord Wills, was rightly concerned that the British Film Institute’s research and statistics unit should be retained. I can assure him that we, as well as the industry, believe that that is critical. Discussions are progressing well between the BFI, Film London and the UK Film Council, and we are confident that the transfer in April will leave no gap in the service provided to the UK film industry. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is right that we are looking for the full transfer in April 2011. As referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, the DCMS is currently discussing with the industry and the BFI the solution to funding the research and statistics unit. My noble friend Lord Cathcart made a very valid point and he is absolutely right. I am most grateful to him for reminding us yet again that these bodies have no place in the Bill.

British film-making continues to have a bright future under this Government. The film tax credit, which is worth more than £100 million each year to the British film industry, will continue with the certification unit moving across from the UK Film Council to the British film industry. Lottery funding available for the industry will increase from the current £27 million to £43 million by 2014, an increase of more than 50 per cent. The success of films such as “The King’s Speech” shows that we can be proud of the country’s contribution to film-making and I was delighted that this contribution was acknowledged at last week’s Oscar ceremony, as well as at the BAFTAs and the Golden Globe Awards. I should like to add my congratulations to all those involved to those of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.

The noble Lord, Lord Wills, asked several questions. He asked whether talented staff will have a fulfilling future. We agree and would hope that they will. Transfer arrangements are currently the subject of due diligence discussions between the British Film Institute and the UK Film Council. He also asked about film exports, as did the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. Tough government decisions have had to be taken and priorities established but the UK Film Council continues to work with the industry to promote film exports. The noble Lord and my noble friend Lady Benjamin asked about responsibility for diversity issues. I can assure them that it is part of the fuller policy remit. The noble Lords, Lord Wills and Lord Triesman, asked about piracy and we understand their concern. The BFI does not represent the film industry on IP issues. The responsible agency for public policy is working with the industry.

We have had an interesting debate and I should like to remind your Lordships once again that these are not statutory bodies and should not appear in the Bill. However, I have taken note of the points and some of the constructive ideas. If I have not answered all questions asked by noble Lords I will of course take them back to the department. I should also like to remind your Lordships that the additional statutory reporting requirement is not feasible as it relates to a merger under Clause 2 of bodies which have no place in Schedule 2. I would therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. In some senses, this debate has proved to be exactly what we had hoped that it would when we put down the amendments. We did so in a spirit of discussion and debate, which I hope has not been misconstrued on the other side. It is clearly a probing amendment. You cannot reinstate that which should not be instated in the first place and you certainly cannot abolish it subsequently since it has already been abolished. So we were in somewhat of an Alice in Wonderland world. We expected to be caught out and indeed we were.

However, in so doing, the debate has been exactly as we had hoped it would be. There have been contributions from all around the House, which have covered all aspects of what we thought was an important issue. We have made the point that this is something that will not wait simply on some arbitrary definition of what is a statutory body and what is not. I said at the very beginning of my remarks—I am sorry that the Minister did not come back to this—that if the general point being made in this Bill is that bodies devolved from government to bodies whether statutory or not is an important feature of our constitutional hardwiring, why is it that we are not able to work into our system a method under which those bodies can be asked to report back to Parliament so that we can have the sort of discussion which we so patently have had today? That is a question which the noble Baroness might like to take back and think about as we move towards the Third Reading of the Bill.

Several extremely valuable points were made during the debate. I particularly enjoyed those made by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, which she has made to me on many occasions when I was in a position to do something about them. I suffered then and I think we have all suffered again today as we realise how bad we are about the diversity issues to which she drew our attention, and how much neglect there is in our overall concern about culture if we do not nurture our children. I wish the noble Baroness all the best in carrying on with putting these points forward. It may not be the case that the Danish model is the right one, but it is certainly something that we should be looking at, and I hope that the BFI will take it forward.

The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, was too modest when talking about his family’s experiences. I think that there is an Oscar lurking in there somewhere, along with other prizes, and we should celebrate that with him. He made the point exactly as one would expect: when we have something successful in the country—we had the Crown Film Unit that did fantastic work which is now being restored and reissued to audiences—when it is doing particularly well, we tend to chop it down on the grounds of cost.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh said that we always have to think about how to get started in the industry. It is not a traditional industry in the sense that you can join at the bottom and work your way up; rather it is one that is feast or famine. If you have a success you are able to build on that, or you may have a series of failures. What you have to do is create a context within which work can be supported and nurtured and in which new people can always be brought forward. Creativity lies in the innovation of the young, not in the successes of the old, and we have to make sure that we get that right.

My noble friend Lord Judd drew attention to the imaginative drive that permeates throughout many ministerial Statements these days. Why on earth can we not recognise that the creative economy is one of the places that we will get the returns we need? It must be backed with really sensible proposals that will take it forward and thus out of the traditional modes with which we have been trying to support it. My noble friend Lord Triesman made the important point that IP is the key to a lot of future creative activity and that those who try to abuse it are often linked into other criminal behaviour. We are going to be in serious trouble if we cannot think through how the rights to creative activities are being taken away from the creators up to the point where sometimes they will not invest in order to achieve the benefits that we would like from them.

All in all, we have had a particular debate. I felt that the Minister did not really pick up on what the excellent speech of my noble friend Lord Wills was about. My noble friend tried to say that while we are supportive of where we are, because we are going to have a merger between the UK Film Council and the BFI whether we like it or not, there are some good things to say about it. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, drew attention to the problems that can arise where a cultural body takes on a commercial wing. But the BFI has done production before and, I think, can rise to the challenge going forward. However, as my noble friend Lord Wills said, we now have a benchmark. We know what success means in this world. I recommend to Ministers that they should think carefully about where the UK Film Council took our film industry so that, when we are able to debate this issue again, we can think again about the benchmark and consider whether the changes that are being brought forward now are sufficient and can succeed in achieving a sustainable British film industry, something that all noble Lords will join me in saying that they want.

As I said, this is a probing amendment and I do not intend in any sense to embarrass either my own or any side by taking it to a vote. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 65A withdrawn.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.45 pm.

Sports Grounds Safety Authority Bill

Monday 7th March 2011 Lords Chamber

First Reading

19:44

The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Bill

Monday 7th March 2011 Lords Chamber

First Reading

19:44

The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Social Fund Maternity Grant Amendment Regulations 2011

Monday 7th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Motion to Resolve

19:45

Moved By

[Lord Touhig]

To move to resolve that this House regrets that Her Majesty’s Government have laid before Parliament the Social Fund Maternity Grant Amendment Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/100) at unnecessary speed and without providing more information on the impact on new mothers and children in low-income families; and notes with concern that the regulations will remove funds from some of the poorest families during the crucial early months of a child’s life.

Relevant document: 20th Report from the Merits Committee.

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Sherlock secured this debate and I pay tribute to her for doing so. However, it is with great regret that she has had to withdraw, and she has asked me to speak in her place. I agreed to do so willingly, but alas I fear that I will not execute the task as well as she would have done. I should also declare an interest as president of HomeStart in my former constituency of Islwyn.

The two poorest groups in our society are those at the extreme end of the age range—pensioners and young children—and the change the Government are making to the Social Fund Maternity Grant is an outright attack on young children born into some of the poorest families in Britain. Put simply, at present women receiving certain means-tested benefits can get a grant of £500 to help with the costs of a new baby. The Government intend to abolish this payment for the second and subsequent children. A woman who gives birth to a new baby will lose the grant if she already has another child aged under 16 in the household.

The Government are planning £9 billion of cuts in the tax and benefits system, and some £4 billion of those are going to come from child support. I believe that this shows that the Government are out of touch. They assume that parents need only to spend the grant to acquire a pram, a pushchair, a cot, baby clothes and all that is needed for a newborn child just once in a lifetime. I suppose they imagine that all these things can be stored away as the first child grows out of them in case another child follows, and they assume that this storage can go on for 16 years.

This is an attack on some 150,000 of the poorest families in Britain. The Government are taking this step without proper consultation and against the advice of well-known family support groups such as Gingerbread and the Social Security Advisory Committee. Yes, even the advice of the Social Security Advisory Committee, the independent body which provides impartial advice to the Government on these matters, is being ignored. The advisory committee has described the proposals to restrict the maternity grant as lacking a “coherently argued rationale” and has stated that they appear to run counter to Government policy to abolish child poverty by 2020.

The department responsible, the Department for Work and Pensions, has stated that:

“This change will undoubtedly cause hardship for some cases. However this will not impact on the child poverty figures”,

due to the fact that maternity grants are one-off lump-sum payments which do nothing to increase annual income. The department is known across Whitehall as DWP, which is also a word in Welsh—“dwp” means stupid and daft in the head. Anyone who actually believes that this measure will not impact on child poverty is not taking the issue seriously at all. Indeed, Gingerbread has said:

“The DWP fails to recognise the significant and negative impact that this measure will have on the ability of poor and low-income families to buy essential baby equipment. Single parents are more likely than couple families to be poor: 52% of children in single parent families grow up poor. If a single parent has just separated from a partner, they are likely to have experienced a drop in income. If they are pregnant, or later become pregnant and cannot claim the [grant] because they already have a child under 16, many will struggle to buy items such as a pushchair, cot and car seat. If they have fled domestic violence and have no belongings for themselves or their other child, this situation is [made even worse]. The impact is likely to be particularly great where there is more than a two-year gap between children”.

Gingerbread also points out that the,

“DWP mistakenly assumes that [the grant] will have been claimed for the first child”,

But the organisation’s helpline suggests that large numbers of people do not claim the grant for their child through ignorance or the complexity of the tax and benefits system.

The Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee of your Lordships' House said that the Government’s target of 24 January for the coming into force of the instrument in order for the change to take effect in April of this year,

“has severely curtailed both the time available for consultation and for Parliamentary scrutiny”.

Furthermore, the SSAC was able to consult for only nine days on this proposal—a dismally short period. Alas, this is becoming typical of the Government, who seem to view consultation and scrutiny as optional, rather than viewing them as mechanisms which can improve government proposals and mitigate their worst, ill-thought-out effects.

As the Merits Committee noted, no impact assessment has been provided to Parliament. Little information has been given on the costs of alternative policy options and the department had not explained why the option chosen was preferred. Again, this looks like policy made on the hoof for short-term political, rather than long-term welfare, considerations.

The Social Security Advisory Committee suggested that the way in which Government have alighted on some decisions as part of this policy change lacks reasoned explanation. The committee pointed to the way in which the Government had arrived at the exceptions to the new rules, and why the option to restrict to payments who are the only children under 16 in a family was chosen above the other options presented to them. The proposal is that if there is a child in the family under the age of 16, there is no entitlement to the maternity grant. The SSAC believes that,

“this is an unreasonably high threshold and should be set at a much lower age, possibly as low as five”.

This point is reiterated by the Merits Committee, which noted:

“The rationale for limiting eligibility to households where there is no child under 16 is not explained. While it is reasonable to expect some recycling of baby equipment among siblings, the SSAC points out that it seems unrealistic to think that parents of a fifteen year old would retain baby goods that long”.

My wife and I have four children, and there was a five-year gap between the birth of our third and fourth children. I can tell your Lordships that when the fourth child arrived we had to go out and buy a whole new lot of equipment.

The advisory committee states that,

“the changes to the rules for Sure Start Maternity Grants are based on an assumption that the payments are made on the basis of meeting additional expenses incurred by the purchase of new items regarded as necessary for a baby, and that they fail to recognise ongoing or recurrent costs such as the need for the mother to eat healthily or for the home to be kept sufficiently warm”.

This would suggest that this policy, like so many that the Government have put forward, has not been properly thought through.

One respondent to the advisory committee noted that,

“each pregnancy and preparation for a baby costs an average of £1,600, and that this estimate does not simply include the ‘hardware’ required but also additional heating and travel costs for hospital visits: so there are considerable costs that cannot be met by ‘recycling’ goods from a previous pregnancy”.

The Government have not properly considered what costs incurred for children apply to every child and cannot be mitigated by hand-downs. As a result, their proposal to restrict maternity grants to the first child looks increasingly muddled and will produce significant hardships for families across the country.

There will be an intervening period of eight to 12 months between the introduction of the new rules for maternity grants and the introduction of mitigating measures to extend Social Fund budgeting loans to include maternity items. The Social Security Advisory Committee said that,

“this would mean that many people will be left without any alternative means for meeting the additional expenditure incurred by a second or subsequent baby beyond going without or having to resort to high cost lenders”.

One of the most worrying aspects of the proposals is the lack of a safety net for those who lose their grant. While a loan facility will eventually be available, the changes are not being put in place at the same time. The mitigation measures will not come into effect until at least eight months after the cuts to maternity grants have been implemented.

The committee said that it was particularly concerned about this, stating:

“It would be a difficult enough step for someone who would have been entitled to an SSMG of £500, to go to having to apply for a budgeting loan for the required items. But it is an entirely different matter if there is no provision to be made at all within the benefits system and they were expected to borrow commercially instead. People eligible for an SSMG would be unlikely to have access to low-cost credit – indeed many would need to borrow at APRs in excess of 100 or even 200%”.

The advisory committee urged the Government to look at halving their budget for this grant and to look at the impact of other changes; for example, to housing benefit, health in pregnancy grant and tax credits. It said that no such evaluation of the rationale had been presented to them. Respondents to the advisory committee pointed out that the cuts in the maternity grant will cause hardships for families which may translate into additional costs for other bodies such as local authority social services departments and the NHS. The SSAC therefore concluded that a more tempered level of saving may be achieved than other outcomes would yield.

The committee also observed that the low-income families eligible to apply for the grant are those most likely to have been in temporary accommodation or in homes with cramped conditions, which would make it unlikely that they would have had places for long-term, regular storage of baby equipment. Anyone with a new child knows how much stuff children can generate as they grow up and grow out of their baby clothing and equipment. People living in cramped conditions simply cannot keep such things just in case they have more children. The policy ignores conditions in low-income families and the realities of their situations, quite possibly because too many in the Government have no experience of, or any concern about, people living in such conditions. Most concerning, it risks exposing children born into low-income families to poverty from the moment they are born. That simply cannot be right for the fourth-richest country on the planet. It is not morally right either.

Rather than listening to the SSAC, the body which is supposed to advise the Government on these issues, the Government have instead pushed ahead blindly and said that they have no plans even to review the policy. It is typical of the arrogance that this Government now display that they never seem to listen to reasoned arguments or objections from any outside source, but rather they assume that they are right and that everyone else is wrong.

The Merits Committee concluded:

“This instrument seems to have been inadequately planned and explained”.

It wisely suggested that your Lordships,

“may wish to press the DWP for a better explanation of why the other options suggested were not pursued and what the anticipated impact on new mothers and children in low-income families will be”.

I hope that the Minister has some encouraging answers.

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

My Lords, I support the Motion of Regret put so ably by my noble friend Lord Touhig. I shall speak very briefly and widen out the debate a little.

There has been a lot of discussion in your Lordships' House recently on early intervention. There have also been many reports recently, including one by Frank Field on child poverty and one by Graham Allen on early intervention. I thought and hoped that the Government would have understood the importance of spending now to save later.

During the recent debate on parenting of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I was greatly impressed by a statement from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. He cited the Graham Allen report on early intervention, which said that decades of expensive late intervention had failed. In his response, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hill, said:

“I hope that it is also fair to say that this Government, like the previous Government, recognise the importance of the early years in children's lives and development”.—[Official Report, 3/2/11; col. 1500.]

How true, but do the Government still recognise that?

This measure, cutting a grant to low-income families, may well contribute to both poverty and to poorer outcomes for children. It may not seem like much money, but it is to some people and some families generally. The loss of the money could affect the lives of not only the child or children—and some people have twins—but also affect the relationship between the parents. Stress can be created by poverty, and poverty affects relationships. It also affects maternal health, which is a key to good health and achievement in children.

20:00

My noble friend Lord Touhig has made all the main points about the illogicality of abolishing the grant for second and subsequent children where there is already a child under 16 in the household. He mentioned in particular—I emphasise this—that the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee pointed out that no impact assessment of this measure has been provided to Parliament and that three of the options considered in the Act paper published alongside the instrument would result in similar savings. The DWP has not explained why this option has been preferred.

There are all kinds of complications which do not seem to have been considered—for example, a family unit where the woman is expecting their first child but there is a child already from the man’s previous relationship. Such detail should have been considered. The measure has simply not been thought through and it works against the commitment to early intervention to support families and children by the Government. I support the Motion of Regret and I beg the Government to think again.

[Baroness Gale]

My Lords, I support the Motion of Regret of my noble friend Lord Touhig.

That word “regret” is important. The Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, in its devastating report of 3 February, made a number of points relating to the withdrawal of the Sure Start maternity grant for most pregnant mothers. One of the points it made is that the Office for National Statistics survey found that,

“less than 10 per cent of second and subsequent children were born more than five years after the first or subsequent child”.

The effect of this means realistically that the grant is now paid only for the first child because, if there are children in the family under 16, in no circumstances will the maternity grant be paid.

The Merits Committee also suggests that,

“The House may wish to seek clarification of why age 16 was chosen as the threshold as opposed to say age 5 or 10”.

I therefore ask the Minister why the age of 16 was chosen. It is highly unlikely, for example, that if there is a 15 year-old child in the household—or even a 10 year-old—any equipment from that child could be used for the new baby. The expenditure would be very like having a first child, but with no help whatever from this Government.

The charity Gingerbread, commenting on the emergency Budget of June 2010, said:

“A family having a second child could be over £1,200 worse off this year than last year. These cuts will be deepest for the most vulnerable families”.

The charity Family Action said,

“low income families will find it tough to meet the needs of their newborn children and families returning to work will be stung by cuts to tax credits and childcare costs. We know from talking to the new parents who access our services how vital these funds are in giving families and their children the best possible start in life. Now they’ll be on the back foot from birth, thanks to the Government’s policies”.

In his statement on the Social Fund Maternity Grant Amendment Regulations 2011—published in the Act paper—the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions says:

“Around 150,000 families in receipt of a qualifying benefit at the point they have a second or subsequent child will be affected by this measure. In order to help mitigate the effects for some of these families, the forthcoming Welfare Reform Bill will include a measure to open up the Social Fund budgeting loan scheme to enable loans for maternity items to be made available. However, due to the discrepancy in timing between the introduction of the changes to eligibility to Sure Start Maternity Grants in April 2011 and the date the provision in the Bill comes into force (expected to be early 2012), families will not be able to take advantage of the extended access to Budgeting Loans during this period”.

The Government saying that “families will not be able to take advantage” must be the understatement of the year.

This is the coalition Government’s timetable; they are in charge of it. They could do something about it but they have chosen not to. This means that there will be no government help available for women who are expecting babies between 11 April 2011 and some unknown date in 2012. What are these mothers expected to do? Do they go without? Do they go to a charity or to their church to see whether they can get some help? Perhaps they may be able to get a loan from a bank. If not, perhaps, as my noble friend Lord Touhig said, they may be able to take out a loan with some organisation where a very high interest rate will be charged. What a worry for a pregnant mother.

Of course, depending on the age of the first child, there may be some items that can be used, but there are always additional costs for every child and this can be a strain on a family budget. However, as things stand now, there is no chance of help from this Government. I ask the Minister to listen to the charities which have expertise in these matters and to reconsider what help can be given from April to the date when the Welfare Reform Bill will be enacted.

We know this legislation has been rushed through, allowing only nine days for consultation by the Social Security Advisory Committee, and without proper consultation and scrutiny it is lacking in evidence. I am not aware of any impact assessment and I wonder why there has not been one. I ask the Minister to take careful note of what has been said and the effect that this proposal will have on the families that once qualified for such support under a Labour Government but will no longer receive such support.

[Lord German]

My Lords, I should like to take a rounded view of these regulations and put them in the context of the activity of the Government in terms of poverty. There are some issues which noble Lords on the Benches opposite have raised which require some answers from the Minister and I shall raise one or two myself.

First, it is important to recognise that these regulations have the effect of providing a level of savings within the DWP budget—that is undeniable—and that these types of decisions are never easy. At face value, of course, this could be simply seen as yet another cost-saving exercise, which is the thrust of the previous three speeches. However, it should also be looked at in the broader context. I shall examine both sides of the issue in my contribution to the debate.

I preface my remarks by posing a question to the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, the mover of this Motion of regret. I shall not correct him on his Welsh mutations; I shall explain to him afterwards—

[Lord Touhig]

The “d” should be a “t”.

[Lord German]

Yes, the “d” should be a “t”.

The question is about the level of savings that he and his party are looking for in the public finances and whether they are put back into good order within five years or, as I understand it from his party, within seven years. Perhaps he can tell me because I have been struggling to find the answer to the question. What is the level of interest on the loan that the country now has and the debt that we have to repay if it is to be spread over seven years rather than five, which I think was his party’s policy? At the moment we have to repay £120 million a day in interest for the next five years. If we went for the seven-year position, what savings would we need to look at from within the budgets of all the departments in the country? I still fail to understand that. As we all know, it is easy to stand up and say, “Do not cut this or that”, if in the end the summation does not add up to the figure—which I understand is the position of the Labour party at the moment.

However, I recognise that this is part of a package designed to save money and that, if the circumstances for the country were appropriate, we would not have wanted to do this. If the finances were strong, I doubt whether this would have appeared on the horizon. Fundamentally, the judgment here comes down to the question of whether this particular set of regulations fits within the whole scheme of reforms and changes to our work and benefits regime, in the context of the economy as we find it. You cannot see one particular benefit set in isolation without considering the rest. Right from the beginning when the universal benefit regime was talked about in your Lordships’ House, and through the discussion and questions about it here, I have always been attracted by one of its fundamental aims—a fundamental aim of the whole revision of the benefits structure from its current complex base to something much more straightforward and simple—which is to lift people out of poverty. The impact assessment produced by the Government showed figures which, frankly, would have made everybody around this Chamber smile.

The principal aim of the universal benefit Bill and the new work programme is to lift people out of poverty. That programme itself requires investment: it has a £4.5 billion price tag. Part of that has to be funded from within the savings that can be made from the department, and part is coming from new money that the Treasury has made available. In making this change in these regulations, are we ensuring overall that the poorest and most vulnerable are being supported while helping to lift large numbers of our people out of poverty? That is the fundamental question against which you set these regulations. If the answer to that is yes, then, clearly in the context of that whole regime, you have to move forward upon that basis.

There are some problems and concerns, and some of them have been raised already. I echo some of them and pose a new one in questions that I hope the Minister will answer at the end. First, we have this interim period between the universal benefit Bill passing through your Lordships’ House and its becoming an Act in our country. In that interim period, the current interest-free loans will no longer be available. There is a danger that the people who find themselves put in most difficulty by these regulations will turn to high-cost lenders. What comfort at all can the Minister offer for where these people might turn in that interim period so there will be no difficulties for them? It is a short, one-off period before the new loan arrangements for purchasing, say, a cart, buggy and all those matters are in place.

Secondly, as has already been alluded to, what happens when a second child is born in a family and there has been no claim for the first child? You can imagine the circumstances where that might happen. Someone who is in work, has appropriate leave and reasonable funding behind them, might decide that it is not worth the effort, hassle or for other reasons—it might be that parents provide some of this equipment—and do not apply for the grant. Then perhaps there is a period of no work and when it comes to the second child it is difficult to find that sort of money. What happens when this is the first application within the family but the application is for the second child? Again, I would value an answer from the Minister.

20:15

My third question will have a much better answer than is the case under the current circumstances. What happens if you have multiple births—twins or triplets? As I understand it at the moment, if you have two children, you only get one grant. If you have twins at present, you get just one grant of £500 but, as I understand it, you will now be eligible for two grants. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that issue.

Turning back to the issue of where these savings will go, we have to look at these matters in the round. I have talked about the work programme and the universal benefit Bill. I would also like to look at the other issue relating to children, which is the child tax credit. I understand that there is going to be a recycling of £1.25 billion of savings back into the child credit system in the next financial year and just under £2 billion —£1.85 billion—in the year after. If the child tax credit is designed for anything, it is to enhance support to poorer children and families. Taken in the round, will these measures ensure that the poorest and most vulnerable in our society are protected? I am sure that few noble Lords feel entirely comfortable with these regulations, especially given the as-yet-to-happen benefits of the changes being put in place by the Government, to which some of these savings will contribute. However, we need to be certain in our own minds that the whole package, seen together, will help to lift people out of poverty and will protect those who are most vulnerable in our society.

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, I respond in part to what the noble Lord, Lord German, has just said. My noble friends have made a strong case for why this measure should not be made by the Government. The noble Lord makes a perfectly fair point: we are in a mess with our public finances and what else would we do? In these circumstances, political choices have to be made. The thing that worries me about the Government’s policies is that, yes, there is a welcome increase in the child tax credit, but if you put that on one side there is an accumulation of things that will hit very poor families particularly hard. We had a debate last year—it was one of the first debates that I spoke in when I arrived—on the child trust fund, which is being abolished. We know that the housing benefit changes will particularly affect poor families in rented accommodation in high-rent parts of the country; some of those might well be young families where there has been a separation and the only alternative is to move into high-rent property. We know that the Sure Start budgets are being preserved, but only in cash terms, and that there is quite a squeeze on them.

In terms of political priorities, the Government have decided to target poor families, I am afraid to say. That is morally very wrong. It belies the claim that in addressing the crisis—I do not underestimate the fact that we have a very serious public finance problem— we are all in this together. Frankly, the people who are being targeted are the people who do not have a strong voice, who perhaps are not very politically motivated and who do not often go to the ballot box, although they may do so a little more frequently from now on than they have in the recent past. None the less, they are people who do not have a record of voting in elections and they are easy game in political terms. That is what I find so disreputable in this targeting of poor families with cuts.

One thing that we have all learnt in the past 10 or 15 years from a lot of new evidence is that there is, first of all, a clear relationship between poverty and stress in the family and between stress in the family and child development. Many eminent experts have validated that relationship, but we are choosing as a result of this measure to increase the pressure on those poor families, which will lead to more stress and have a negative impact on child development.

Some people in the government parties think that if you face a choice of priorities it is better to spend the money on services than on financial transfers. There is a bit of that here and I think that it is one of the reasons why the Government decided to tackle the welfare budget. Of course, there are reforms in the welfare budget that we all want to see. I am not saying that there should not be any reform in the welfare budget, but it is wrong to characterise this kind of thing as a handout; it has a profound effect on opportunity in later life and is vital if we really believe in opportunity. All the parties in this Chamber say that they believe in equal opportunity but, if we believe in equal opportunity, focusing the available money on poor families and helping their children to get a good start in life is one of the most important things that as a society we can do.

[Lord Blackwell]

As I listen to this debate, I find myself completely out of sympathy with those proposing this Motion. It reminds me of attitudes that I thought we had moved past, of assuming that the state has an unlimited pot of money and that any spending is necessarily morally good. Of course, we all like justifying giving money to people, but the truth is that welfare has two sides to it. Every pound that we give to a family who are welfare recipients is a pound that we take in tax from another family who are having to bear the burden of supporting the first family.

A measure of welfare is, of course, an essential part of a modern society, but it is not a one-way street. We have to balance the amount of money that we spend on our welfare budget with the amount that we are prepared to take off other hard-working families who are not receiving these benefits. When people think about families spending additional money on new equipment for new children, they should spare a thought for the hard-working families who are also often poor but not in receipt of welfare benefits and who are not being given money to go out and buy a new buggy, cot or changing mat et cetera. Those people resent paying extra money in tax when they do not think it absolutely necessary that the recipients get it.

I would not and do not criticise the fact that there is the grant for first children, which is appropriate, but I do not accept the argument that the most useful way in which we could spend extra money taken in tax is to make this grant available for subsequent children. If we want to deal with equality of opportunity, I would much rather spend that money on education than give it to people to spend on buying a new buggy. We need to keep this in perspective and accept that there are two sides to every pound spent on welfare. It is not simply about taking money out of some endless pot owned by the state.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, for reminding us of some of the attitudes that still live strongly within the Conservative Party. I am astounded that no Member on those Benches leapt to their feet to dissociate themselves from those remarks.

I commend my noble friend Lady Sherlock for tabling this Motion. I know that she feels passionately about the issue and that it is only unforeseen circumstances, to which she has to attend, that prevent her from being here today. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Touhig for stepping into the breach and moving this important Motion and to my other noble friends for their contributions to the debate and for setting out so clearly why this, of all the Conservative cuts, is emblematic of the unfairness in the way in which the parties opposite have gone about reducing the deficit and in the political choices that they have made in doing so, as my noble friend Lord Liddle said. It is far from the case that we are all in this together, as the cumulative impact of their cuts falls hardest on women and children, as many commentators have demonstrated, and on the poorest families. Before I touch on that broader issue, I shall deal, first, with the anomalies in the amendment as it stands in its own terms and, secondly, with the manner in which it was introduced.

This grant was designed, first, to help low-income families—not all families, as it was targeted on those with very low incomes—with the essential expenditure that we all know is considerable around the time of a baby’s birth. Secondly, in a point not yet touched on tonight, the grant was made conditional on receiving advice from a health visitor or midwife to try to ensure that those women who particularly need maternal services but who often do not seek them, or do not seek them early enough, were introduced to antenatal services.

The amendment to the regulations, as we know, will restrict the grant from this April to low-income families where the baby is the only child under 16 in the household. If this grant has to be restricted, and I do not accept that that choice was inevitable, the threshold of 16 years for other children in the household is ridiculously high, for all the reasons that my noble friends have given. It will exclude families who, for example, contain older children from a previous relationship, a young sibling or another young relative of one of the parents. It will disproportionately affect larger families, including those who tend to feature in some minority ethnic groups. It will particularly hit poor families in overcrowded accommodation where the space to keep bulky equipment for years on end is well nigh impossible. The first question that the Minister has to answer tonight is on why the threshold of 16 years has been chosen. Why not, at the very least, accept the much more reasonable and understandable recommendation from the Social Security Advisory Committee’s consultation of five years? What is the rationale for 16 years?

The restriction of the grant will also mean that some of the most disadvantaged mothers will not now have to have that early appointment with a health professional and so will be less likely to access antenatal services when they should. Gingerbread has pointed out that many low-income single mothers have poor experiences of maternity services and are more reluctant to get involved with them. Research published last year by the Royal Society of Medicine shows that single mothers were less likely to have accessed antenatal care within 12 weeks of pregnancy, to have had a scan, to have had a postnatal check or to have initiated breastfeeding. This lack of early care has serious and long-term consequences for the well-being of their children. We know from the nurse/family partnership projects the long-term benefits in the quality of the parenting and the impact of that on positive child development and maternal well-being that follows from close engagement with antenatal and postnatal services.

20:30

The Government have said that other measures such as the Healthy Start voucher also involve a condition of talking to a health visitor, but the eligibility criteria for these vouchers are very different from the Sure Start maternity grant and many women will not qualify. If the Government persist with this amendment, what action do Ministers propose to take to bring these mothers into services at the right time and to protect the well-being of those unborn children? What will replace the mechanism of the maternity grant of connecting health professionals with the most disadvantaged women early in pregnancy?

The second issue, from which in my view those anomalies arise, concerns the manner in which the amendment was brought in. My noble friends have spoken about this. There was no impact assessment; no consultation to speak of, just over a week for the advisory committee to consult; no rationale for the threshold of 16 years; and no explanation of why, even if this needed to be changed and there was no alternative, no other options in changing the grant were taken forward.

A number of other options were available, any one of which would have mitigated the negative impact that this proposal will have. We know that 52 per cent of children in single-parent families grow up poor. The financial hardship of these families, exacerbated when children come along, will be further exacerbated by this measure as it stands. As my noble friend Lord Touhig has said, and I could not agree more, the DWP claim that the amendment will not impact on child poverty figures, because the grant is a lump sum and will not affect annual income, is, frankly, risible; it is the kind of Civil Service-speak that gives government a bad name.

Why were none of the alternative options accepted? What does the Minister think will be the impact on low-income families? Sadly, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the Government wanted simply to save the maximum amount of money without a great deal of concern about the consequences.

Finally, there is the broader issue. This proposal, although it is by far probably the worst, has to be considered alongside all the other cuts that the Government are making to services and support for families, especially for the poorest families. If we look only at government cuts to support for new parents, let alone for poorer families in general, we see that the cut in the Sure Start maternity grant is only one of a number: the abolition of the health in pregnancy grant; the abolition of the baby element of the CTC; dropping the planned toddler element to the child tax credit; axing contributions to the child trust fund completely, even for the poorest children; reducing the tax credit disregard; and reducing the percentage of childcare costs that can be claimed through working tax credit. The charity Family Action has estimated that these six measures alone will take away over £1,700 from poor parents during pregnancy and the first year of that child’s life.

On top of that, for families more generally, there is the freezing of child benefit; the freezing of working tax credit; the cutting of council tax benefit; the capping of income support for large families—I could go on. There are also the massive cuts in local authority funding, which has not protected Sure Start and many other local services on which poor families depend. I cannot believe, despite what the Minister may feel that he has to say this evening, that he can support this measure. It is mean, punitive and unnecessary.

I had hoped, particularly given the drubbing that they received in the Barnsley by-election, that we would at least see some Liberal Democrats speaking today to defend their position as champions of fairness. Sadly, though, we did not; the speech of the noble Lord, Lord German, was far from that. I hope that it is not too late for more Members opposite to support this regret Motion and to try to demonstrate that at least some of them have the interests of poor families at heart. I support the Motion.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, for bringing forward the Motion, which has given us a chance to discuss the issues. I have listened with great interest to the points that have been made around the House.

Before I go into specifics, I apologise for the fact that these regulations were laid very close to the date on which they came into force, and for the lack of courtesy this showed the House. I have asked officials in the Department for Work and Pensions to review where the processes broke down on this occasion so that we can avoid similar situations in future. I hope this will reassure Members that we have taken the criticisms seriously and are striving to ensure that Parliament always has at least 21 days to consider regulations. During the period of policy formulation there were some difficult and sensitive issues to be resolved about how we defined the family unit and what, if any, exceptions would apply. These may, on the face of it, appear to be straightforward changes. However, it was important that we got the policy right before pressing ahead with the regulations. I acknowledge that we underestimated the time that was needed to undertake this work, which is a lesson learnt for future policy development.

As women can claim the Sure Start maternity grant up to 11 weeks before their baby is due, it was necessary for the regulations to come into force on 24 January for them to apply to babies due on or after 11 April of this year. If they did not, we risked reducing the planned savings by around £1.4 million for each week the change was delayed. Any delay could have impacted on our wider reform strategy, which is to refocus resources from small, poorly targeted, ad hoc payments on to a wider package of ongoing support for those in greatest need, initially through changes to tax credits and the personal allowance, and in the longer term through universal credit.

In response to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Gale and Lady Hughes, I confirm that an impact assessment was published in January. I regret the misapprehension that has circulated. There were some criticisms of the extent of the impact assessment. In particular, it was thought that there was inadequate information on ethnicity. That was due to the fact that the data simply were not available for that piece of analysis. However, the impact assessment as a whole was available.

As noble Lords have already described, the amendment to the Social Fund Maternity Grant Regulations limits payment of the £500 grant made to low-income and benefit-claiming families to the birth of the first child only. It was announced as part of last year’s emergency Budget in June. The change will come into effect for all births on or after 11 April. It will also apply to adoptions and other similar arrangements. The previous policy, under which a family could receive a grant of £500 for each child, was a generous one. It was also expensive and poorly targeted. It took no account of the number of children the family had already or of the fact that families, whatever their income, do not buy new items for each subsequent child. Our new approach is the most equitable way of providing support to low-income households with a new child. This was one of a range of measures needed to reduce the deficit we inherited from the previous Government, which, as my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer commented at the time, is the largest budget deficit of any economy in Europe, with the notable exception of Ireland.

The urgent need to manage the deficit has presented a series of difficult choices. We have not shirked from this responsibility. As a result we are dealing decisively with the country’s record debts, planning for the future, making sure that work pays, while at the same time remaining committed to protecting the most vulnerable in society. The decision to restrict the Sure Start maternity grant to the first child was not an easy choice. We believe, however, that the new policy targets support to those families who are starting from scratch, without any baby clothes or equipment, and so for whom the one-off costs are highest. The reason we have structured it so that the payment goes to the first child—this picks up the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes—is because in this way we ensure that the mother will receive antenatal health advice and is connected to those services at the beginning of the building of her family.

The intention for this grant—picking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig—was never to cover all the costs of healthy eating. It was related to maternity items and associated costs of having a new baby. The Healthy Start vouchers, which remain in place, are designed to cover that requirement.

My noble friend Lord German asked a series of questions on how the structure works. Currently, a family receives a payment for each child in a multiple birth. Under the new structure, a multiple payment will be made if the first birth is a multiple birth but not if a subsequent one is. My noble friend asked what would happen when a second child was born but there was no claim associated with the birth of the first one. The grant would not become available under those circumstances given the structure that we have.

We are mindful that this change may mean that some low-income families need to borrow to cover certain costs associated with the birth of the second or subsequent child. To protect the poorest from the risk of high cost or even illegal borrowing, my honourable friend the Minister for Pensions has included provisions in the Welfare Reform Bill, which is in another place, to extend access to budgeting loans for maternity items, which are currently exempt. This will ensure that the poorest households have access to interest-free borrowing. I hope that noble Lords will support this important measure when it reaches this House.

As noble Lords have pointed out, we recognise that there will be a gap of around nine months between the point at which Sure Start maternity grants are restricted and Royal Assent of the Welfare Reform Bill. However, families will continue to have access to existing financial support. For example, budgeting loans are already an important source of financial support to the most vulnerable families when they face unexpected financial pressures. Currently, people are able to apply for a loan for a broad range of needs, including new or replacement furniture, household items and clothing. While maternity items are specifically exempted from the current budgeting loan scheme, families expecting a new baby may require funding for items that fall within the broad categories that are currently met by a payment. I would encourage people to use this scheme in this period, where appropriate.

20:45

In addition, community care grants will continue to be available to support the most vulnerable families in difficult circumstances. For some, this may be around the time that their baby is born; for example, a new mother who leaves a violent relationship and needs help to set up a new home may be eligible for a grant. Healthy Start vouchers will continue to be available to expectant mothers and families on low incomes to help with the cost of maintaining a healthy diet for mothers and young children. Pregnant women receive one voucher per week worth £3.10; families with babies aged under one receive two vouchers per week worth £6.20; and one voucher per week worth £3.10 is available for each child aged between one and four.

We must not lose sight of the fact that this change is needed because of the deficit position. Restricting Sure Start maternity grants in this way will make savings for the Exchequer of £73 million a year. Other options that would have produced similar savings were of course considered. One option was to reduce the payment to £250 for each child. However, we took the view that it was preferable to provide a more substantial contribution toward the costs associated with a first baby than to spread the available funding more thinly. As I have said, paying a grant for every baby is neither well targeted nor the best use of the limited resources available. Another option was to restrict payment to those in receipt of an income-related benefit. This option was discounted because it would penalise low-income working families and would be out of kilter with the principles underpinning wider changes to the welfare system.

As I mentioned earlier, there were a few tricky policy issues that we took longer than expected to consider and resolve. The first thing to clarify was how the policy should apply to different family compositions—that is to say, whether grants should always be available for the first child a woman has or is expecting, or whether to take account of other children in the household, including, for example, a partner’s child from a previous relationship who lives with the couple and for whom they have responsibility. We concluded that the fairest solution was to look at the make-up of the family unit as a whole. Given the purpose of the grant, it seemed that basing eligibility on whether there was already a child under 16 in the household would ensure consistency, whatever the family circumstances. The regulations, however, contain an exception for teenage mothers who are dependent on their parents. In a scenario where the mother’s siblings are under 16, this will not exclude the teenage mother from receiving a grant.

Secondly, as noble Lords know, the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Merits Committee have questioned why the grant is available only when there are no other children in the household under the age of 16 rather than, say, 10 or five. This point was picked up by the noble Baroness, Lady Gale. In response, I would say that setting the threshold at the under-16 mark is consistent with the definition of a child that is used generally within the benefits system. I hope your Lordships will agree that a policy based on the family provides a fairer outcome than a strict interpretation of a first child.

Sure Start maternity grants are provided in recognition of the financial difficulties experienced by parents on income-related benefits and certain tax credits. They are one-off lump-sum payments that do not increase annual income or improve long-term outcomes. I recognise that around 150,000 families a year will no longer be eligible for this grant. This is an inevitable consequence of the need to make savings. However, there was a balance in the Budget and the spending review which took away some elements and added others. Among those that were added were a big increase above inflation for the child element of child tax credits and personal tax allowance. Clearly, in the years to come, there will be very substantial increases in universal credit. Overall, the net impact on child poverty of all the measures has been neutral.

As Frank Field said in his recent report:

“It is family background, parental education, good parenting and the opportunities for learning and development in those crucial years that together matter more to children than money, in determining whether their potential is realised in adult life”.

The Government can better spend their money elsewhere. The best way to tackle poverty is to address its root causes. We want to give every child a fair start in life through their early years and schooling, which is why we have introduced the fairness premium, worth £7.2 billion, to support the poorest at every stage.

I shall concentrate on what the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, called the “profound effect” of these contributions. The blunt truth is that, despite substantial increases in this grant and the introduction of the health in pregnancy grant, there has been no change in birth-weight, which is a primary measure of maternal health. There has been no perceivable impact in that area of putting in money in that piecemeal way.

I turn to the point made by my noble friend Lord German about tackling poverty in a coherent way. We are designing the most radical transformation of the benefits system with the universal credit. As the impact assessment showed, it will take 950,000 people out of poverty by injecting a gross figure of £4.6 billion a year every year, once the whole system is in place, to the people who need it most. It will be properly and coherently targeted, looking after people right the way through, and not with bits and pieces of money directed where it is thought best. It will be a coherent structure but, to achieve that, we have to start chipping away at the bits and pieces. That is the difference in the policy that we have introduced. We are fully committed to achieving the goal of eradicating child poverty by 2020, and we shall set out our proposal for doing so in March. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his Motion.

[Lord Touhig]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in what has been a very good short debate. I especially thank my noble friends Lady Massey, Lady Gale, Lord Liddle and Lady Hughes for their important contributions. I am very sorry that we were unable to convince the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell. I do not think that £4 billion of cuts in child support, hitting the poorest in our community, is defensible. The noble Lord, Lord German, might have taken issue with my use of the Welsh word “dwp”, but then of course he is not a man from the Gwent valleys. He seemed a little uncomfortable defending Tory cuts. I have only one word to say to him and his colleagues on the Liberal Benches, and that word is “Barnsley”.

The Minister was right to offer an apology at the start, because there has been a failure in proper communication and consultation on this measure. However, I think that the most disadvantaged in our society need to know that some people are on their side. The great socialist, James Maxton, said that poverty is man-made and is therefore open to change. I think that one way to demonstrate that it is open to change is by testing the opinion of the House tonight.

20:54

Division 1

Ayes: 112

---

Labour: 90
Crossbench: 15
Bishops: 1
Independent: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 149

---

Conservative: 94
Liberal Democrat: 47
Crossbench: 4
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Monday 7th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Committee (8th Day) (Continued)

21:06

Schedule 2 : Power to merge: bodies and offices

Amendment 66

Moved by

[Lord Whitty]

66: Schedule 2, page 18, leave out lines 6 to 8

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, this is genuinely a probing amendment, and I shall not spend a lot of time on it. I suppose the probe could be distilled to the question: why? The Central Arbitration Committee and the Certification Officer vaguely operate in the same area of life and are indeed serviced by the staff of ACAS, but they do very different jobs. One of them is effectively an arbitrator and the other is a regulator. It is not normal to confuse the two roles. Indeed, confusing the two roles in other fields is generally frowned upon, particularly in the area of regulation where the role of the regulator as against the role of the ombudsman is kept very distinct. They are slightly different in that the CAC acts as an arbitrator between trade unions and employers, in the main, and in some specified statutory functions, whereas the certification officer effectively regulates the internal affairs of trade unions, employers’ associations and other friendly societies.

The fact that they are drawn from two bits of the secretariat of ACAS does not mean that the two secretariats can be merged without causing some difficulties. The cost saving seems to me to be negligible, if it is positive at all. Inside information tells me that it might save one photocopier and possibly a fax machine as well, but that is likely to be offset by the increased cost of having two headings on the notepaper for the new organisation, the name of which has presumably yet to be devised.

My more serious point is that there is a potential conflict of interest here unless the two secretariats remain seriously Chinese-walled. Somebody who is dealing with a dispute between a trade union and an employer should not be the same person who is dealing with an issue between a trade union and one of its members. Unless those two duties are kept separate, there is a potential or apparent conflict of interest. This has worked perfectly well hitherto, and there have been no great hiccups. The two organisations perform different roles, and I do not see the point. Perhaps the Minister can explain. I beg to move.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I think my noble friend has said it all. I am grateful to him for raising the proposed merger of these two bodies. Here we have two small but very important organisations that deal with related areas of law but are distinct in their functions. As my noble friend said, one is a regulator and one is an arbitrator. It is fair to say that everybody who knows the two organisations, the people involved and their work is bemused about why they are being merged. They wonder whether it is just a paper exercise in order simply to decrease the number of quangos. The cost savings are potentially very small. I will be grateful if the Minister will tell me what costs will be saved. My noble friend made a point about the separation that must exist between the two functions. It is extremely important that there should be walls, be they Chinese or otherwise, and we need to know that they will exist if the two bodies are merged.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank the noble Lord for moving this amendment. He very effectively described the functions of both bodies. They have both existed for many years, and both operate in the sensitive area of trade union and industrial relations law. I stress that the Government value their roles. They are both expert in their respective fields, and they both enjoy solid reputations for impartiality. The similarities do not end there. They both undertake judicial functions, they have a shared understanding of judicial procedures, their officeholders and support staff both possess detailed knowledge of trade unions and of industrial relations more broadly. Both bodies are relatively small and are both housed in the same building. They both receive administrative support from ACAS—the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. There is therefore already significant linkage between the two bodies, and the Bill will take that process a stage further by merging them. Some efficiency savings will be produced as a result, but I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, that they are not likely to be huge. The total budget costs for both organisations are about £1.25 million, so the efficiency savings will not be huge, but there will be some. In particular, their support staff could be deployed more flexibly to meet the peaks and troughs of case loads.

A merger would also simplify the institutional landscape and avoid any potential confusion in the eyes of users about their respective roles. Therefore, the Government consider that a merger is advantageous to all concerned. A merger will not affect the underlying law which these bodies help to enforce. I should add that the Government have no plans as a consequence of this merger to change the various rights and duties embodied in trade union law. Our intention is to ensure that the merger will not affect the experience of persons, be they individuals, unions or employer groups, who currently use the services of these bodies. In particular, we want to maintain the same procedures which the CAC and the CO currently apply when considering their respective cases. BIS, which has a lead responsibility for these two bodies, has already discussed the potential merger with the CAC, the CO and ACAS, and has sought the views of the TUC and the CBI. We believe that we have reached an understanding on how a workable merger can be achieved.

In summary, there is a strong case for these two small bodies to be merged. We believe that this can be achieved without prejudicing in any way the performance of their important and sensitive duties, and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Whitty]

Well, my Lords, that was a bit thin. The Government are keeping the functions of the two organisations, which they recognise are distinct. The organisations already have good administrative support and operate quite sensibly, and there is virtually no cost saving, if any. The one point that he made with which I disagree is that the users of those organisations know perfectly well what they are for, and they are distinct. If a member has a complaint about his trade union, he does not want an arbitrator, he wants someone to tell that trade union that it has been acting against its own rules in the way in which it has dealt with him, whereas the CAC is in essence an arbitrator. The Government wish to make this tidier, and BIS wants to cross another organisation off the list. I am not going to make a big point about this, but the reality is that there is no rationalisation, no overlap and no administrative saving. There is, however, a lingering doubt that there might be some conflict of interest when the noble Lord talks about rationalising the role of the two secretariats. That might come back and bite us, although the probability of that happening is fairly low. Nevertheless, it is still there, and the appearance of a Chinese wall will at least be necessary, in which case any administrative rationalisation will be even less. I will not press this amendment tonight and I will not press it again, although I do think that the Government’s argument is a bit thin. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 66 withdrawn.

21:15

Amendment 66A

Moved by

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

66A: Schedule 2, page 18, leave out lines 9 to 11

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I, too, will be brief. In moving Amendment 66A, I do not oppose the Government’s decision to merge the Gambling Commission and the National Lottery Commission. Indeed, I strongly support that for reasons I will explain. I believe that it would be helpful for the Committee to hear more about the Government’s plans for the regulation of gambling. The suggestion that the National Lottery should be regulated by the Gambling Commission first surfaced in the report of the Joint Scrutiny Committee on the draft Gambling Bill published in April 2004. I had the privilege of serving on that committee, along with seven other Members of your Lordships’ House, two of whom I am delighted to see in the Chamber—the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and my noble friend Lady Golding.

I recall that the committee spent a considerable amount of time considering whether there should be a single regulator. The Joint Committee heard evidence in favour of the proposition from a variety of witnesses, including the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which stated that,

“it is … vital that the Gambling Commission should regulate all types of gambling, including spread betting and the National Lottery”.

The then Government, in the form of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, said to the draft scrutiny committee that,

“there are benefits in plural regulation rather than having a single regulator”.

My much-missed friend, the late Lord McIntosh of Haringey, added that,

“the principal reason why we did not have the National Lottery coming under the Gambling Commission was that the National Lottery Commission has an additional objective of maximising the return to good causes, whereas the Gambling Commission has the three objectives of excluding crime, [promoting] fairness, and protecting the vulnerable”.

I think that I speak for most members of the Joint Scrutiny Committee if I say that we found this last argument a little hard to follow. Ever since the National Lottery was introduced in the mid-1990s it has enjoyed a protected and somewhat contradictory regulatory environment where its regulator is supposed to reconcile the two conflicting aims of protecting players and at the same time encouraging them to spend as much as possible on lottery products so as to fulfil their remit of maximising the return to good causes. In the end, we came to the conclusion expressed in paragraph 126 of our report, which states:

“The Committee is attracted to the idea of a single regulator, and takes the view that there would be distinct advantages for the National Lottery if it were to be included within the remit of the Gambling Commission rather than excluded from it as proposed in Clause 222 of the draft Bill. We are not convinced that the proposed structure will ensure consistency of approach across the gambling sector, particularly on key issues such as problem gambling and player protection”.

How very interesting that this Government have come to the same view.

However, I am bound to ask the Minister whether the Government have thought through all the issues. Have they, for example, decided that there is no longer the need for a statutory body which has within its remit the encouragement of people to spend more on lottery products so as to maximise the return to good causes? If that is what they are saying, I would have no problem with that as I have always taken the view that it is the job of a lottery operator rather than the state to promote lottery gambling. But that is a significant change of policy to which we will need to return to debate it at greater length. Where they would get into real difficulty is if they gave the Gambling Commission the job of promoting the lottery as well as regulating it. I should like to be reassured that that is not what they are planning.

I should make clear again that I am not opposed to the merging of the National Lottery Commission and the Gambling Commission. I just want to be assured that Ministers have thought through the consequences, as I believe we did on the Joint Scrutiny Committee seven years ago, and that they have a clear idea of how these potentially conflicting interests can be reconciled. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, 72 per cent of the population gambled in the past year, so it is important that we get the regulation of gambling, whether it is through the National Lottery or at a casino, right. I took part as a Back-Bencher in the passage of the Gambling Act through your Lordships’ House with particular reference to the consequences for children and young people, which is why I am here today.

The Gambling Commission has been a great success as our regulatory body for most, if not all, gambling. As my noble friend said, it regulates betting, bingo, casinos, slot machines and lotteries, but not spread betting or the National Lottery. Its aims are to keep crime out of gambling, to ensure that gambling is conducted fairly and openly and to protect children and young people. Like my noble friend, I have some questions to ask.

The first question is to do with reconciling the contradictions in the proposal in relation to a body such as the National Lottery Commission, which promotes the success of the National Lottery in order to ensure that it makes a great deal of money for good causes but is also there to safeguard people from the dangers of gambling.

The Gambling Commission does three things extremely well and I should like to know what will happen to them in any new organisation. The commission is responsible for the Responsible Gambling Fund and the Gambling Research, Education and Treatment Foundation, both of which are relatively new bodies. The bulk of the money from the Responsible Gambling Fund goes to the work of GamCare, which does a very important job in helping people and families with gambling problems. I should like to know whether the work of GamCare will be jeopardised. The GREaT Foundation raises the required funding to support the work of the Responsible Gambling Fund. What will happen to these bodies under the new regime?

My third question concerns what will happen to the British Gambling Prevalence Survey, which has been an important spotlight that the Gambling Commission has shone on the gambling habits of the nation. It tells us who is gambling, how they are gambling and what the dangers are. I would be interested to know what is going to happen to that survey.

I started by being concerned, as I was while the Gambling Bill was going through this House, about the protection of the young. One of the great successes of the Gambling Act 2005 has been the introduction of age verification technology, which is part of the protection making online gambling that much safer for children and young people. I know that the National Lottery has the same sort of age verification safeguards, so I am reassured by that, but I would like to think that any new body would take heed of the need to protect children and young people from new technology as it advances in terms of gambling.

[Baroness Rawlings]

My Lords, Amendment 66A moved by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, would remove the Gambling Commission and the National Lottery Commission from Schedule 2 and therefore retain the existing arrangements of two separate bodies. As the previous Administration had announced their intention to merge the two commissions in its last Budget on 24 March 2010, I am surprised that there should be a challenge to the proposal now. The Government are committed to increasing the accountability and reducing the number and cost of public bodies. We believe that merging the Gambling Commission and the National Lottery Commission will help to achieve this aim while preserving the appropriate and effective regulation of both sectors.

The National Lottery Commission is a non-departmental public body responsible for licensing and regulating the National Lottery, including protecting the interests of its participants and maximising the amount of money available for good causes. The Gambling Commission is an NDPB responsible for regulating commercial gambling, along with providing advice to central and local government on gambling and its regulation.

The new body, to answer the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, will retain the existing functions of both commissions and will be well placed to advise on gambling and National Lottery matters. It will make co-ordination of regulation easier and will facilitate greater understanding of gaming and technological developments. Both bodies worked with the department to develop the business case for the merger. The chairmen and chief executives of both bodies discussed it with the Minister for Tourism and Heritage before it was agreed. The department has set up a project board to take forward work in relation to the merger, and the chief executives of both bodies sit on it. We estimate that the merged body will be in place from summer 2012, with some co-location of the bodies in advance of that.

The Government believe that, over time, the merger will generate cost savings and more efficiencies, which should help to reduce pressures on existing sources of funding, including fees. For example, we anticipate that by far the greater part of the NLC’s annual budget for accommodation will be saved. Specifically, the Government expect the new merged body to manage on the same administrative budget as the existing Gambling Commission. On whether GamCare will be protected and on the future of the British Gambling Prevalence Survey, I will write to the noble Baroness. In light of my explanation, I should like the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I made it clear in my opening sentence that the purpose of tabling the amendment was not to challenge the decision to merge the two bodies; the point of a probing amendment is to give us the opportunity to ask some questions. The main question that I asked was whether the new body would have the function of promoting the National Lottery in the way that the National Lottery Commission has had till now—in other words, encouraging people to spend money on it at the same time as regulating it and attempting to protect the public. I say with great respect to the Minister that she has not answered that question. If she is writing to my noble friend in response to her question about GamCare, perhaps she will be kind enough to write to me as well. Certainly at this time of night, and on an issue that I agree is not absolutely central to the Bill, although it is still important, I do not intend to press the amendment.

[Baroness Rawlings]

I will of course write to the noble Lord. I apologise for not giving him the information earlier.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but look forward to hearing from the Minister in due course.

Amendment 66A withdrawn.

Amendment 67 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendments 67A and 67B not moved.

Schedule 2 agreed.

Clause 3 : Power to modify constitutional arrangements

Amendment 68

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

68: Clause 3, page 2, line 11, at beginning insert “Subject to section (Restrictions on ministerial powers),”

Amendment 68 agreed.

Amendments 69 to 69A not moved.

Debate on whether Clause 3 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, this debate relates to the order-making power given to Ministers in relation to the constitutional arrangements of the bodies listed in Schedule 3. I am concerned that very considerable power is given to Ministers in this Bill, and this is an example of that.

Perhaps I may reiterate a point that I made when we started scrutinising this Bill some few weeks ago: we have no objection in principle to a proper review of the public bodies contained in the Bill and to their abolition if they have reached the end of their useful life. Nor do I doubt the need for such bodies to be appropriately accountable to Ministers. However, there also has to be some distance and independence. There is clearly no point in having a public if it does not feel that it has independence. That is why I am worried about the effect of the power in Clause 3. It has the potential for a chilling impact on the behaviour of boards. If boards are aware that, on a whim, a minister can get rid of the chair and members through an order-making power, that would have an undue influence on their behaviour. We will come later to a similar amendment to Schedule 4 in relation to the financial arrangements.

21:30

One would be more reassured if the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, were able to give some comfort about the general architecture of the Bill. I refer him to two points. First, it will be interesting at some stage to have the Government’s view on what have come to be known as sunset clauses. In other words, if this provision related to an individual body for a limited length of time and then ceased to apply to that body, I would be much more relaxed about the provisions. Equally, we will debate on Wednesday the issue of another order-making power. The noble Lord will have seen the latest report of the appropriate Select Committee in relation to his amendments, but at this stage I would like to give him an opportunity to explain why this schedule is in the Bill. He will understand that my attitude towards it will be shaped by the eventual architecture of the rest of the Bill.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for this opportunity. We are making progress in a direction with which he will be content and with which I am content. Perhaps I can bring together the various changes that have been made as a result of our amendments.

As the noble Lord rightly points out, this group of amendments deals with Clauses 3 and 4. Clause 3 gives a Minister the power to make provision, by order, to alter the constitutional arrangements of any body or any office listed in Schedule 3—but only those listed in Schedule 3. Of course, now that Schedule 7 has gone, the list is finite. For example, in the case of the Theatres Trust, we intend to do away with the Secretary of State’s role in the appointments process, which will increase the body’s independence as it moves towards charitable status.

The noble Lord referred to Clause 4, which is a parallel clause with different purposes—it concerns funding arrangements—but is structured in the same way. Clause 4 confers on the Minister the power to make an order modifying the funding arrangements of a body or office listed in Schedule 4. In this regard—I am giving examples which I hope demonstrate the purpose to which these clauses will be put—the Government intend to reform the Drinking Water Inspectorate by allowing it to recover its costs from the water industry, bringing this body into line with the existing principle that it is the businesses which benefit from regulation, not the taxpayer, who should bear the cost of the regulation. The previous Government concurred with this approach.

In considering these clauses as a whole, I understand that the noble Lord is primarily concerned that these powers could be used to restrict the independence of bodies. Indeed, the noble Lord said that one of his anxieties was that, by granting Ministers the power to amend the governance or funding arrangements of bodies, the Bill would enable Ministers to threaten the position of chairs or board members who have displeased the Government, or constrain the ability of a body to carry out its work by squeezing its functions. While I seek to reassure the House that the Government have no intention of acting in such a manner, I understand the sentiment behind these concerns. However, the appropriate way to deal with them is to place appropriate limits on the power of Ministers to act, both within the Bill and elsewhere, rather than to abandon the powers altogether.

As with all the principal order making powers in the Bill, the uses of Clauses 3 and 4 are restricted by the conditions described in Clause 8 and elsewhere. Under the proposed government amendments, Ministers would be required to set out the rationale for an order in an explanatory memorandum when laying a draft order before Parliament. I explained that in a previous debate on an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Ministers would thus be held accountable for the use of the power in relation to the particular considerations in the Bill, including the effectiveness of public functions. A change in funding which, for example, would leave a body unable to carry out its public functions properly would be unlikely to meet this objective. I cannot envisage a situation in which a Minister would wish to make such an order. I can further assure the House that in light in particular of today’s third report from the Delegated Powers Committee, the Government are considering whether it is necessary to clarify Clause 8 further. I hope that that provides some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in light of his previous amendments.

It is also important to remind the House that we are continuing to engage with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and other noble Lords in relation to his Amendment 175, with the intention of ensuring that the safeguards applying to the order-making powers in the Bill include appropriate protection for the necessary independence of public functions. Furthermore, as I have said, the removal of Schedule 7 from the Bill will ensure that no body or office can be listed in Schedules 3 and 4 and be subject to the powers there unless its inclusion has been approved by Parliament through primary legislation. I hope that this change to the structure of the Bill provides the House with a strong reassurance that full parliamentary scrutiny will be central to the operation of these powers.

In addition to the protections present and planned for the Bill itself, there are safeguards which rightly limit the power of Ministers. First, in terms of appointments and governance, chairs and board members are in most cases appointed in line with rules issued by the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments. This ensures that appointments are made on merit following an open and transparent process. The Government are further committed to strengthening the role of Select Committees to scrutinise major appointments, giving Parliament an effective voice in the process. In addition, for certain appointees who must be demonstrably independent of Ministers, the terms and conditions or relevant statute will provide safeguards to reinforce the officeholder. This might include pre-appointment scrutiny by Parliament or appointing certain officeholders on a single, non-renewable term so that the decisions and actions of those officeholders are not, and are not perceived to be, motivated by a desire to be reappointed. Examples of office holders listed within the Public Bodies Bill that fall within these categories include the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the chairs of regulatory bodies such as Ofcom.

I wish to emphasis the Government’s position that it is right for Ministers to have a role in public appointments and the governance of public bodies. The Commissioner for Public Appointments code of practice clearly states that the ultimate responsibility for making public appointments rests with Ministers. Ministers should remain answerable and accountable for the overall performance of public bodies and have the ability and authority to intervene if a body is failing. This must include the ability, in extreme cases, to remove board members. The balance that the Government must strike, met by the safeguards I have described, is to retain this principle of accountability while ensuring that public bodies are able to act independently of ministerial influence where required.

That is also the case in relation to the powers in Clause 4, which relates to funding mechanisms. The Government’s position is that ultimate decisions on the allocation of funding must rest with Ministers, who are ultimately accountable for the delivery of public service by central government and for public expenditure within their spending review settlements. It is for precisely that reason that it is against Cabinet Office rules, for example, for public bodies to use public funds to employ PR or marketing consultants to lobby government or Parliament for more funding. We could not support amendments to Clause 4 which would risk undermining that principle. It is also right that Ministers have the assurance that public money is being spent appropriately. In the case of most NDPBs, Ministers and departments must be consulted by public bodies before they exercise certain financial powers such as borrowing or capital expenditure. We believe that the powers that Clause 4 would confer on Ministers are entirely in keeping with this position; they do not establish a new status quo but rather reaffirm ministerial accountability for public expenditure.

It is taxpayers who ultimately fund public bodies in most cases, and I am confident in suggesting that the citizens of this country expect government to account for its use of their money, no matter by whom it is eventually spent. On this basis, I believe that the removal of Clause 3 or 4 from the Bill would be a disproportionate measure, as it would remove Ministers’ ability to take forward the type of changes that I described earlier and instead require primary legislation for such changes, regardless of their nature. As well as preventing or delaying sensible reforms, the removal of Clauses 3 and 4 would run contrary to the principle of ministerial accountability for the performance of public bodies and their use of taxpayers’ money. While I agree with noble Lords who have highlighted the need to safeguard the independent delivery of some public functions, I believe that this can and should be achieved through other means, such as the safeguards within the Bill and outside it.

I am sorry to have taken some time over this, but this explanation probably goes to the heart of many of the concerns that noble Lords have expressed about how the Bill empowers Ministers and the balances that we seek to set within the architecture of the Bill to ensure that this is not abused. On this basis, I contend that both clauses should stand part of the Bill. In the light of the reassurance that I have supplied, I seek the noble Lord’s support on this. Furthermore, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, whose amendment is I think included in this grouping, not to press his amendment.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for a full response to the issues raised. He went a very long way to reassuring me about how this will operate. I do not disagree with him when he says that ultimately Ministers must be accountable. I very much agree with that, but it is also my contention that there is very little point in setting up these bodies unless they, too, have a degree of independence of judgment. The concern has always been that some of the clauses in the Bill will hang like a sword of Damocles over those bodies and inhibit their independence. I take very much the point that the Minister raised that one critical issue here is Clause 8 and the matters to be considered by Ministers when making an order under Clauses 1 to 6. I know that there is a lot of discussion taking place about this, and I hope that there will be a positive outcome. It also takes place in the context of Clause 10 and the order-making procedure. We will come to that in a couple of days’ time. But the Minister has reassured me to a very great extent tonight on this particular matter.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed.

Schedule 3 : Power to modify constitutional arrangements: bodies and offices

Amendment 70

Moved by

[Lord Judd]

70: Schedule 3, page 18, line 21, leave out “Broads Authority.”

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I am not quite sure what has happened to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I hope that nothing awful has happened to him at the hands of the hard men of the coalition.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)]

I assure the noble Lord that the hard men have done nothing. All I am advised is that he is ill.

21:45

[Lord Judd]

In the noble Lord’s absence, I beg leave to move this amendment and to speak to its group. I should perhaps remind the Committee of my interests: I am a vice-president of Campaign for National Parks and president of the Friends of the Lake District, an area that includes a very fine national park. At the outset, I shall say a word on why the parks matter, because this amendment is not free-standing but relates to their purpose. In our stressed society, many would argue that the parks have become more important than ever as a place for spiritual and physical renewal. They also have a tremendous contribution to make in the sphere of biodiversity and, potentially, a significant part to play in combating carbon pollution and all the rest.

We have yet to hear why the inclusion of national parks authorities and the Broads Authority in this Bill is either appropriate or necessary. The suggestion that their inclusion is to give them more flexibility in operating does not, frankly, sit comfortably with the extent of ministerial diktat that the Bill will provide. Most of the provisions are, in any case, unnecessary given the flexibility that already exists within the Local Government Acts and Part 8 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006—or NERC, as it is known—on administrative arrangements. National parks authorities and the Broads Authority are, as they were originally described, special-purpose local authorities, but this level of intrusion by the national Government of the day threatens to undermine their independence. This group of amendments would remove national parks authorities and the Broads Authority from the Bill and, I assure the Committee, therefore have widespread support.

Clause 3 appears to give Ministers the power to change many aspects of how national parks authorities work, including their name, their accountability to Ministers, their powers to employ staff, the number of members, the procedures for member appointment and, indeed, the appointment of the chair. The concern reflected in these amendments is about the extent of the power that would be given to Ministers to alter the composition of those authorities and the Broads Authority. Defra has linked this clause to the current consultation on the governance of national parks authorities, which aims to improve their local accountability. However, the consultation is based on six simple, open questions and, until we have a clear picture of the response to them, it is surely not possible to propose what, if any, constitutional changes might be right. Indeed, including such far-reaching provisions in the Bill to deliver outcomes that have not yet been established is, I suggest, obviously premature.

Schedule 3 does not seem necessary given the flexibility that already exists in Part 8 of the NERC Act 2006. If, as I gather Defra has suggested, the intention is to provide greater flexibility for amending the membership of the Broads Authority, only that authority should be mentioned and only in relation to the specific issue of membership, not the wide range of constitutional issues listed in Clause 3.

Clause 5 gives the Minister the power to transfer the national parks authorities’ functions to an eligible person or to modify those functions by order. In practice, that would mean that, if a national park authority or the Broads Authority upset the Minister of the day through its planning decisions, the Minister could order that authority to transfer its land-use planning functions to the department, to another local authority or to a company limited by guarantee and so on. This would mean that the authorities would be constantly living with the potential threat of having powers taken away in the event of an unpopular decision, but one that would be right in terms of the purposes of the parks. That would inevitably have consequences for their freedom to operate, their willingness to innovate and, potentially, the robustness of their decision-making.

At this point I should put a question to the Minister: how do the Government value the three provisions in relation to the functions of the national parks authorities and the Broads Authority—statutory functions, such as the land-use planning functions and other detailed matters such as the making of tree preservation orders, and any function, statutory or discretionary, that the authority might undertake to deliver its statutory purposes? Those purposes are set out in Section 5 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. They are,

“conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage”,

and,

“promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of those areas by the public”.

There is of course an additional purpose where the Broads are concerned, relating to navigation. I suggest that it is highly disturbing that under the terms of the Bill Ministers could change the purposes for which national parks and the Broads have been designated by order rather than through primary legislation. That is a significant and sweeping proposal.

Clause 6 gives the Minister the power to make provision by order to authorise the national park authority or the Broads Authority to delegate some or all of its functions to an eligible person, including another local authority, a company limited by guarantee or the Minister himself. While this does not explicitly relate to an authority’s planning function, it is rather hard to imagine what else it could be about. National parks authorities and the Broads Authority can currently choose to enter into agency agreements with other authorities on the delivery of their development control function, as is happening in the newly established South Downs National Park. This arrangement ensures that the authority remains ultimately responsible for the delivery of the development control function and that it is able to monitor and, where necessary, amend arrangements so that they do not prejudice the delivery of park purposes. Full delegation would not give it the same ability to monitor arrangements, as it would be delegating responsibility for them to another body. Significantly, the transfer parts of Schedule 5 and all of Schedule 6 can already be achieved using Part 8 of the NERC Act. Unlike under Clause 5(1)(b), a transfer could be done then only with the agreement of the authority.

Clause 8 requires Ministers to have regard to various objectives in considering whether to make an order under Sections 1 to 6. Surely, if we ever have this clause, it ought to require Ministers to be able to demonstrate that these objectives will be met, rather than merely having regard to them.

I have had all sorts of reassurances from Ministers about their intentions and their commitment to the parks and I genuinely believe that what they are saying is what they believe. I respect them for that, but I suggest that it is unfortunate that the parks and the Broads Authority were brought within the Bill, as they have an immensely important role to fulfil. I see some noble Lords present who from time to time have had quite acute criticisms of the parks, but those criticisms can be taken up with the park authorities as they stand and are established. I ask the Minister to consider seriously the intention of these amendments and I hope that what he says tonight will meet some of the concerns that I have expressed. I beg to move.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Greaves, from his bed of sickness, asked me to intervene in this debate to make a few points. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has made many of those points, which will inevitably shorten the remarks that I feel obliged to make. In a sense, I will underline the principles that he raised.

The first question that I put to the Minister is: how are we and those who care about the national parks to divine what the coalition Government seek to achieve by the inclusion of the national parks authorities in Schedules 3, 5 and 6? The coalition agreement indicated:

“We will review the governance arrangements of National Parks in order to increase local accountability”.

At the time, that was taken to mean considering the possibility of the direct election of the indirectly appointed council members of the national parks authorities, although that was not made explicit. However, that is what the authorities considered that it indicated.

The second issue, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is about the Defra consultation. The consultation asked six questions, but those questions did not bring great clarity to what the Government had in mind by including them in the consultation. They were very open questions about whether the membership of the authorities should be changed and whether the process for selection could be improved. There was certainly no reference to direct election in place of indirect election from the local authorities. I understand that the consultation is now complete and the answers were submitted to the Government on 1 February. It would be of interest to know what the Government’s response to that process is and what conclusions they have drawn from the submissions that have been made.

The third issue is to discover which powers and functions of the national parks authorities the Government have in mind to alter and in what way. The national parks authorities are essentially hybrids: they are partly quangos but they have local authority functions, including particularly powerful functions in respect of planning and development, which could be and are exercised by local authorities in other parts of the country. This raises the question of how any change would have the effect of devolving more powers to the localities if what the Government seek is more influence over the direction of decision-making.

It may be thought that the powers already exist to provide for greater flexibility through the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, also referred to. The Act specifically provides for flexible administrative arrangements for designated bodies, including the national parks authorities. Consequently, it appears that the only reason why this measure might be considered necessary, and for including these authorities in the Bill, is that the approval of the Secretary of State is not sufficient under the 2006 Act. The proposals must be approved by the national parks authorities. On the face if it, this looks as though it is a direct transfer of authority to the Secretary of State. That may not be the intention, but we need to hear what the Government have in mind.

It is clear that there is already grave disquiet among the national parks authorities about the inclusion of this provision in the Bill. Many of the friends organisations, those who live in the national parks and some who are employed by the authorities are considerably concerned about it. If the Government are not able to give a precise indication of the purposes of this inclusion in terms of restructuring, I predict that there could be a considerable backlash from the public. I do not say that it will necessarily be on the scale of that aroused by the forestry provisions, but no one should underestimate the regard and affection felt by many people for the national parks, not only by those living in and depending on the organisation and management of the national parks but by those who see them as an important escape from the pressures of life. Those people are deeply concerned that the 9.3 per cent of our country that is included in the 10 national parks in England should be maintained with its heritage, beauty, natural conservation and many of the other fortunate happenings in these areas. I hope that the Minister will reply to these questions, which certainly exercise many people around the country.

22:00

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I hope very much that we maintain the more than 9 per cent of the country which is so protected. However, I do not suggest that the national parks should always go on in exactly the same way and that the elected Government should not interfere with them in any way. For four years I was responsible for the national parks. I do not think that anybody could have criticised the way in which I sought to protect the countryside. However, the national parks are a problem because in many ways their structures do not meet today’s needs. It is perfectly true that you could suggest that Ministers may not behave perfectly but to seek to protect a section of the population and more than 9 per cent of the land to the extent that no one can propose necessary alterations is unacceptable. Such a situation has arisen only once before in connection with the church. I much prefer the church to be in that position, as long as it is the true church, but that is a different issue. I say that in the presence of the right reverend Prelates. It is difficult to defend the argument that a certain organisation should be immune from government concern and the necessity for the Government to deal with the nation as a whole.

A national park, which will be nameless, seemed to me to represent neither the people it was supposed to represent nor the people who lived in its area. As Secretary of State there was nothing I could do to protect them against the pretty extreme decisions that the relevant national park authority took. We have to have a balance here. The way in which Ministers have explained how they intend to use this provision leads me to believe that we have the right balance. It is not acceptable to believe that the only way you can protect this area of Britain is by exempting a particular structure from any kind of debate. All that this provision seeks to do is to give the Government the opportunity to represent the generality of the population’s relationship with the particularity of the national parks.

I therefore hope that Ministers will not give way to these proposals but will seek of course to give maximum independence to the national parks. However, in the end, Ministers have to uphold the interests of the generality of the public and it seems unacceptable to have a system which excludes them from doing so. Having been in that position, I believe that I was not able properly to protect people in certain national parks from the way in which institutions operated, because they were so independent that there could be no second choice. That is not acceptable in a democratic society, particularly when a national park authority is not directly elected or when the people concerned are not in that position.

I very much hope that Ministers will accept the good offices and good grace of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, but accept also that many people who live in the national parks are hoping for a proper way in which the fiat of a national park authority could, at least at some stage, be questioned by those who are elected. I therefore very much support this part of the clause.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, it is interesting to follow the noble Lord, Lord Deben. My interest is in the Norfolk Broads, rather than the national parks. I note that in the coalition agreement the Broads Authority was not included in the same bracket of potential changes.

My interest in the Norfolk Broads came from having the privilege of chairing a Select Committee when the Broads Authority brought forward a private Bill to change its structure. It was interesting listening to the different petitions made over a number of days. There was the challenge of balancing the conservation and navigational issues, and of balancing the interests of those who wanted to drive motor boats at high speed and those who wanted to sail in comparatively narrow areas. The most important issue that came out of that evidence was that all the people who petitioned had the interests of the Broads at heart. Most of them, but not all, lived locally and were prepared to accept a structure and compromise that gave them as much of what they wanted as they recognised was reasonable. That represents a much better way of managing an area such as the Norfolk Broads than doing it by central government. However, we can probably debate that later.

I asked the Broads Authority whether it had been consulted by the Government about these potential changes. It was very brave to put its answer in writing, which stated that the authority had not had any detailed discussions with the Government. That is rather sad, actually. Surely the whole point of these potential changes is that the Government should consult the people involved. The authority is very concerned about its inclusion in Schedules 3, 5, 6 and 7. That is a pretty wide range of options that cannot give the authority much comfort as to where it will go. Its feeling, which I fully support, is that it would not mind if its name was changed to the “Broads National Park”, but that that would change the emphasis of its objectives and how they were implemented. Not only that, but the conservation budget has to be kept separate from the leisure budget, and there are special arrangements for navigation officers and so on. The authority was also concerned about the governance procedures and worried that the Government would be getting into too much detail. There was also the potential for changes to the reports and accounts process.

I have not heard anything so far that indicates that there would be benefit to the inclusion of the Broads Authority in any of these schedules. If it has to be in one, it believes that Schedule 3 is the least bad. The Broads Authority spent a lot of effort putting through the private Bill. It cost time and money, much of which came from its users. Why should it not be allowed to get on with what it does pretty well rather than having yet further uncertainty and changes? The Minister may have some different ideas about this, in which case I should be very pleased to hear them.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington]

My Lords, like many noble Lords, I have a great love for and affinity to our national parks. In my case, that probably stems from the fact that I was conceived at about the time of the legislation in 1949 and came into the world roughly when it received Royal Assent. However, in my capacity as chairman of the Countryside Agency, I have also had the privilege of overseeing the creation of two of the more recent additions to the national park family—the New Forest and the South Downs.

Our national parks are very special and they are unique to the UK. They are not wide, open, wilderness spaces, as in less densely populated countries; they are parks for a crowded nation in the 21st century. The Peak District National Park, for example, has, I believe, some 21 million people living within an hour’s drive of it. It is a very special place and has very special value because of that fact. Our national parks also have very special governance arrangements, and rightly so. Although they are privately owned, they are politically managed in terms of their appearance—the planning aspects—their environmental characteristics, their economic and social well-being and their accessibility. All that comes about through a fine balance between local government and the local people, and they bring benefits to the nation as a whole. Of course, that fine balance has been thrashed out in various bits of legislation since 1949 and it is something that we tamper with at our peril.

I realise that the Government are currently going through a consultation on the precise form of local representation regarding the national parks, and that is absolutely right. There have been problems with some local representation in some national parks in the past. I am sure that in today’s big society improvements can be made to the local representation, but I wonder whether we need the heavy hand of Schedules 3, 5 and 6 to achieve this. As ever, these schedules might be satisfactory and mean no harm to the national parks in the hands of today’s Ministers. I am sure that the Minister shares our love of national parks and can reassure us that his Government have no wish to interfere with the unique planning powers that keep them so special, even when those planning powers are delegated to others, as with the South Downs. However, what of the future? Should we allow Schedules 3, 5 and 6 to stand indefinitely as a threat to national park authorities? Even if the current Government’s honourable intentions are spelt out clearly for now, it seems to me that the Bill would be better off with greater clarity and also with a sunset clause. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in responding to the stand part debate on Clause 3, steered towards responding to the sunset clause, but he seemed to veer away from it at the end. Perhaps I got that wrong and did not quite understand what he was saying, but it would be interesting to have some clarity on that.

22:15

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, the Public Bodies Bill contains many important bodies but it is somewhat frustrating to have to deal with important bodies such as these at something of an unsocial hour. However, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Judd for speaking to the amendments in the way that he did, and indeed for moving Amendment 70 in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, to whom we wish a very speedy recovery.

These amendments relate to important bodies which are well established and, as the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, said, rightly attract a great deal of public enthusiasm and support. Therefore, we need to scrutinise this part of the Bill very carefully.

All noble Lords who have spoken in the debate have tried to get at the Government’s thinking regarding these bodies and why they have been incorporated into the Bill. Certainly, the attachment to the national parks and the Norfolk Broads is very clear-cut. The creation of national parks has been a big event ever since the Act of 1949, the designation of the first park being the Peak District. For our part, the Labour Government are proud of having presided over the creation of two new national parks in the New Forest and the South Downs.

As well as public support for the national parks, there is already a long-standing campaign for them, to which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred; he also referred to his role in that campaign. In a briefing, the Campaign for National Parks has submitted its views on the inclusion of national parks in this part of the Bill. I shall not read that out, but many of the points in the briefing have already been referred to by many noble Lords. I hope that the Government will look at the briefing carefully and respond to it before Report so that we feel we are better informed about the Government’s attitude and their intentions.

At present, as noble Lords have pointed out, there is a considerable amount of uncertainty. My noble friend Lord Hunt referred to the sword of Damocles hanging over organisations. There is a worry that what is being proposed will undermine the independence and the basic purposes of these organisations. Again, for that reason, I urge the Minister to give us some reassurance about what the Government have in mind on these issues. In many ways, it seems that we are doing things the wrong way round but, if the Government have certain changes in mind, they should come forward with them and try to make a convincing case for them, then have the consultation and then make the decision about the way forward. Putting national parks in the Bill appears to pre-empt the consultation, which has just closed, on the future governance arrangements of the parks.

My noble friend Lord Berkeley said that he understood that there had been no real consultation or discussion with the Government about the Norfolk Broads. I hope that the Government will address that point in reply. We have had consultation, which is something, but it would be good to have from the Minister a flavour of the results of that consultation and any interim thinking within the Government as a result of the responses to the consultation.

A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Judd, asked whether the provisions in the Bill were necessary because it seemed that they could be covered by other legislation already in force, particularly the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. I am not absolutely clear whether that would cover the Norfolk Broads as well as the national parks. There seem to be claims that it could and claims that it could not, but perhaps that is something which the Minister could clarify in his response.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that I do not think anyone on this side is saying that things should be ossified for all time in terms of national parks or the Norfolk Broads or any other organisation. None the less, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said, these schedules seem to be a rather heavy-handed way of approaching the issue. He also came out with an interesting thesis that perhaps we were influenced by legislation passed at the time when we were conceived or born. I was trying to think what might have been on the statute book when I was born but I do not know. Perhaps we should all check as a result of what he has said.

The Norfolk Broads were referred to by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. They seem to be very much akin to a national park but they have the additional special requirement that they have to protect navigation. They have the roles of conserving wildlife, enhancing natural heritage, promoting opportunities for understanding and enjoyment of the area, and have regard to the economic and social interests of those who live and work there. Therefore, it seems that we are talking about organisations which broadly have the same functions and purposes, whether it be the Norfolk Broads or the national parks.

More uncertainty has been created when there is already uncertainty because of the difficult decisions on funding that have to be taken. I know that there is considerable concern in my local national park in Northumberland at present. Indeed, a letter has been issued for a claim for judicial review because of the lack of consultation and the feeling that this has not been a fair and transparent process. We are talking here of people who are not natural opponents of the Government but who feel seriously about their responsibilities and want to have the necessary resources to carry them out.

The government amendment makes clear that we are dealing only with national parks in England. I understand that, but I hope that the Government will discuss with the devolved authorities the way forward for national parks—not in any way to impinge on the devolution settlement; that is the last thing I would want given the recent vote in Wales. However, the national parks are a precious asset for all of us. There must be many people in England who treasure Snowdonia, just as there are many people in the Scottish Borders who treasure Northumberland. For those reasons, I hope that there will be proper discussion with the devolved Administrations.

In conclusion, the Government's reaction is extremely important. We need reassurance about the valuable role that those organisations play. Given their popularity in the country as a whole, the Government tamper with them at their peril.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 70 and all the amendments that go with it, and obviously address the government amendments, Amendments 74A, 95A and 105ZA. I will not comment on what legislation was going through when I was born, as did the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, rather coyly refused to comment on what legislation might have been going through when she was born. Those are matters for all of us to think of in due course.

I underline and fully accept what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, about the importance of national parks and their iconic nature—the fact that they are national parks. As my noble friend Lord Deben said, they cover 9 per cent of the land area of England— or is it the UK? I forget which, but it is large. As my noble friend said—he did not use these words but I think that he would accept them—they should not be cast in stone. He did not want them to be protected in the way that some of the church lands were in the past until Henry VIII appeared. I am no Henry VIII on this occasion. I want full protection of the national parks and I want them to work as best they can. I hope that in dealing with the amendments I can assure the House that that is exactly what we are going about.

Currently, they are managed by bespoke public authorities. I make the point that they are bespoke and vary from authority to authority. They are not identical. They are constructed on local government lines, but those authorities have been doing an excellent job since they came into being, some as long ago as 1948, when the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, was conceived—or was it when he was born?—and for a long time since.

Just as they have been doing an excellent job, the local authorities, and the planning boards which preceded them—in some cases, until much later, thinking of the more recent national parks—also did a very good job. However, those authorities now face the challenge of ensuring that they can continue to deliver their core purposes in very different times: in what—dare I say it?—are rather straitened times. They seek to minimise the impact of the spending reductions on their front-line services and see how they can continue to improve what they can offer in some areas.

National park authorities have a long tradition of managing very small budgets, engaging with their local communities and making very good use of volunteers. That experience will serve them well in devising innovative approaches to delivering key services in future. The important point to get across—this is dealing with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, particularly when he discussed the six questions that were put by the Government to the national parks authorities and others in that consultation—is what they do in the future. We are currently considering the responses to that consultation on their governance arrangements and honouring the commitment made in the coalition agreement. The consultation closed on 1 February, and we are committed to announcing the outcome of that by the end of March. I can give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that the Broads Authority was consulted, as were all the other authorities, about what was going to happen and what it thought would happen. The six questions were put to it, and it was made aware of what the Bill would allow Defra and it to do. It might be that the Broads Authority and some of the others do not feel that they were consulted enough. If that is the case, the door will still be open, and my honourable and right honourable friends will listen to what they have to say.

[Lord Berkeley]

I shall quote from an e-mail from the chief executive of the Broads Authority dated 29 November, which is when I thought we were going to start discussing this. He stated:

“We haven’t had any detailed discussions with the Government”.

[Lord Henley]

The noble Lord said that the e-mail was dated 29 November. That is some months ago. My assurance is that there have been discussions with the Broads Authority. I will certainly write to the noble Lord if that is not the case, but the assurance I am giving to the Committee is that there have been discussions and consultations and we will certainly listen to what it has to say.

Each national park authority and the Broads Authority have suggested improvements which meet the needs of each individual authority. I go back to the words I used earlier: “bespoke arrangements”. They each have different needs that must be met, reflecting the expectations of the people who live in, work in or engage with the national park or the Broads Authority. Their suggestions will form the basis of the agreed outcomes which we plan to announce before the end of the month. If the noble Lord is worried that consultation has not been open enough, and I have heard criticisms of consultations that have not been open enough, I refer him to the letter sent out by my honourable friend Mr Benyon in August last year. I think it is worth quoting the penultimate paragraph:

“I can assure you that, at this stage, I have no fixed view. I am well aware of the strong feelings any review will generate. I also appreciate that National Parks differ greatly in how they are run and how they are accountable and engage with the local population. The Department and I are approaching this process in an open and transparent manner with no pre-conceived formula for National Park structures or governance”.

The noble Lord could not wish that to be more open or transparent. It is there on the table in writing. We will continue to offer that openness and transparency.

Provisions in the Bill will allow us to work quickly, effectively and flexibly with all those authorities to review all key aspects of their governance arrangements. It is governance arrangements that we are discussing. It is not some sword of Damocles that is being held over them, as noble Lords are implying. It will allow the national park authorities to focus resources on the key tasks that can be delivered only through the authorities themselves while also formally permitting other groups, of which there are many, with a real and supportive interest in national parks to take forward functions where it is appropriate so to do.

22:30

I will say a brief word or two about government Amendments 74A, 95A and 105ZA, which merely restrict Ministers’ order-making power to national park authorities in England. That is particularly appropriate in the light of the recent referendum in Wales, which will in due course extend what the Welsh Administration can do. The corresponding powers for Welsh Ministers will be contained in the clauses that we will relate to the changes to be made in Wales. Obviously we will discuss all these matters with the devolved Administrations where appropriate, whether in Wales, in Scotland or even, although I do not think it is appropriate, in Northern Ireland.

I hope that, with those explanations, the noble Lord will feel able, possibly after consulting the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, if he is in communication with him on his sickbed, to withdraw his amendment at this stage.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, first, I thank everyone who has participated in this very interesting debate, not least the Minister for his reply. It has been good, in particular, to have the full-hearted support of those on my own Front Bench. I thank them very much for that.

I must say that if we wanted an indication of the quality and significance of the parks, to which noble Lords have already referred, it was epitomised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, when he talked about the coincidence between his arrival into the world and the creation of the parks. It is good to have him on side as well.

I am also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, who referred to the strength of feeling among the public about the importance of the parks. Indeed, in every survey of public opinion, a very large majority of the population has said how much it believes the parks matter. That places a heavy responsibility on all of us.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, introduced some very important points and did so very reasonably. Of course, ultimately, the Secretary of State has responsibilities for things that happen in his sphere, but the noble Lord also said that this should be decentralised as far as possible. That is the balance that has to be struck. As always in these things, this is not just about the words but about the driving energy behind it all. I ask the Minister to accept—I think he has recognised this—that there is a real anxiety that this could give an awful lot of power to Ministers with very few checks and balances. That issue still has to be addressed, and I really would be grateful if the Minister could come back on Report with more specific proposals on how that anxiety could be met.

[Lord Henley]

It might assist the noble Lord if I remind him of the timing of this Bill. I do not think that we will get to this bit of Report until after Easter. We will certainly have completed the consultation, and will therefore have made one or two noises, if I can put it in those terms, between this stage of the Bill and the next stage. That is on the understanding that we have the usual two weeks between stages, depending on when the Bill finishes. However many days we have on Report, I do not think, as I said, that we will get to this bit of the Bill much before or much after Easter.

[Lord Judd]

Those are encouraging words indeed from the Minister. Indeed, his noble friend, who has been leading on this Bill, has made similarly encouraging remarks to me outside the Chamber. We wait to see what happens, but the more that can specifically be said to meet the outcome of the consultation the better.

I was going to make the point that the parks authorities are in a sense trustees of this very special inheritance of the nation, and trustees should be independent and should feel able to be independent. They have the job of striking a balance between the communities who live in the parks and the national interest, because the parks are national parks for the enjoyment and regeneration of the population of the nation as a whole. It is a balance to be struck and the park authorities, in their independence as trustees, are well placed to do that. It is free of the hurly-burly of political considerations as they come up tactically, not least towards election times and things of this sort.

My anxiety is not that we will wake up one day and find that the parks have gone but that my grandsons may come to inherit a sort of rather nice home county as distinct from the national park as it should and could be. In my view, if we take the spiritual needs and the needs of a stressed and hard-working nation seriously, the national parks should be a place of contrast. The job of the trustees is to keep that contrast and not just to turn it into an extension of suburban Britain.

In thanking those who have participated, I should also say that it was good to have the special knowledge of my noble friend Lord Berkeley. I want to demonstrate to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, among others, how seriously I take this point. I am a great admirer of the national parks in the United States. They are very exciting, fine places, which have survived different administrations, but they are wildernesses. We have a much more difficult and delicate task because ours have living communities in them and the situation is not the same. I would argue therefore paradoxically that that is why trustees with independence in the form of the park authorities are so important so that they can make their judgments as objectively as possible.

I thank all those who have participated and the Minister for his response, which, I dare to say, was encouraging. I look forward to what he will be able to say at later stages when the consultation is complete. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 70 withdrawn.

Amendment 70A

Moved by

[Lord Inglewood]

70A: Schedule 3, page 18, line 21, at end insert—
“Church Commissioners.”

[Lord Inglewood]

My Lords, this probing amendment is specifically triggered by the announcement last autumn from the Church Commissioners in which they declared their intention to sell 12 paintings by Zurbarán, which are currently in Auckland Castle, County Durham. At that time it also appeared that they wished to sell the castle, but it now seems that they may have changed their mind. It was also prompted by the commissioners’ plans to sell Rose Castle, the traditional see house of the Bishops of Carlisle and one of the few places away from here where in the reign of King Edward I the English Parliaments met, and the apparent estate management muddles at Hartlebury Castle, the traditional see house of the Bishops of Worcester. Each of these bishops’ palaces and its contents is by any definition part of our national patrimony. For those of your Lordships who do not know them, they are described in the Durham, Cumbria and Worcestershire volumes of the Pevsner’s Buildings of England series, which are in the Queen’s Room in the Library. Ownership of these assets has devolved to the Church Commissioners, a public body set up by Parliament, inter alia, to hold the church’s property in a fiduciary capacity. They are in no legal sense part of the Church of England.

Traditionally, the bishops’ palaces and their associated assets, which might in shorthand terms be described as church treasures, were the property of the diocesan bishop for the time being. They were only finally vested in the Church Commissioners under the terms of the Episcopal Endowments and Stipends Measure 1943. Interestingly, the terms of the measure indicate that, in respect of this class of asset, they are not held charitably, which contrasts with the endowments of the church also held by the commissioners—those which inter alia go back to the ecclesiastical commissioners and Queen Anne’s bounty—which are held charitably. Clearly, different considerations apply to the different classes.

One of my personal, political concerns is the preservation of our heritage and I have been involved over the years in a number of ways. I also happen to have lived all my life in Cumbria and to have close family connections with County Durham where once, spectacularly ineffectively, I stood for the European Parliament. While I myself confess to a personal preference for bishops living in bishops’ palaces, just as I think the Queen should live at Buckingham Palace and the Duke of Devonshire at Chatsworth, I accept entirely that, as times change, this may no longer be appropriate. However, in such circumstances I do think it is important, in the wider public interest, that the buildings are not simply sold to the highest bidder, but rather an appropriate future use is found for them, ideally from my perspective with some diocesan involvement. I should add that I am also a communicating, albeit somewhat inadequate, Anglican. I believe as well that the best way of trying to take things forward in circumstances such as this is by discussion and negotiation rather than by confrontation. To that end I and some like-minded colleagues approached the Church Commissioners to see how that might be achieved for Rose Castle, and a number of cordial meetings have been held with the Church Commissioners and their officials, at some of which I have been present. The commissioners are aware of my amendment.

On each occasion, I was struck by the commissioners’ proposition at the heart of the debate that, once a see house is declared unsuitable by the commissioners, it then becomes part of the church’s endowment and can therefore subsequently be handled only in order to achieve the maximum financial benefit for the Church of England, that being an inevitable consequence of being charitable. This proposition worried me. I do not want to make any claims for my abilities as a lawyer, but it felt all wrong in the terms in which it was put. Over a period of weeks and months I kept on thinking about this and could not reconcile myself to it. Finally, not all that long ago, I turned to the Episcopal Endowments and Stipends Measure 1943, and I have to admit that I was extremely startled by what I found. I must apologise to your Lordships because my remarks now become a trifle esoteric, not least since I dare say that, over the years, the Episcopal Endowments and Stipends Measure 1943 has rarely been mentioned in this Chamber.

I was surprised because inter alia the measure contains quite comprehensive stipulations regarding see houses, their adaptation and disposal in order to safeguard—to use a shorthand form of words—their heritage, importance and value. In the case of Rose, I knew that the steps had not been taken. It crossed my mind that it was conceivable that the commissioners might have unilaterally flouted the statutory requirements, but I have to admit that I did not think that was very likely. I therefore read the measure in detail and with considerable care, and I suddenly realised that, because of what I am sure was probably a drafting error, it appeared that it might be argued that the commissioners could go through what looks like a loophole and entirely get round the protection offered by the measure. Clearly, that is one of its most fundamental purposes.

By virtue of the provision at paragraph 3(1)(c) enabling the commissioners “otherwise to dispose” of a see house, the safeguards expressly in place to protect such houses in the case of demolition, conversion or sale have been—I am sure unintentionally, as I have said already—entirely bypassed. By the device of transferring, that is, disposing, of the see house into another category of asset that they hold as an endowment, the commissioners now appear to be arguing that they are obliged to turn them into cash cows. I have serious doubts about the legal effectiveness of this, but as I have already mentioned, I do not want to claim to be a better lawyer than I am. Hence I have sought and been given some informal advice by a Chancery lawyer that, in his view, this probably does not work. Nevertheless, it might be, as the commissioners are arguing, an ingenious way of selling one’s own or, for that matter, yours and my heritage for a mess of pottage. The transfer would have the effect of the philosopher’s stone in turning a see house subject to significant heritage obligations into gold. It is a form of money laundering which looks as if it may be being used to get round the clearly laid out purposes of the law of the land in order to benefit the commissioners. Even if it is a legally effective course of action, which I doubt, this seems to be a quite unacceptable exercise of its powers by a public body. In my opinion, the behaviour of the commissioners needs to be looked at. The Public Bodies Bill—as I have said, the Church Commissioners are a public body—gives the Minister powers to effect changes to the governance of bodies by order. I think we should think about this.

However, I shall conclude with three points. First, the Minister told me informally some time ago now, and before he had heard my remarks today, that while the Church Commissioners fell within the terms of the Long Title of the Bill, it was not government policy to deploy the powers in respect of them. Having heard what I have said, I hope that he will think on what I have been talking about. Secondly, through him and independently as a Member of this House, I would ask the Attorney-General, who one will appreciate is an ex-officio Church Commissioner, to look into this matter straightaway. In particular, and without prejudice to any other matters, will he consider whether what the commissioners are doing in these cases amounts to a disposal in the terms of the measure? If it does, is it being achieved by the commissioners in breach of their fiduciary duties? Thirdly, if the commissioners have behaved within the law, is their behaviour in all the circumstances an appropriate exercise of powers by a public body? Perhaps the Attorney-General would let me and the House know—before Report if he can—his general response to this request.

Finally, perhaps I may ask the right reverend Prelate to say on behalf of the commissioners whether, bearing mind what I have suggested and fear may happen, they will impose an immediate moratorium on all the manoeuvres and plans for sale in respect of these bishops’ palaces until a thorough investigation is carried out. I beg to move.

22:45

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I support Amendment 70A, to which I have added my name. The Committee should be greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for tabling it. As far as I can establish, this is the first time for many years that your Lordships have had the opportunity to debate the activities of the Church Commissioners. My trawl of this House’s Hansard for the past five years has not produced a single example. That is in contrast to the other place, where the Second Church Estates Commissioner answers Questions for up to 15 minutes every month. He represents the Church of England in the House of Commons. Curiously, seven Members of this House—two most reverend Primates, four right reverend Prelates and the Lord Speaker—are all currently Church Commissioners, yet none of them speaks officially for them. I understand that, until 1977, it was possible for Members of your Lordships’ House to address questions to the Archbishop of Canterbury, but that was done away with on the advice of the Procedure Committee. Given what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said about the de facto public body nature of the Church Commissioners and the fact that they appear to be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, there appears to me to be an accountability deficit relating to their activities to which we should perhaps return on another occasion.

Perhaps I may use this opportunity briefly to express my concern over how the commissioners are managing and attempting to sell one of the finest see houses in the country, Hartlebury Castle—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood—which was the home of the Bishops of Worcester from the 13th century up to 2007. It is a grade 1 listed building. It contains the magnificent Hurd Library, which was created in 1782 by Bishop Hurd, an ancestor of the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, and is the last example in Britain of an integrated library containing the books for which it was originally created. There is also a great hall and a marvellous chapel, which reminded me when I went round it of the one depicted in the original television production of Brideshead Revisited.

Since 1966, the north wing of Hartlebury Castle has housed the Worcestershire County Museum, which also occupies a number of outbuildings on the site. In 2007, on the retirement of Bishop Selby, the commissioners decided that his successor, John Inge, should have his residence in the city of Worcester in a house by the cathedral and announced their intention to sell Hartlebury. That decision has aroused great controversy for the very reason that noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, gave; that is, the commissioners claim that their charity obligations require them to sell it to the highest bidder.

There are numerous other areas of concern, such as inadequate consultation with local interests, the lack of any strategy for dealing with historic assets, of which the Hurd Library is the prime example, and lack of care for the building. I am told that, during the recent cold spell, Hartlebury was heated for only four hours a day and, unsurprisingly, there were numerous burst pipes over Christmas, followed by floods that were unchecked for several days.

On the question of the sale, the commissioners are determined to put the house on the market in April 2012. In my view and that of the members of the Hartlebury Castle Preservation Trust, who are desperately attempting to raise the money—I declare an interest as one of their patrons—it is quite wrong for them to be driven only by a requirement to make the most from a sale that they can, regardless of how inappropriate the use to which any new owners may put the house. Surely it must be possible for this house, and the other see houses to which the noble Lord referred, to remain in public ownership with the running costs met by a body such as a charitable trust or, possibly, the National Trust. Something needs to be done to allow genuine local interests, who have a real vision of what these houses can contribute to the local community, to have their chance to show what they can do. That is why I strongly support the moratorium proposed by the noble Lord on the sale of other assets by the Church Commissioners. I hope that the Minister will agree and maybe, if one of the right reverend Prelates is able to contribute on behalf of the Church Commissioners, they will agree as well.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, I, too, have appended my name to the amendment. I commend my noble friend Lord Inglewood for the erudition and articulacy of the case that he has put, particularly in relation to the legal arguments, which I am not competent to follow, and on the need for accountability of the Church Commissioners. I do not need to rehearse the arguments at length, but the debate so far has revealed a lacuna in our accountability. I say to the right reverend Prelates who are in their places that, in my experience of dealing with the Church of England and as a loyal Anglican who has dealt with legislation in another place, there is a need to articulate the interests of what might be termed the Bishops’ Bench for shorthand and of the Church Commissioners, because it is not always clear that there is a united voice in these matters. So it has been right to expose the issue of accountability.

The second issue, about which many of us in the House feel strongly, is the need to preserve the heritage. I would not make this specific to the affairs of the Anglican Church but there are a number of people sitting on a number of trusts in different capacities who have heritage assets that may or may not have strayed into their ownership as a result of past arrangements. I am thinking, for example, of a certain involvement that I had with the Coram Foundation and the Foundling Hospital at one stage and the legally intense issues, some time ago, in terms of the disposition of their paintings; or, indeed, Royal Holloway College, at which one of my daughters was a student, and the Turners that it had to sell. There is a real tension and we should reflect on ways in which—rather along the lines of the work that my noble friend Lord Inglewood does in relation to the reviewing of the export of works of art—we can run some of these heritage issues past accountability before it is too late to do so.

I make those two points in the full knowledge—and, indeed, having discussed them with Mr Baldry, the Second Church Estates Commissioner, who used to be my constituency neighbour when I was in another place—that there are real issues for the resourcing of the Church of England. We fully understand that it must make the best use of its assets—it has an important pastoral task, to which I warm—but it must not do so at the expense of these other considerations. That it has a need for the money may be a necessary and appropriate argument, but it is not quite sufficient to justify everything that may have taken place, as described by my noble friends and others. This is an area in which we need to sharpen up and make sure that it is meeting its wider obligations as well as its specific and precise ones to resource the church.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and his noble co-signatories for tabling the amendment. We have heard something of the present plight of Rose Castle and Hartlebury Castle and the great Hurd Library that it contains.

I was fortunate to be educated at the Winchester Cathedral choir school. As a little boy, I played cricket in the lee of the ruins of Wolvesey Castle, the old palace of the Bishops of Winchester. It sits close to the late 17th-century baroque palace, which I believe is still the residence of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, yet one wonders for how much longer, as the Church Commissioners seem determined to dispose of their patrimony.

The patrimony of the Church of England, our established church, is also the patrimony of the nation. Of course we recognise that the Church Commissioners have a responsibility to keep the Church of England afloat financially, to pay pensions and so forth. No one underestimates the difficult challenge in that, but the church’s responsibility is not just to the material bottom line or to itself. It is far larger. The church’s patrimony of buildings and art is essential to the physical and metaphorical fabric of the nation. The Church of England and our society remain inextricably members one of another. Many right reverend Prelates understand this entirely and are deeply committed to the preservation of the heritage that they have the privilege of presiding over.

In Norwich, the cathedral city in which I now live, there was recently an exhibition entitled “The Art of Faith: 3,500 Years of Art and Belief in Norfolk”. Stephen Fry wrote, in a foreword to the catalogue, that the history of Christianity is,

“part of a larger continuum”.

As he put it, artefacts created as an expression of faith,

“speak for all of us across time”.

Gail Turner, reviewing the exhibition in the Times, wrote about the,

“relationships between faith, creativity, commerce and geography”.

People making buildings and other artefacts as expressions of Christian faith have for millennia made sense for all of us of our place in the world.

The patrimony that the Church of England claims as its own has been paid for by the tithes, donations, rents, taxes and lottery tickets of the community. Whatever may be the formal legal position—the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, explained to us that that is in significant respects doubtful—morally this patrimony belongs to us all. Some 45 per cent of grade 1 listed buildings are Church of England parish churches. The Church of England has been happy to benefit from the listed places of worship grants scheme that was negotiated by my right honourable friend Gordon Brown, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. It has been happy to benefit from the funding that English Heritage has been able to provide for cathedrals and for the repair grants for the places of worship programme jointly funded by English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund.

When I was Minister for the Arts, deans of two of our great cathedrals came to see me to ask whether public money could be found to support cathedral choir schools. While, to my regret, the Arts Council was unable to accede to that request at the time, it was an entirely reasonable request, because cathedral music is the fountainhead of so much of the musical life of our nation. Hundreds and thousands of lay volunteers help to care for church buildings. There is a two-way obligation of mutual support between the church and society in respect of the heritage. The nation has a stake and a right in the music of the church and its cathedrals, its bishops’ palaces and the works of art that are contained within them. This is all part of our national heritage and it is not simply for the Church Commissioners to sell off as they will.

It is not a question here of the bishop in his castle and the curate at his gate and of the church having some duty of radical equalisation in the accommodation arrangements for both. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, suggested, as a society we want to be able to look up to bishops, just as we do in your Lordships’ House. The people of this country do not want bishops to live in semi-detached houses. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that they want them to live in palaces. I am aware that the beauty of holiness, Laudianism, has been from time to time controversial in the history of the church, but I am also aware that the church’s commitment to art as an expression of spirituality has always returned. I hope and believe that modernism, plainness and aesthetic banality will prove to be passing fashions in the life of the church.

In this fourth centenary year of the King James Bible, when church leaders are asking us to rediscover the literary genius of the Anglican heritage, which has been an inspiration not only to our nation but to the world, how can they sell out their other heritage? It might be gratifying to the hair-shirt tendency and the puritans, but it would be a betrayal of centuries of spirituality and social leadership. How can the Church Commissioners be so philistine as to contemplate this? Are they proud of their record of selling Georgian rectories? After the bishops’ palaces, will they sell the grade 1 listed churches, send them to follow the old London Bridge to Arizona, where I fear that there would be plenty of eager buyers?

23:00

Church of England moralists have inveighed against asset strippers, junk bond dealers and greedy bankers, but if the Church Commissioners and leaders are to act like a bunch of simoniacs in the 21st century, selling their heritage as their predecessors in the middle ages sold ecclesiastical privileges, we might as well accept that the bankers should be in charge of our spiritual destinies. The church should put the money changers in their place.

We are speaking not only of the plight of the palaces of the Bishops of Carlisle and Worcester. The Church Commissioners have very seriously considered selling Auckland Castle, the great residence of the Bishop of Durham. I understand from my noble friend Lord Foster of Bishop Auckland that they have now thought better of that part of their plan, but I also understand that they are still bent on selling the great series of paintings by Francisco de Zurbarán that hang in the dining room at Auckland Castle. I shall quote a letter that was reproduced in the 8 December edition of Town and Country, addressed to Andreas Whittam Smith, the First Church Estates Commissioner. It says:

“Sir, The recent decision of the Church Commissioners to sell the outstanding series of paintings by Francisco Zurbaran at Bishop Auckland Palace, Co Durham, is deeply to be regretted. Assuming that the Commissioners have the legal right to sell the pictures at all, their decision disregards the importance of the paintings in their present setting, as well as the local significance of the Bishop’s palace itself (of which the paintings have formed an integral part since the mid 18th century). The decision appears to have been taken without an informed public discussion. Nor has there been appropriate wider consultation, either regionally or nationally. We urge the Church Commissioners to reconsider the proposed sale”.

There were 55 very distinguished signatories to that letter, including the Dean of Durham, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, my noble friend Lord Foster of Bishop Auckland, Helen Goodman, the Member of Parliament for Bishop Auckland, John Whittingdale MP, the chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in the House of Commons, Professor Maurice Howard, president of the Society of Antiquaries of London, and no fewer than 21 other fellows of the Society of Antiquaries. I declare an interest as an FSA myself.

These paintings depict Jacob and his son, the patriarchs of the 12 tribes of Israel, and were acquired by Bishop Richard Trevor in 1756. Bishop Trevor was the leader of a campaign to allow Jews to become British citizens and his acquisition of these paintings and their display was a symbolic statement of his support for what was known as the Jew Bill. That legislation was a historic advance in religious tolerance in this country. What would the church say today to those persecuted on account of their race and religion if the latter-day Church of England disowns that moral legacy and cashes in on the heritage of these paintings? We want the Church of England to be part of a bigger, more magnanimous society, surely.

The Northern Echo on 6 January reported the secretary to the Church Commissioners, Mr Andrew Brown, as confirming the decision to sell the Zurbaráns. He hoped that £15 million would be raised, which might yield £500,000 a year—the modern equivalent of 30 pieces of silver. Councillor Simon Henig, the leader of Durham County Council, was reported as saying that the Zurbarán paintings were,

“an integral part of the history, culture and economy of Bishop Auckland and the wider area”.

In a poll conducted by the Northern Echo, when asked,

“Should the Zurburan paintings be sold?”,

22 per cent of those who responded were content that they should be and 78 per cent said that they should not. Much more recently, last Saturday in the Telegraph, there was a story headed:

“Historic Zurburan paintings could stay at Auckland Castle after church reviews sale plan”.

It went on:

“The Church of England is to review plans to sell a collection of historic paintings for £15 million after an outcry from local worshippers”.

It reported Mr Tony Baldry, who is the Second Church Estates Commissioner and, as we all know, a civilised man, as saying, in answer to a Parliamentary Question:

“The Church Commissioners, by and large, do not possess pictures—we tend to own land and property—but I am in absolutely no doubt of the importance and identity of those pictures, which is why the working party that I mentioned, which will be chaired by the lord lieutenant of Durham, will consider ways in which the Zurbaráns can stay at Auckland castle”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/11/10; col. 666.]

However, he went on to give rather uninformative answers to Questions tabled by Helen Goodman. The report continued:

“Later, a spokesman for the Church Commissioners said preparations for the sale would continue while the review group considered other options. ‘We will continue with the proposed sale, on the timescale of a sale by auction next summer, while the working group continues to meet and come up with ideas. We will engage with any proposals they make, and consider them, but meanwhile the preparations for the sale of the paintings continue’”.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

I hope that the noble Lord will not think that what I am about to say is in any way discourteous, but he plainly has a bee in his bonnet. He has spoken about it now for over 10 minutes and we have got the point. I wonder whether it is really necessary to read out quotations, as he has been doing, when we understand his point that the Church Commissioners should be within the Bill.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I feel deeply advised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I was at the point of concluding and I appreciate that I have detained the Committee longer than I should at this stage of the evening, but a number of noble Lords feel that we are talking about important issues. There are other, better ways for the church to raise £500,000 a year. That the Church Commissioners are contemplating doing it in this way is disgraceful. To protect the wider national interest from these depredations, I support the amendment.

[The Lord Bishop of Leicester]

My Lords, I must present to the Committee the apologies of the right reverend prelate the Bishop of London, who is the chair of the commissioners. He cannot be in the Committee this evening because of his ecclesiastical responsibilities. I declare an interest as a diocesan bishop of the Church of England in receipt of a stipend from the Church Commissioners and in expectation, or at least hope, of the receipt of a pension in due course.

I fear that I will deeply disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, by explaining that I live neither in a palace nor a castle, nor have I any desire to live in them. I live in a house in a street in Leicester where I can offer hospitality and from which I can discharge my ecclesiastical responsibilities with a whole range of connections and networks, which seem to be widely appreciated in the city, the county and the region. Leaders of civil society there have never given me or my predecessors any reason to suppose that by not living in a more exalted dwelling I am somehow deficient in discharging my responsibilities.

I offer the Committee four reasons for urging that this amendment be resisted: first, the established acceptance that Parliament does not take the initiative in legislating on church affairs; secondly, the existence of already robust governance arrangements; thirdly, the Church Commissioners’ clear charitable obligations; and, fourthly, their record of public consultation in detail and consistently on contentious transactions, contrary to what has been alleged in the Committee this evening.

Since 1919, Parliament has rightly left matters concerning the church’s internal governance entirely to the church. Parliament has the power to find ecclesiastical legislation inexpedient and apply pressure to the church in various ways, but direct ministerial oversight seems neither necessary nor proper. This is not to argue that the commissioners should be free from scrutiny, but the amendment seeks to increase the level of governance upon the commissioners at the very time that they have become subject to regulation by the Charity Commission, given that they lost exempt status on 1 June 2010.

In no sense is there an accountability deficit here. The commissioners were not unaccountable before the Charity Commission registration. Their report and accounts are laid before Parliament and the General Synod. As has been pointed out, the Second Church Estates Commissioner is answerable in the other place and regularly gives an account of the commissioners’ proceedings. I need hardly remind your Lordships that the occupants of this Bench are Members of your Lordships’ House. There are six state commissioners: the Prime Minister, the Lord President of the Council, the Secretaries of State for the Home Department and for Culture, Media and Sport and the Speakers of both Houses of Parliament, to whom whistleblowers have recourse.

The amendment, as we have heard, is motivated primarily by concerns about the commissioners’ responsibility for the national heritage. Your Lordships may be interested to know, in passing, that the Church of England, quite apart from its many other activities and the support of its clergy costs, raises between £400 million and £500 million a year from voluntary donations to support the built heritage of England, 60 per cent of which is the responsibility of the church. Let us not suppose that the church is somehow engaged in money-grabbing activities to save small pockets of money here and there; much larger sums are raised thorough the encouragement of the dioceses, of the bishops and of the churches in every locality to support our church buildings.

The Church Commissioners are not themselves a heritage body. They have fiduciary responsibility for the management of the assets with which they have been entrusted. Parliament gave them the responsibility to provide the maximum sustainable support, within their strong ethical investment framework, for their beneficiaries. They must not support today’s church at the expense of tomorrow’s church, and this means being strong enough to resist pressure, which the current governance structures enable.

Of course the commissioners must also act responsibly and transparently, which leads to the second point in this thread—that the commissioners are already actively involved with a wide range of local communities, seeking ways of satisfying their trustee duties while giving weight to local and national views about heritage and other issues. Your Lordships may be interested to know that, when an incumbent diocesan bishop becomes 62 and retirement age is in view, a full consultation takes place in the diocese about the suitability of the see house, possible alternatives and developments. There is consultation across a wide cross-section of civil society in every diocese.

For example, the commissioners have had discussions with local stakeholders about the future of Rose Castle—I shall say more about that in a moment—and they have given a local trust the opportunity to raise funds to purchase Hartlebury Castle. They are also currently engaging with a group chaired by the Lord Lieutenant of Durham that is exploring the retention of the Zurbaráns at Auckland Castle.

Let me say a little more about that. It is important for noble Lords not to believe everything that they read in the press on this matter. The sale of the paintings could raise at least £15 million for the church’s work across the country, especially in areas of the greatest need. The return on £15 million when invested, plus saved insurance and security costs, is equivalent to the cost of about 10 priests in perpetuity, in addition to the support we already provide. I remind your Lordships that the church is constantly being encouraged to play its part in the big society; to exercise its role in every local community; to ensure there is local leadership, which must be trained, housed, stipended and engaged with local people; to provide chaplains to schools, hospitals, prisons, universities and other organisations; and to play its part in engagement with other faith communities. All of this requires proper funding.

23:15

The Church Commissioners have a legal obligation to maximise support for the church’s ministry. Government ministers should not, I contend, be in a position to overrule them in relation to such activities, although it is perfectly proper that the commissioners should be and are accountable for them. As I have said, the commissioners have engaged with the Lord Lieutenant of Durham, local councillors, the local Member of Parliament and numerous other interested parties. They have answered questions in the House of Commons and in the General Synod on the matter repeatedly. Meanwhile, preparations for sale continue and we hope that these paintings might be sold next summer. While the commissioners are engaging with the working party that seeks to retain the pictures at Auckland Castle, they will not put conditions on the sale so that, ultimately, the purchaser will be in a position to decide what to do with them.

As for Rose Castle, the commissioners have a duty to ensure that bishops are appropriately housed. Rose Castle is unsuitable as a home for a modern bishop. It is too large and it would be too expensive to put right. The diocese of Carlisle supports this view and favours a see house in Keswick—in the centre of the diocese. Again, the commissioners have been engaging locally for some time to find the best way forward, and continue to do so.

Given its maintenance of so many special buildings, the church is the nation’s leading heritage organisation. However, the commissioners are not primarily a heritage body; they are trustees of the church’s historic assets and they are required to optimise their benefit for the church of today and tomorrow. The commissioners are a registered charity with a clear, specific legal responsibility to support the ministry of the Church of England and they have clear, robust governance structures. There could, if we are not careful, be a collision of governance if this amendment is passed. At this hour we should resist the temptation for Parliament to take back powers that it has given to the church, and concentrate instead on using more effectively the perfectly proper and long-standing means of holding the Church Commissioners to account.

[Lord Foster of Bishop Auckland]

My Lords, I support the amendment and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for the time that he has given to researching the legalities. I am not qualified either to support or to challenge these but I am most grateful to him. I am grateful, too, that he mentioned the Zurbaráns. My noble colleague pronounces it differently —I think a member of the Royal Family would agree with him—but, none the less, I call them Zurbaráns.

I have a great regard for the Church Commissioners. I would not agree with all the remarks made by my noble friend. I have had the great pleasure of serving with four Bishops of Durham, all of whom lived in Auckland Castle, which was part of my constituency for 26 years. It was a great joy to work with each of them. Indeed, I was a trustee of Auckland Castle for more than a decade and gave a great deal of my time to trying to reduce its financial burden on the Church Commissioners. We had considerable success during that period, before the trust was disbanded only last year.

The reason I support the amendment is that we are not arguing against the fiduciary responsibilities of the Church Commissioners, but we believe that they should also have a responsibility to pay due regard to national, local and regional heritage. After all, King John stayed at Auckland Castle in 1203, so I gather. The bishops of Durham were always prince bishops. Indeed, the county of Durham described itself as the land of the prince bishops. They were very powerful people indeed in those days and colossal figures in the whole political, social and economic life within the county of Durham and the wider authority.

I have been discussing this matter with the Church Commissioners for 15 years. On three occasions they have sought to sell the castle and the paintings, and on three occasions we have managed to dissuade them from doing so. On the last occasion, the campaign was ably led by bishop Tom Wright with the support of the Bishop of London, to whom the right reverend Prelate referred, and ultimately with the support of the Church Commissioners. I am very grateful to him for what he said and for the spirit in which he said it.

The commissioners have not always taken the same view. There was a period 15 years ago when they wanted to sell off all the bishops’ palaces as quickly as they could, but I think that reflected the position of a single commissioner. They departed from that view and have taken a much more sensible view over about the past decade. Now they are in discussion with Durham County Council and the group chaired by the Lord Lieutenant of Durham, of which I am a member. We are very pleased to be discussing this matter with the Church Commissioners.

However, it would be enormously helpful if the Church Commissioners had a duty to pay due regard to national and local heritage. After all, the Zurbaráns have been there for 250 years. They were bought for £150 by the bishop to celebrate the changing of the law in this place to extend the civil and political liberties of the Jews. What a wonderful thing he did 250 years ago. In the north of England we celebrate the great fact that we had such a progressive bishop, and we have had several since then. The bishop wanted to celebrate this deeply unpopular step among society at large by buying the Zurbarán paintings and extending the long dining room of the castle in order to hang them there. They have hung there ever since. We are enormously proud locally of the castle and of the Zurbaráns. The commissioners need to take all that into consideration.

I am still hopeful that we can come to a sensible conclusion on this issue. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to speak in support of the amendment.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I shall not keep your Lordships' House long but I want to make a further point. The Church of England is in a very real sense the guardian of the nation’s ecclesiastical treasures. It received them in circumstances which would be inconceivable today. We all have an interest in this. For many years I sat on the Ecclesiastical Committee as an Anglican and then as a Catholic. That change was perfectly reasonable because the Ecclesiastical Committee of the two Houses is there to ensure that decisions made perfectly properly by the Church of England do not detract from the interests of Her Majesty’s subjects as a whole.

The problem with the argument put forward by the right reverend Prelate is that it seeks to suggest that the Church of England is not the Church of England but a sect that is able to use its resources for its particular interests at a particular time. I warn the right reverend Prelate that his argument is very dangerous because his presence in this House is earnest of the fact that the Church of England is not thought by our society to be merely a sect. I have to admit that I left the Church of England because I believed that by making choices of a theological kind, it had changed—

[The Lord Bishop of Leicester]

Will the noble Lord agree with me that the argument I have been adducing is that the Church Commissioners have a responsibility to use the assets the church has acquired historically in whatever way they judge to be in the best interests of its service to the whole nation. That is precisely the basis of the argument for certain disposals; those wider interests should be borne in mind in the management of the church’s assets.

[Lord Deben]

The right reverend Prelate is making a judgment that I am suggesting is in fact, on this occasion—probably only on this occasion—erroneous. The fact is that the Church Commissioners are making a choice about how the historic property of the Church of England should be used in today’s world without, frankly, any thought of either tomorrow or yesterday. The Church of England has a duty to remember the interests of the whole church. This money will be applied to a number of charitable purposes, but the disposal will deprive our society of some very valuable things.

I hope that the right reverend Prelate will allow me to use a biblical comparison. Many people criticised Mary Magdalene for using valuable ointment on the feet of our Lord. He said very clearly that they were wrong in their judgment. My problem with right reverend Prelate’s argument is that I have heard it before. When I was a member of the General Synod of the Church of England, I argued that the assets of the church that protected the pensions of the right reverend Prelate and others should, in fact, be applied only to socially responsible investments. The secretary of the Church Commissioners got up and said, “We apply them using the very best advice of the City of London”. I said, “I thought the church was supposed to lead and set the example, not blame the City of London or suggest that the City can make moral judgments”. My noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries took the Church Commissioners to court on this issue and I am sad that he did not win. However, the Church Commissioners have changed their views on this.

This is the second reason why the right reverend Prelate is wrong, because if the Church Commissioners can invest, not for the best return on their money but on the basis that they will invest only in things that are proper for the Church of England to invest in, the church is making a judgment, not about what it can make the most money out of, but one which comes from its Gospel doctrines. I have to say that the idea that you could sell and allow to be taken—because that is what will happen if the position cannot be changed—from the walls of that great house a memorial to a moment in history when the Church of England stood up for the Gospel doctrines in a way which was remarkable for that century would be a manifest betrayal of the Church of England’s duty to look after the interests of the whole nation, rather than to seek to make an immediate profit for the use of a particular attitude and a particular church. That is not the role of the Church of England. This money is going to be spent not to protect interests in which all of us can join but to protect those of a no doubt very noble but particular position of the Church of England.

23:30

The third reason I feel so strongly is that we have had this before in another way. The Ecclesiastical Committee found that the behaviour of the then Dean of Westminster Abbey was other than satisfactory, but there was no ability to question the Dean because it was a royal peculiar, and the Church of England protected that situation. Although the interests of the wider community might have suggested that the committee should have been given that opportunity, which is the case with every other cathedral, it was not something that the Church of England was prepared to do.

I say to the Committee that I have come to the very sad conclusion that, when property or money is concerned, the Church of England does not always reach to the highest standards. I have found that all my life; I am finding it at the moment in the delicate issue of the ordinariate and the ability to share churches; and I find it in the fact that the unnecessary building of churches takes place in my own area, because the Church of England is not prepared to have long leases and to share with others. It is very curious that it is the one area where one finds it very difficult to get the Church of England to behave as one would expect.

[The Lord Bishop of Leicester]

My Lords—

[Lord Deben]

I shall give way to the right reverend Prelate but I shall just finish this one point. The Church of England has to learn that, if it is to continue to have a place in our society, it has to show a generosity of spirit which it has not shown in this debate. It has not yet understood that it is the guardian of something that it did not buy. A bishop bought these pictures, and a church with which it is no longer connected built those great palaces. The Church of England has a duty to respect the past. It has a duty to pass it on to the future and not to say to today’s generation, “I’m very sorry, it’s nothing to do with us. We can sell this, use the money and it will go”. It cannot do that and still claim the privileges for which I have fought, and will continue to fight, even though I am not an Anglican. However, every time it does not understand what my noble friend Lord Inglewood was saying, it undermines the establishment of the Church of England.

[The Lord Bishop of Leicester]

I wonder whether the noble Lord can help me with the criticism that he seems to be levelling at the Church of England as being irresponsible in its custodianship of the heritage that it holds. I find that a quite extraordinary charge and it is one that I do not think has been substantiated by anything that the noble Lord has said.

In my diocese, I am the custodian of 300 medieval churches. It is an extraordinary heritage experienced by every diocesan bishop right across the land. Tonight, we are discussing whether the Church Commissioners should have responsibility for deciding how best to house the diocesan bishops of today and tomorrow. A number of references have been made to our history, some of them to the 12th and 13th centuries. I am sure it will not have escaped the notice of your Lordships that circumstances today are very different from those of the 12th and 13th centuries. You simply cannot manage a built estate today on precisely the same principles as applied then. There are different considerations and many pressures on the Church of England and the Church Commissioners. Some of those pressures include many people arguing that in an age of austerity it is inappropriate for bishops to be housed in castles and palaces. That is also a consideration that needs to be weighed. It is not reasonable to say that the Church of England is somehow, in a cavalier manner, disregarding its past and future responsibilities. I made precisely that point in my remarks. It has to weigh all of those and walk a tightrope between its responsibilities to its heritage, to the wider community, to the nation and to the gospel.

The noble Lord quoted the story of Mary Magdalene pouring precious ointment over the feet of our Lord. That is an important example, but the question for this House to resolve tonight is who is best placed to interpret that tradition, the Church Commissioners and the Church of England, established under Parliament by law, or the Secretary of State? I suggest that the present arrangements protect that interpretation more satisfactorily than whoever happens to be the Minister in charge from time to time.

[Lord Deben]

I promise not to hold your Lordships' House any longer, so I shall reply specifically to that. If I felt that the Church of England had carried through its necessary duties in a way that was commensurate with its great heritage, I would not be supporting the amendment. If the argument of the right reverend Prelate were made by anyone else, no one would take it seriously. If anyone said, “I am very sorry. I am now running a business and it is really very difficult for me to keep this house as it is”, people would say, “I’m afraid that is your responsibility; that is what happens if you have been given the house; you have to look after it properly”. It is all right arguing about the churches, but you cannot make any money out of the churches.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

I am a Jewish atheist and, therefore, have no special interest, but I regard what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester has said as totally cogent and convincing. I believe that the question he has asked has not been addressed by the noble Lord or by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth: who is to decide, the church under the separation of church and state, or a Minister? Unhesitatingly, I agree with every word that the right reverend Prelate has said. When I listen to noble Lords talking about palaces, I am reminded of the absurd and pompous discussions we had about judges’ lodgings and the notion that High Court judges could not be judges unless they were insulated from the public and lived in those amazing country houses. This is exactly the same argument; it is reactionary and I do not believe that the law of charity or the other mechanisms do not adequately protect the public interest.

[Lord Deben]

I say to my noble friend that I have never claimed that bishops should live in these palaces. I do not want them to live in these palaces. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, thinks that, but that is not my argument. My argument is that the Church of England has a specific role in our society which involves accepting that it has a duty of care of that which it largely has received and did not itself create; someone else created it and it was handed on. The fact is that the Church of England has failed. Of course, it does not sell the churches; no one wants to buy medieval churches; it sells the things it can make money out of. Therefore, I unhesitatingly say that it will be very much better for the Church of England if a Minister were able to remind it of its duty, not just to the moment, not just to the future, but to the past, and its role, dependent on the fact that it is the Church of England; and if it forgets that, many of us will have to change our minds about its place here and in the establishment.

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords, I do not want to detain the House for a long time and I shall not. My noble friend Lord Deben has gone too far, as he did when he did not renew me as chairman of the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew. He came to a very bad judgment about that and I entirely support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester in his thesis.

I make one practical point about the Zurbaráns in Auckland Castle. The Church Commissioners are responsible for £5 billion worth of financial and property assets. The income from that funds 16 per cent of the church’s expenditure. The other 84 per cent comes, largely, from the congregations of the church and from, as the right reverend Prelate said, appeals for repairs and appeals for lead for the roof which needs renewing and so on. I think that the Church Commissioners and the church should take account of two things as they consider the position of the Zurbaráns. They need the support of their congregations. I do not think that it is certain that they will get £15 million for the Zurbaráns. The last time that this came up, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bishop Auckland, will remember, the Bowes Museum got an estimate from the market—not from Christie's or Sotheby's—and quoted £6 million, not £15 million or £20 million, which I think was the Sotheby's quote. So there is an issue about the risk which the Church Commissioners are taking with these pictures, which has nothing to do with the romantic story of Bishop Trevor, and that one of the pictures is a copy by Mr Pond for 24 guineas and the other pictures cost 21 guineas each. That is a very romantic story that has all the connotations of the disabilities of the Jews and all those things.

However, if the congregation in the north-east supported a solution which meant that the Church Commissioners could add on, shall I say, £12 million to £5 billion, you could say that that is likely to be a good judgment, not a bad one. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, I do not think that the church has to hang on to every asset. One could suggest that it sells the divorce papers of Henry VIII from Catherine of Aragon, which sit in the library in Lambeth Palace. I do not know how much they would make, but I would guess quite a lot of money.

We should not get tremendously excited about this. It is a practical issue, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester has presented it to us. It is full of practical judgments, but the church needs the support of its congregations. I say rather quietly that in the north-east, there is the Dean of Durham—I remind the House that there is no Bishop of Durham at the moment. Durham Cathedral has an appeal out now. Are the Church Commissioners absolutely certain that they will not lose by raising £12 million and having an income of £360,000 a year—the Church Commissioners’ assets yield 3 per cent—because congregations will say, “If you can do this and that, we are not going to give you so much money every Sunday or when you make an appeal”?

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

I know that the hour is late and I shall make only a few brief comments to put certain things on the record—not repeating, I hope, what has been said. I declare an interest as a member of the board of governors of the Church Commissioners —four bishops are elected to the board.

The first is to say that the Church Commissioners is a charity. I ask the Minister whether any of the other bodies listed in Schedule 3 is a registered charity. That is an important question to ask if we are thinking of adding the Church Commissioners to the list. The Church of England itself is not a public authority. That was clarified by the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House a few years ago in the Aston Cantlow case. It is a public authority for only certain limited purposes. We have been speaking in a carefree way, as if the Church of England is simply a public authority. It is not. For certain purposes it is, and there is a rather delicate ecology that lies behind everything here. There is no such legal entity as the Church of England. The Church of England is a symbiotic, organic collection of different bodies, each with certain degrees of independence. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, was wrong when he said that in no legal sense are the Church Commissioners part of the Church of England. They are part of that symbiotic connection, and you can disturb that and lots of other things without intending to do so.

The cost of maintaining the historic houses has progressively risen and taken a progressively greater proportion of the income of the Church Commissioners for several decades. That poses the question: how do you responsibly allocate the income for different purposes when you find that the cost of maintaining historic houses, which we know is great, is a constant upward pressure? Those are the decisions that the Church Commissioners are best placed to handle.

23:45

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, raised the interesting issue of suitability. I live in an old deanery, which is quite big. I reckon that 30 years ago the bishop had four members of staff to support him and his family living in that house. When I arrived in Chester nearly 15 years ago, there were two members of staff. Now there is one. Living in an historic house creates a lot of pressure. It is not quite such an attractive option when you are faced with the reality of handling a house without staff because they cannot be afforded. That is something that has not been mentioned.

The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, spoke of the Church Commissioners looking on see houses as cash cows. Placing a see house is usually a cash-neutral exercise, if anything, and it often costs more because there are not lots of people lining up to buy the sort of houses that we are disposing of. The noble Lord also referred to the Church Commissioners as engaged, and I quote him, in money laundering. I wonder whether he might withdraw that remark when he makes his closing remarks. It seems an inappropriate term to use in your Lordships' House and I hope we will not slip into that sort of allegation. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, made all sorts of allegations, but I noticed that they were of a general kind on the whole.

There is no rush. In the case of Hartlebury Castle, there are five years—2007 to 2012—to see whether a local solution can be found. In the case of Auckland Castle, there is and has been no proposal to sell it. There is a discussion about the castle and its contents that will, no doubt, go on. I am very pleased to hear of the discussions taking place. There is no rush, I promise you. There is only a desire to do what is best in this rather delicate ecology of how the Church of England relates to the nation as a whole.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I rise for two minutes. I was going to say that this was going to be an interesting discussion, but actually I found it a deeply shocking discussion. I am shocked by some of the allegations that have been made this evening. I think that the church has got a very difficult tightrope to walk at this very difficult economic time. Of course it has to care for our heritage, and I am sure that it does care for it deeply, as the right reverend Prelates have said, but its first responsibility at any time should be towards the flock and the people for whom it cares. In doing that, of course, it must also take into account the heritage that we all cherish. I am going to sit down now, but I think that this debate has been perhaps more inflamed than it should be. It perhaps demonstrates the need for greater scrutiny of the Church Commissioners, and I think that perhaps that is something that the Government and the church itself could look at because clearly there is a demand for perhaps more conversations and discussions about things that are going on. However, I am pretty much appalled by some of the things that have been said this evening.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I have enjoyed listening to the debate, but I share some of the noble Baroness’s observations on it. Perhaps it is the lateness of the hour. There is scarcely enough time to consider a topic as significant as this. I think I would have enjoyed the debate more if it had not been in the Public Bodies Bill, but it is clearly not an appropriate topic for this Bill, so I am going to address my remarks purely on those grounds. I think the House may well discuss methods whereby the scrutiny of church affairs could be brought back to this House in some way, but that is a matter for the House authorities. It is certainly not a matter for the Public Bodies Bill.

There are three reasons why the Government cannot accept this amendment, and they have been said. The first is that the Church Commissioners fall outside the scope of the Bill. They are not a non-departmental public body but essentially a non-governmental body and a charity under the scrutiny of the Charity Commissioners.

The second reason is the historic relationship between Parliament, government and the Church of England—perhaps we have seen why this separation of the estates is so important in the nature of the debate that we have had this evening. Since the enabling Act 1919 set up the Church Assembly, now the General Synod, it has been accepted that Parliament does not in practice legislate on the internal affairs of the Church of England without its consent. The mechanism laid down in that Act for legislating on the Church of England included the constitution of the Church Commissioners through synodical measure. There are, of course, methods by which Parliament can put pressure on the church to act, but the noble Lord’s amendment seeks to return to a position in which Ministers would have a direct power to intervene in the governance of the commissioners.

The third reason is that the commissioners’ board of governors, of which the right reverend Prelate is chairman, as trustees of a charity, are under a fiduciary duty to manage their assets in the way that best enables them to achieve their charitable purposes. It is therefore for them to determine how best to do so, including by deciding whether to dispose of particular assets. It is not a matter for Ministers to regulate in the case of this or any other charity. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Inglewood]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I must say that when I moved the amendment I had no idea what direction the debate would take, but I did not anticipate that it would move in the way in which it did. I particularly thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester for arguing the case that he did in the way in which he did, and I thank my noble friend Lord Deben for his counter point. In a way, it drew a lot of the argument into the open and made it clear that these issues are perhaps not as clear as we all like to think they are at first blush. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester asked me whether I would withdraw the use of the words “money laundering”. I shall do so, although what I actually said was “a form of money laundering”, and I bracket those words with “the philosopher’s stone that turns base metal into gold”.

I will make one technical point and then one more general point. The technical point is that the Church Commissioners are not completely charitable. The point of the 1943 measure is that they hold certain funds that include the bishops’ palaces, which are not held charitably—and I base that not on my own inadequate legal knowledge but on Halsbury’s Laws of England in the Library of the House. The relationship between the Charity Commissioners, the Church of England and its assets is perhaps not as straightforward as any of us quite think.

I will also make a point that no one else has made this evening but which I feel has something to do with this. In religious matters, enthusiasms gain prominence from time to time—we have seen this in a number of areas, such as the Reformation and the iconoclasm of Byzantium—in which so enthusiastic do people become about a particular way of looking at things that they perhaps feel that they can ignore everything else in the pursuit of it. My sense as an individual, as one of the foot-soldiers in the Church of England, is that there is currently a great movement against the kind of things that I was talking about. I hasten to add that I hope your Lordships noticed that I never said that bishops should live in bishops’ palaces; I said that if bishops ceased to live in bishops’ palaces, proper and legitimate steps should be taken to look after the heritage interest that they represent. I added in parenthesis that I had a personal preference in that direction, but that is quite different. I am concerned that, if we have a kind of cultural revolution, as we have seen from time to time in churches, the Red Guards should not destroy all the things that matter in effecting the changes that they want to see.

It is ultimately for the Church of England to decide what it wants to do but I believe that we all have a legitimate interest in the assets of the Church of England and that society as a whole has a legitimate interest in what happens to them. After all, these particular buildings are listed and the civil authority is not simply decoupled from them.

It is late. We have had a lot to think about, and I hope that we shall continue to think about it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 70A withdrawn.

Amendment 71

Moved by

[Baroness Thornton]

71: Schedule 3, page 18, line 22, leave out “Commission for Equality and Human Rights.”

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 71, I shall speak also to Amendments 88 and 138 and give my support to Amendment 78. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, and I are under the cosh tonight, so I will try to be as brief as I can. As regards this Bill, many noble Lords have been concerned that the proposed process and mechanisms to modify or abolish public bodies might have been unconstitutional and disproportionate, and in this case may jeopardise the crucial independence of the EHRC and other public bodies working on equality and human rights issues.

When I think of all the bodies listed in this Bill, the fact that the organisation established to safeguard equality and human rights, the independence of which is vital, should be subject to a procedure which may threaten that independence to act on behalf of those discriminated against, including against the state, has to raise questions. We suggest that consideration should be given to removing the EHRC from this Bill and making changes to its functions, powers and constitution through the normal parliamentary procedures of primary legislation.

I am very pleased to note that the Minister has been working with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, on the safeguards that should apply to orders made under the Bill, particularly in relation to Amendment 175. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for meeting me and I hope that the Government will reach a conclusion that offers protection for the necessary independent exercise of these public functions.

I am also aware that the Government have said that they will shortly consult on options for reforming the EHRC. However, the consultation paper has not been published. The Government’s stated intention is to refocus the commission’s work on its core functions of regulating equality and anti-discrimination law in Great Britain, of fulfilling EU equality requirements and of being a national human rights institution.

I understand that Ministers are also considering transferring some of the commission’s functions and services to government departments or contracting with private or voluntary sector bodies to undertake them. The Government have indicated that this may include the commission’s helpline and grants function. I would point out that ahead of this constitution and before details are known, the Public Bodies Bill will give Ministers significant powers to modify the functions, powers and constitutional structure of the EHRC.

It has a distinctive constitutional role in Britain’s democratic system in holding the Government to account, which was highlighted by the Joint Committee on Human Rights prior to the EHRC’s establishment. The JCHR said that the EHRC had a similar role constitutionally to the Electoral Commission, the National Audit Office and the parliamentary commissioner for administration, and therefore should be accountable directly to Parliament. Similarly, it is entirely appropriate that Parliament would have a full role in debating any proposed amendments to the EHRC’s powers and functions. Indeed, when we were taking the Equality Act 2006 through Parliament there was a significant amount of debate about the independence of the new body being created. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, paid a pivotal role in persuading my Government to ensure that the EHRC had a great deal of protection of its independence—and quite right too.

The EHRC requires independence from government in relation to its functions, its structures and the exercise of its powers as a requirement of the United Nations Paris Principles of national human rights institutions. If Ministers were able to modify the powers, functions and constitution of the commission by ministerial order, what questions would that raise about independence and how would it affect our ability to maintain a status as a national human rights institution?

Finally, I turn to what is in many ways the most important question and one that I discussed with the Minister earlier today. The question is whether the Bill would allow any future Governments to modify and abolish the HRC by ministerial order and take legal action against that. This is an issue on which we need clarification, part of which has already been given by the Minister in the earlier exchange. Perhaps I may put it in simple language. If this Government proceed as outlined in the Bill and, after consultation, use the statutory instruments at their disposal to reform the HRC and use the powers in Parts 3, 4 and 5 to change it, could another Minister with even more enthusiasm than the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, and her colleague, Lynne Featherstone, come along in three years’ time and start the whole process over again? Does the Bill give them the powers to do that? It seems to me that that is a very serious matter indeed. I beg to move.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords, I, too, have put my name to this amendment and the others in the group. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has already mentioned, I did play a part when we were enacting the Equality Act 2006, the legislation which provided safeguards for the Equality and Human Rights Commission when it was being set up. The particular safeguards that we negotiated when the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, was the Minister were, first, that the Secretary of State should pay to the commission,

“such sums as appear to the Secretary of State reasonably sufficient for the purpose of enabling the Commission to perform its functions”.

The second one provided that the Secretary of State,

“should have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the Commission is under as few constraints as reasonably possible in determining—

(a) its activities,

(b) its timetables, and

(c) its priorities.

The third concerned the merit appointment of the commissioners. Those safeguards were put in because originally the Bill would have allowed Ministers to be very interventionist in relation to the commission. The then Government showed what I think was open-minded wisdom in realising that these safeguards were needed. So naturally I was concerned when I saw that the commission was in three schedules and, indeed, in Schedule 7, too.

I pay tribute to the patience of Ministers, but especially of their civil servants who have to be even more patient, in discussing the kind of safeguards that are needed not only in relation to this commission but also to any other bodies that are subject to the powers contained in the Bill. We are now very close to agreeing on general safeguards, without which I would have very great concerns, particularly in relation to the commission. But I am not quite in a position to tell the Committee what I think might be the safeguards that would be an improvement on Amendment 175, which is the amendment that the Committee has in effect already approved. It is important that these safeguards are put in place during the Committee stage in order that we know where we are when we get to the Report stage.

The particular safeguards that I think are very important for this commission are, first, safeguards of its independence when it is performing a judicial function, as it does, of course, when for example it is deciding whether to find someone liable for unlawful discrimination. It has to act independently and impartially in doing that. Secondly, the commission has oversight or scrutiny functions and can bring legal proceedings. Often those proceedings are brought against government departments, so it is important that Ministers should not be in a position to try to nobble the commission or persuade it not to perform its strategic law enforcement functions. Thirdly, it is important that there should not be overkill; that sledgehammers should not be used to crack a nut.

If those safeguards were in place, the Equality and Human Rights Commission would be quite wrong in suggesting, as it has in its latest briefing, that it should be outside the Bill altogether. Provided those safeguards are in place, the commission should not be immune from the kind of changes which it would be sensible to make and which are indicated in the briefing that the Government have published. Unfortunately, we do not yet have the consultation paper, but we have the benefit of a briefing note from the Government which indicates that they consider that there is a clear need for an independent equality regulator and a national human rights institution, and that the original aims of the commission are very much in line with the coalition Government’s new approach on equality as set out in the equality strategy, Building a Fairer Britain—I say amen to that.

The Government have also made it clear that difficulties in the transition process from the old commission and the breadth of the new commission’s duties have contributed to the underperformance of the commission to date, referring among other things to the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which I was party, as well as to the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee. That is a good reason why the Government, although they have decided to retain the commission—I am delighted by that—wish to reform it. They have also said that they want the commission to become a valued and respected national institution focusing on its core role as a strong, modern equality regulator and UN-accredited national human rights institution but being able to show that it is using public money wisely. I do not want to wash linen in public, whether clean or otherwise, but there is no doubt that there have been arguments between the commission and the Government when the Government have sought to ensure proper financial regulation and accountability and so on and the commission has asserted its independence. I suppose that I can claim to be one of the great-grandfathers of the commission since I was there even in the 1970s when we first set up the EOC and the CRE. I think that there is a difference between self-government, which provides the independence which is needed, and irresponsibility when it comes to financial control. Therefore, provided the safeguards are in place, I think that the commission has to be accountable—I am sure that it would not disagree with this—when it comes to value for money.

What I suggest this evening—or rather this morning, since we have now just passed midnight—is that we should not proceed further with this subject other than to listen to the Minister, because we need to get the safeguards in place as soon as we can. Those safeguards are generic; they are to apply not only to the commission. Once they are in place, I believe that the Government’s aims will be legitimate and that we can proceed further.

Lord Boswell of Aynho: My Lords, it is indeed a very late hour, and I rise only briefly to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for raising this issue in quite moderate terms. I also thank my noble friend Lord Lester for the way in which he has nuanced it in relation both to the judicial or quasi-judicial activities and responsibilities of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and to the need for what might be termed a proper look at administrative reform, subject to the necessary safeguards.

I have had a developing interest in this matter over a number of years. At one stage in another place, I held a Front Bench brief on behalf of my party for disability issues at the time when the first discussions were taking place about a coalescence of the various bodies. I also had, for separate and unrelated reasons, an interest in both gender and racial equality issues. I supported, and I am very glad that we have effected, the merger of these various bodies. However, just as in relation to the previous amendment we discussed I bear no malice towards the Church of England in suggesting its inclusion in the Bill, I bear no malice towards the Equality and Human Rights Commission in suggesting that its position should be maintained within this schedule.

We need to concentrate on its main responsibilities while preserving its independence. Having had, because of those Front Bench responsibilities, dealings with Trevor Phillips, for example, at the time these bodies came together, and a number of constructive discussions about this, I do not think things have quite gelled as they might have done. There is more work to be done in taking the inefficiencies out of the system and in concentrating on core business. However, I would not like that to be interpreted by the Minister or anyone else as code for saying that there is no role for the EHRC. In the previous Equality Bill, when I had become before my retirement from the other place a Back-Bencher, I had immense support from the EHRC on some of the issues—for example, in introducing a long and complex amendment about a principles clause, which did not commend itself to the previous Administration, and also, indeed, in suggesting that there might be a human rights responsibility alongside the public sector equality duty.

As my noble friend Lord Lester said, there are some very important points about turning the ability of the commission to operate independently where there are defects, or arguments about defects, in the public sector. That integrity has to be maintained. The basic job which the commission was set up to do is worthwhile. We need to make sure that we clear out of the way any of the clutter and that that duty is clearly and effectively discharged.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, most things have already been said but perhaps I may say that, for the moment, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Thornton. I say “for the moment” because, like many other noble Lords, my principal concern relates to the independence of the commission. I believe that the commission fulfils a vital function in ensuring compliance with equality and human rights law. Clearly, the discussions that are taking place between the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, are extremely important. When we get the revised Bill back before Report, we may find that many changes have been made, which will make me feel much more confident about the fact that the commission appears in certain schedules.

Like other noble Lords, I am delighted that the commission will no longer feature in Schedule 7, and nor will any other body. However, like my noble friend Lady Thornton, I am constantly perplexed by the way in which consultations follow legislation at the moment. I hope that in future we will have consultations before legislation, because that is the right way forward.

My noble friend asked the Minister about what future Ministers might be able to do in relation to the maintenance of the commission in the schedules. I reiterate a question asked earlier by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath about sunsetting. At an earlier stage I said that on behalf of my Benches I was very much in favour of sunsetting the whole Bill. However, when we see the recast Bill on Report, perhaps rather than sunsetting the whole Bill I might be in favour of sunsetting the schedules, so that the bodies that appear in the schedules can have some confidence that, at the end of this process and whatever has happened to them in the mean time, they will be free to evolve. They need that security of knowing that they are not constantly going to feature in the schedules. I would be grateful for the views of the Minister on sunsetting the schedules.

12:15

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank the noble Baroness for tabling these amendments and for the productive meeting that we had earlier today. This will, I hope, be a fairly brief debate, but it has certainly been productive, because this is one of the key bodies within the Bill. It is emblematic of the desire of all noble Lords to have a facility to reform public bodies while retaining their essential core activities and their independence.

The inclusion of the Equality and Human Rights Commission in each of these schedules was not an afterthought. The Government made it clear in their announcement of 14 October that they intend to retain but substantially reform the commission, refocusing it on its core functions of regulating equality and anti-discrimination law in Great Britain, fulfilling EU equality requirements and being a national human rights institution under the United Nations. We also intend that it should provide better value for the taxpayers’ money spent on it—something that it has so far failed to do.

The Government intend to set out their proposals for the commission in a consultation document shortly. I hope that this will be available on Report. However, I can assure your Lordships that the combination of needing to focus the commission on its core functions and at the same time improving its value for money means that our consultation exercise will include proposals relevant to all three schedules mentioned in this group of amendments.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Royall, raised a point about what happens to bodies having had a process of reform within the schedule. Do they remain in a permanent state of anxiety and is there a case for sunsetting? We are actively considering proposals similar to that which the noble Baronesses suggested. Above that, any statutory instrument can include a proposal for a body or office to be removed from the schedule in which it appears. It can be done in that way, but I appreciate the concerns of the noble Baroness. I extend an invitation to her to talk further about this because it is a mechanism that would make the Bill much more effective, if we can find ways of closing the schedules after the period of reform.

I know that this is a matter of concern to a number of noble Lords, so I can assure the Committee that we recognise the importance of the commission being able to independently administer its core regulatory functions as well as those founded on international and EU obligations. In particular, the Lord Chancellor recently made it clear when giving evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the commission’s independence as a national human rights institution would remain untouched. I am happy to repeat his assurance and hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, can accept it.

It is appropriate that I pay tribute to the work being done by my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill and indeed by other noble friends, such as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern and my noble friend Lord Maclennan, who in the early days pointed out a number of deficiencies that he felt needed to be addressed. I am grateful to join in the tributes paid by my noble friend Lord Lester to the Bill team, which has worked extremely hard in trying to find a way through on this matter. I hope that my noble friend Lord Boswell can feel content that we are achieving what we would seek to do in reforming this institution without changing its independence from government. Therefore, I ask noble Lords to accept the inclusion of the EHRC in each of these schedules as a necessary measure. It is properly safeguarded and narrowed in scope by the removal of Schedule 7. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Thornton]

I thank the Minister for that reply and thank the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Boswell, and my noble sister. It is actually International Women’s Day now—we are 21 minutes into it—so I thank my noble friend Lady Royall for her remarks.

We are now at the point when there is nothing much more that we can say in this Chamber, so we now need to continue our discussions. I accept the invitation to continue talking to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 71 withdrawn.

Amendment 72

Moved by

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

72: Schedule 3, page 18, line 24, leave out “Internal drainage boards.”

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Greaves, who for reasons of health is unable to move it himself and has asked me to do so. Amendment 72 and others related are concerned with the internal drainage boards, which operate principally under the Land Drainage Act 1991 and are independent operating authorities. They form a specialist but important part of the systems of local governance in their areas. There are 154 of these bodies in England and they have an important role in managing water level and flood risk. Their activities include action in emergencies, maintenance of pumping stations where necessary and providing planning advice to local authorities.

The Association of Drainage Authorities, which is the national body that represents the IDBs, is unhappy about the inclusion of these bodies in the Bill and has suggested that primary legislation would be more appropriate. There are at least two opportunities for considering this matter in this parliamentary Session. The first is through the Localism Bill, which it has been suggested by the association would be a better way in which to make specific modifications to the legislation, including amalgamation of the boards. The association has also drawn attention to the fact that the Government are proposing to produce a water White Paper in June and believes that that would be likely to be followed by a water Bill, which would provide another appropriate route through primary legislation, allowing full scrutiny to take place and extensive parliamentary debate if necessary. I rise simply to ask the Government why they feel it appropriate to include the IDBs in this Bill and why they have not preferred to wait for the primary legislation intended to be produced relatively soon.

Some concern has been expressed by these bodies—particularly by the chief executive of the ADA—that local people, including volunteers, with considerable local knowledge, freely offer advice to help to reduce the risk of flooding to people, property and land. These concerns are worthy of being addressed in the debate. I have no doubt that the Minister will be able to explain the Government’s position. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester)]

I must advise the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment 72A for reasons of pre-emption.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington]

My Lords, I support these amendments. When I spoke at various stages of the Flood and Water Management Bill, it was mainly about the importance of the integrity of catchment management plans and of the local knowledge and understanding of water management in each and every catchment. A crucial part of that knowledge and understanding can be found in the IDBs. There are more than 130 IDBs, covering nearly 1.3 million hectares of England and Wales, and I happen to know that whenever they were looked at by MAFF—and, I dare say, by Defra, although I am unaware of any analysis or report in the past 10 years—they have been shown to be exceptional value for money, because the work they do would cost the state millions of pounds more if they were not there.

The IDBs are managed largely by volunteers with professional, historical and local knowledge and expertise that is unequalled on their patch. They are really good examples of how the big society should work and remain a major delivery partner in flood management. While they continue to protect agricultural, commercial and domestic property, they are also reinventing themselves to protect habitats, SSSIs, and environmental issues such as lichen, insects, wildflowers and barn owls, to name but a few.

I accept that their purposes and procedures, organisation and membership should always be reviewed in the light of modern practice but the value, knowledge and local expertise they represent should not be undermined or wasted—at least, not on our watch. I also accept that their membership may need broadening in the light of new financial arrangements. I understand that that is beginning to happen and that there are already broader interests in the environment and the like, which should be represented in their membership. However, I worry a little about the Environment Agency being responsible for their amalgamations and boundary changes in “non-contentious cases”. Does that mean that the IDBs involved have to agree with the proposed changes? I would worry if the Environment Agency had the power to take over any IDB responsibilities without their consent because that would be a waste of local expertise and, probably, of money. It would be unlikely to lead to any greater efficiency. Can the Minister address the definition of “non-contentious cases”?

Finally—I repeat this every time I stand up on this Bill—while this Government may have indicated their immediate intention is not necessarily to undermine or dramatically alter the functions of IDBs, I always worry about the long-term issue of leaving them in Schedules 3 and 5 in case some future Government threaten those highly important bodies. Once again, it seems that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is moving slightly closer to sunset clauses in the Bill. I heartily endorse that he moves even closer.

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, a number of important questions have been raised in this short debate and I am grateful for that. Indeed, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, for moving the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who I very much supported in initially tabling these amendments. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, I also pay tribute to the work of the internal drainage boards. The more that I have read about them, the more valuable they seem. Certainly I have received some letters about them from members of the public, seeming to value the work that they do in particular localities. I was amazed to read somewhere that these have a long history, going back to 1252. However, I understand that the more immediate legislative base of the work of the organisations actually dates from the Land Drainage Act 1930.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said that he understood that no revision of the organisations had taken place in the past 10 years. I had understood that in 2004 there was some revision of the rules and procedures of the internal drainage boards. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that and tell us whether or not that revision of rules and procedures was successful or, indeed, whether there is some aspect of them that the Government feel that they want to make further changes to. Again, like the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, I am not really clear what the Government want to do by including these bodies in the Bill.

I endorse the comments that have been made that the bodies seem to be very flexible. They operate in ways that suit the different areas, and in that sense they are something of a success story—it is a case of local management responding to local situations, which seems to be in line with the Government’s thinking on localism. I also note, though, that the Government’s own paper explaining their attitude to the Public Bodies Bill says that one of the changes they want to make is to make the bodies more responsive to local needs and more reflective of local interests. My understanding is that they already operate in such a manner and involve local communities in the way that the Government seem to want them to. Perhaps the Government can explain that aspect of their policy.

The drainage boards play an important role in reducing flood risk, a tremendously important issue at present. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, mentioned, they also have an important role regarding the natural environment, even on such issues as vegetation clearance works, which they seem to do in a sensitive way. Indeed, when crises occur, many of them provide a 24-hour contact number and extended office hours. They seem to be organisations that work flexibly and well in all circumstances. One of the letters that I received mentioned the fact that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Natural Environment and Fisheries in another place said:

“From a personal point of view I see IDBs as a good example of what the Prime Minister wants to see happen around the big society. All the IDB members give their time, their local know-how and their skill, free of charge all for the benefit of wider society”.

Again, these are strong endorsements, so we need an explanation before Report of why exactly these bodies have been put into the Bill.

I echo the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, about the Environment Agency making decisions about these bodies in the circumstances that seem to be outlined. The agency itself is mentioned in the Bill and indeed in this group of amendments. Given the late hour and the complexity of the agency’s operations, I cannot do anything other than skirt over its role, but again it would be good if the Government divulged some of their thinking about the future role of the Environment Agency. Have they had discussions with the agency about its role or any suggested changes that the Government want to make?

Is it the Government’s aim to move forward with the consent and the agreement of the agency and its staff? That is also an important point. The agency has staff who are worried that somehow or other their status or their independent stance might be penalised if it is not felt to be totally in accordance with government priorities. They want reassurance about their role, their independence and their status in future.

I shall not say anything more at this stage but I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some information, if not entirely in the course of this debate then in writing so that we have good information on which we can base our attitude when these matters come up again on Report.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I might have to spend a few minutes on this but I hope I can satisfy most of the points that have been raised by noble Lords. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Maclennan for moving this amendment on behalf of his noble friend Lord Greaves.

As noble Lords will know, IDBs manage flood risk and the drainage of agricultural land. In doing so, they also seek to conserve and enhance the environment in those areas of special drainage need where they operate. They play an important role, which is recognised by their inclusion as flood risk management authorities in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Like my honourable friend Mr Benyon, I pay tribute to what the IDBs did in the manner that was cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Quin. She also made it clear that the Land Drainage Act 1991 sets out the IDBs’ functions and the arrangements under which they operate, but reminded us that those are based on considerably earlier legislation. She took us back to the 13th century. I do not know whether there was legislation at that stage but she is certainly right in saying that one can go back a long way.

The main issues that arise are restrictive arrangements on governance, limits on the functions of the IDBs and burdensome procedures for changing boundaries and other arrangements. In respect of governance, dealt with under Clause 3 and Schedule 3, the law currently means that, even where most of the funding is from local authorities, an authority can have no more than one member more than half the total membership of a board—the so-called bare majority. This weakens the incentives for efficiency, which would be present with a stronger relationship between sources of funding and levels of representation. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that point. In addition, despite the wider environmental function of IDBs, there is no provision for specialist members to represent those functions, or other wider interests, on the boards. Experience has shown that specialists can add greatly to the effectiveness of boards.

In respect of the functions of IDBs, in terms of Clause 5 and Schedule 5, it is not proposed to transfer those functions to any other body—I give that assurance—or to take away any functions. However, simplification of some of the burdensome procedural requirements so that, for example, IDBs can formalise their rules or procedure with Environment Agency consent, rather than ministerial consent, requires modification of the functions of IDBs. In addition, as the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 imposes a sustainable development duty in relation to IDBs’ flood risk functions, and as their flood risk and drainage roles are hard to separate, it is important to align these duties to improve clarity and certainty. For example, where certain works have a bearing on soil carbon, this would be a relevant consideration whether the aim of the work was flood risk management or land drainage.

For the sake of flexibility and efficiency, we are also exploring the possibility of IDBs having the power to carry out other related water management functions in their areas. The Government will keep this under review and will propose a transfer of functions to the IDBs if and when that is appropriate. It is for these reasons that we have included IDBs in Schedule 5. This will mean a more flexible framework for IDBs, which will allow them to adapt to change and therefore put them on a stronger footing. I repeat the assurances that my honourable friend has given and his phrase about IDBs being part of the big society.

As I have explained, at present the procedure for IDB boundary changes, amalgamations and reconstitutions —that is, changes to board memberships and other matters relating to IDBs—is very lengthy and cumbersome, involving advertising and consideration of objections by the Environment Agency and Defra. We would like to simplify this process by giving the Environment Agency the power to approve these changes other than, for example, in the dispute cases. This is what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, referred to. I make it clear to the noble Lord that cases described as “non-contentious” are those where there is no dispute. Therefore, in the non-disputed cases there would be no need to have ministerial involvement. I hope that that assurance will be sufficient to satisfy the noble Lord. The aim of that is to reduce the bureaucratic controls and to allow IDBs to be more responsive to change. For this reason the Environment Agency is also listed in Schedule 5.

There is also a lengthy procedure involving Defra and the Environment Agency in respect of varying maps that show the extent of watercourses deemed to be “main river”. The Environment Agency is responsible for those watercourses. Hence some changes can be significant but others relate simply to alterations in the course of a river. We propose to give the agency the power to make these changes in respect of uncontested, non-contentious changes. That again would reduce unnecessary administrative costs.

The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, asked about the legislative timetable and whether there were other more appropriate Bills in which to tackle this issue. There is no guarantee that a water Bill will be brought forward. From my own experience over the years—no doubt this is the experience also of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin—I know that there is uncertainty about the legislative timetable and about obtaining the agreement of colleagues. The noble Baroness gives a wry grin but it is sometimes difficult to agree on relatively minor changes. Therefore, we think that it is prudent to provide for these relatively minor changes in the Bill rather than to delay them further. However, I give an assurance that the Bill requires consultation to take place before any order is made. I guarantee that that will take place.

Government Amendments 72A and 94A in the name of my noble friend Lord Taylor restrict the order-making power of government Ministers to IDBs that are wholly or mainly in England. This is a result of reaching agreement with the Welsh Assembly that it is more appropriate for Welsh Ministers to have this power for those IDBs which are wholly or mainly in Wales.

[Lord Wigley]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Henley]

I am very grateful for that “Hear, hear” from the Cross Benches. For the reasons I have explained, I hope that the Committee will agree to the Government’s amendments and that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for his full response to the debate which has given us the information that we sought. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 72 withdrawn.

Amendment 72A

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

72A: Schedule 3, page 18, line 24, at end insert “for areas wholly or mainly in England”

Amendment 72A agreed.

Amendment 73

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

73: Schedule 3, page 18, line 25, leave out “Joint Nature Conservation Committee.”

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 73 in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty and speak to his Amendment 79, which refers to the Chief Inspector of Drinking Water, my Amendment 80, which relates to the Marine Management Organisation, to which Amendment 155 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, also refers, and to Amendment 81 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, which relates to Natural England. All these bodies have a very significant responsibility in terms of sustaining and protecting the environment. Will the Minister explain why these bodies are covered in the Bill? The noble Lord has sat very patiently through much of our deliberations on the Bill. He will know that part of the concern felt about the Bill is that the independence of organisations listed in a number of the schedules is called into question, given the ability of Ministers to intervene, change their governance structure and finance and merge or abolish them simply through an order-making power. There is therefore a general concern about the architecture of the Bill, and one is concerned when one sees these organisations listed, because in terms of protecting the environment it is important that they can discharge their responsibilities independently, without undue interference or influence from a government body.

12:45

I particularly want to ask the Minister about the Marine Management Organisation. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will remember our lengthy debates on the Marine and Coastal Access Bill. He will also recall that when I sat on the government Benches, I was constantly harassed by noble Lords from all around the House for the lack of progress in establishing the Marine Management Organisation, on whether it would have enough powers, be sufficiently independent from Defra, and be able to do its job effectively. I must say that having finally established the MMO, I am surprised that it is listed in this Bill, and it presumably faces further review, possible reduction in resources and changes to its governance.

This is an opportunity to ask the noble Lord who is to reply why these bodies are listed. What is the purpose? I am sure that that will help us to understand whether this move is necessary or whether we need to come back to consider these bodies on Report. I beg to move.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington]

My Lords, I wish to speak to the amendment on the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. I first declare an interest as a past member of the JNCC. I am sure that the role it performs could be done better. In my time there, there was a view—not perhaps mine, because I was not necessarily involved—that the staff seconded to the JNCC by the various constituent bodies were not always the best that could be found. I do not know whether that remains the case, but I do not dispute the possibility of potential reform within the JNCC.

However, the JNCC is an important body. Nature does not necessarily conform to man’s boundaries, whether administrative or national. Furthermore, there are bits in between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, such as firths, seas and skies, which are in a sort of no-man’s land where the JNCC plays an important role. Nature conservation in the UK has to be managed, researched, protected and even enhanced on an international basis. This could not happen in the absence of the JNCC.

Just as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has done, I ask the Minister: what is the long-term intention here? I am sorry to be boring about this, but, once again, can we please have a sunset clause in case a future Government come up with a different answer to that question?

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for moving or speaking to the amendments that highlight the situation of a number of important organisations listed in the Bill. It is useful to highlight these issues in Committee and then evaluate how to take the debate forward at Report.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, I refer first to the JNCC. It was good to hear the knowledge that he acquired as a former member of that organisation. My understanding is that the JNCC acts as an adviser to Her Majesty’s Government and the devolved Governments. I ask the Minister what discussion there has been with the devolved Governments about the structure of the committee, its work and what changes are envisaged. I stress, as did the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that the committee does a lot of important work: it has an important European role; it carries out important work on biodiversity, which is a priority for the Government and for most Members of this House; and it disseminates a lot of information to ensure, for example, that details of EU policy decisions in this area are disseminated to conservation bodies throughout the country and to other key stakeholders. Therefore, it has a lot of important functions.

Am I right in understanding that the changes that the Government are proposing to the JNCC are rather minor? It would be useful to know that. According to the information provided by the Government, the aim is apparently to improve the cost-effectiveness of the committee and reduce the environmental costs of its operations. I do not know what assessment has been made of its environmental costs, so perhaps the Minister can give us further information about that.

My noble friend Lord Hunt also mentioned the Marine Management Organisation, and I shared his surprise that it should figure in the Bill. It is a new organisation and was set up very much with cross-party support, which was very welcome. In a recent debate that we had in Grand Committee on a statutory instrument that made a minor change to the work of the organisation, I know that the Minister gave a strong endorsement of the MMO’s work. Therefore, I reiterate the questions asked by my noble friend. Why is the organisation in the Bill, and what changes, if any, are envisaged to its operation?

In this group of amendments there is also reference to the Drinking Water Inspectorate. Again, this has an important role in providing information on research, regulations and water testing products and in providing independent reassurance that water supplies in England are safe and that drinking water is acceptable to consumers. That independent scrutiny of water company activities is very important and we want to be assured that it is not going to be in any way jeopardised. Having looked at the DWI’s website, I can see that it provides a lot of information to the public in its list of events and in its general climate of openness. Again, I hope that that will not be jeopardised in any future changes.

Finally, another vital organisation is Natural England, which also figures in these amendments. Some considerations similar to those that apply to the MMO are relevant here. Although not as new as the MMO, Natural England is a fairly recent organisation. It was set up in 2006 with, I understand, all-party support. It establishes and cares for England’s main wildlife and geological sites, nature reserves, SSSIs and so on. It is also important in designating areas of outstanding natural beauty and so forth. It is probably best known to Members of the House as the body responsible for administering the agri-environment schemes—environmental stewardship schemes and others—amounting to some £400 million a year. That is obviously a vital role which will need to continue in the future.

Can the Minister clarify in what areas the Government envisage Natural England charging fees for its activities? I understand that that has been mentioned. Perhaps the Government can also give us an indication of future funding changes relating to Natural England. Our view is that we do not want to undermine the effectiveness of what seems to us to be a very effective organisation. Again, therefore, as with the other bodies in this group of amendments, we would like some reassurances that will help us to decide how to examine these issues as we proceed towards Report.

[Lord Henley]

The noble Baroness suggested that what we are dealing with are rather minor changes. I can assure her that they are not rather minor but very minor. The amendments would remove these four Defra bodies from the Bill, which would be unfortunate as the very minor changes that we are proposing are not only modest but help to improve the efficiency of these bodies. They remove a financial burden from the taxpayer, which is something that we should all seek to do.

I shall deal with the four bodies in turn, starting with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. As the noble Baroness says, it advises the Government and the devolved Administrations on behalf of United Kingdom conservation bodies on UK-wide and international nature conservation. Its core role is to co-ordinate biodiversity surveillance and information management across the United Kingdom in support of better policy implementation and decision-making to help to meet the UK’s EU and international obligations.

In consultation with the devolved Administrations, which jointly fund and sponsor the JNCC and the United Kingdom conservation bodies, the Government seek to ensure that it is operating as efficiently and as cost-effectively as possible. I wish to make it clear that the JNCC fully supports those aims and the committee has discussed a number of measures such as reducing the number of board and committee meetings and reducing the number of committee representatives. The committee has also discussed a proposal to amend its corporate status to allow it to operate as a conventional non-departmental public body, rather than through a company limited by guarantee, as at present. All those changes will enable the JNCC to streamline certain administrative procedures and to reduce its running costs. Some of these proposals—for example, reducing the number of committee representatives—would require changes to primary legislation. That could be the subject of an order made using powers in this Bill. That is why it is listed in Schedule 3.

Other bodies are listed in Schedule 4 in order to modify their charging powers. The reason is not to increase the funding of these bodies but to ensure that those who create the costs of carrying out functions bear that cost. At present, those costs are not fully recoverable and, as a result, the burden falls on taxpayers. I should like to set out the proposals in respect of each body. Starting with the Drinking Water Inspectorate, the Government propose to enable the DWI to implement a charging scheme to enable the inspectorate to recover the cost of much of its regulatory work undertaken on behalf of the water industry. At present the DWI is funded entirely by Defra and, therefore, its costs of operation fall to taxpayers. Allowing the inspectorate to charge the industry for its regulatory work will result in a saving to taxpayers of around £1.9 million a year. On the introduction of a charging scheme, water companies will be able to pass on the costs to consumers, which we reckon will increase the average annual water bill by some 15p, not a very large sum.

The MMO, as the noble Baroness rightly reminded us, is a very new body. It was created under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Many noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who sadly is not here today, will remember with much fondness the passage of the Bill through this House. There are charging provisions relating to marine licensing in that 2009 Act. I understand why the Committee might wonder why we need to modify those so soon after the Act was adopted. We are proposing the inclusion of the MMO for specific purposes which would avoid taxpayers subsidising marine licence applicants. The main purpose is to allow us to remedy a shortcoming in the 2009 Act, although I fail to understand why there should be a shortcoming in an Act passed by the previous Government. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will remember its passage. The shortcoming prevents the MMO from fully recovering the costs that it will incur in relation to marine licences, once the new marine licensing system comes into force in April this year. I stress that without that power there would be costs that would have to be met by taxpayers.

Natural England is also included in Schedule 4 to modify its charging powers. This is solely to remove an ambiguity under existing law. Natural England already has powers to make charges in relation to its licensing functions under a variety of enactments. These powers are all worded in a way which gives rise to doubts over their scope. For example, although it can create a charge for issuing licences, it is unclear whether the existing powers allow Natural England to make a charge where it receives an application for a licence which is subsequently withdrawn or refused. Natural England is therefore included in Schedule 4 so that the Secretary of State can amend and clarify existing legislation and thereby make the extent of the existing charging powers clearer.

Finally, I turn to the government amendment, Amendment 79A. As noble Lords will understand from debate on previous amendments, it restricts the order-making power of Ministers to the Drinking Water Inspectorate in England. Welsh Ministers will be given corresponding order-making powers for the DWI in Wales through the appropriate provisions in the Bill.

I hope that the Committee will be prepared to accept Amendment 79A and that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will feel able to withdraw his amendment and not press the others in the group.

01:00

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his comprehensive response to the amendments in the group. He explained very clearly that these are minor changes which should help to improve efficiency: the JNCC fully supports the aim; the amendment for the Drinking Water Inspectorate is to improve the charging regime. I cannot accept that there is a shortcoming in the 2009 Act. It took six months to go through your Lordships' House; it cannot possibly have a shortcoming.

The Minister explained that the amendment on Natural England was to remove ambiguity; and that government Amendment 79A was to respect the wishes of the Welsh Assembly Government. This is a good opportunity to acknowledge the referendum success last week, which I am glad to do. The answers of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, seem entirely reasonable. The problem is that a new Minister could come on the scene and use the Bill to make draconian changes to those bodies because they are listed in the schedules. That is why, in the end, we come back to the architecture of the Bill.

My worry is that, for instance, Natural England is not always the most favoured of organisations sponsored by the department. The very fact that it appears in one of the schedules is a kind of sword of Damocles, which the department and the Minister’s officials can hold over Natural England. Although his response tonight has been entirely reasonable, I remain concerned about the fundamental architecture of the Bill. Of course, in the light of his response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 73 withdrawn.

Amendment 74 not moved.

Amendment 74A

Moved by

[Lord Henley]

74A: Schedule 3, page 18, line 26, at end insert “in England”

Amendment 74A agreed.

Amendments 74B and 75 not moved.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed.

Clause 4: Power to modify funding arrangements

Amendment 76

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

76: Clause 4, page 2, line 39, at beginning insert “Subject to section (Restrictions on ministerial powers),”

Amendment 76 agreed.

Amendments 77 and 77A not moved.

Debate on whether Clause 4, as amended, should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, responded to the question that we raised about Clause 4 when we debated Clause 3 stand part. I appreciated his response. We look forward to further debate on Wednesday on this matter, but the response he made very much applies to this part of the Bill as well.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed.

Schedule 4 : Power to modify funding arrangements: bodies and offices

Amendments 77A to 79 not moved.

Amendment 79A

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

79A: Schedule 4, page 19, line 4, leave out from beginning to “under” and insert “Inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State”

Amendment 79A agreed.

Amendments 80 and 81 not moved.

Amendment 82

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

82: Schedule 4, page 19, line 8, leave out “Office of Communications (“Ofcom”).”

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, this amendment is on the Marshalled List in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty. We listened carefully to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, earlier this evening concerning the protections that will be in place for the economic regulators listed in this Bill. The changes proposed to Ofcom obviously fall into this category. I was very much persuaded by the arguments made earlier by my noble friend Lord Whitty that, by allowing these changes to remain part of the Bill, Parliament is giving up the right to revisit their wider strategic and ongoing role through the medium of primary legislation. There are some concerns about the detailed changes proposed for Ofcom under the powers of this Bill but, more importantly, we are keen to secure a powerful and meaningful role for Ofcom as an independent regulator in the future.

Last week, this House had what can only be described as a spirited debate about the Government’s proposal to allow Mr Murdoch to take over the remaining shares in BSkyB. It is fair to say that considerable concerns were expressed about this from around the Chamber. If anything, the mood of that debate would have supported a stronger and more interventionist role for Ofcom in ensuring media plurality in the future. In this final debate tonight, can the Minister reassure me that the overarching responsibility for Ofcom to maintain a diverse media and prevent a narrowing and damaging spread of ownership will be maintained if the proposals in this Bill go ahead? What guarantees is she able to give that Ofcom’s independence will not be compromised by an overreliance on being asked to report only at the discretion of the Secretary of State?

These are important issues, which have already been touched on during earlier debates, but I take this opportunity to say that it is important that we are satisfied that the proposals in the Bill do not weaken Ofcom’s independent status. I beg to move.

[Baroness Rawlings]

My Lords, Ofcom is a highly respected organisation that, since its creation by the Office of Communications Act 2002, has successfully regulated one of the most dynamic and diverse sectors. The media and communications market has developed significantly since Ofcom was created and it is only appropriate that eight years later we take the opportunity to make some small changes to how it operates.

Amendment 82 would prevent changes to Ofcom’s funding arrangements. We believe that in the current environment it is only right that Ofcom should have the ability to charge for certain services to alleviate the effect of cuts. Under the Communications Act 2003, Ofcom is not currently permitted to charge operators for this work and, at present, meets the £400,000 per annum cost of the work out of a grant in aid from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Most other countries currently charge for this work, so we would be bringing Ofcom into line with international practice by allowing it to charge for this service.

Amendment 96 would mean that we could not change the way in which Ofcom carries out its functions. In the Communications Act 2003, the structure of Ofcom’s committees was set out in a disproportionately prescriptive and detailed manner. It makes sense to allow Ofcom the flexibility to streamline the structure to meet the requirement and to reflect the diverse needs of the people involved as it best sees fit. This should not compromise its independence. The ability to reshape the structure of the various advisory committees, panels and boards should also lead to a reduction in bureaucracy and could save Ofcom around £100,000 a year.

Following the Government’s decision to table an amendment to remove Clause 11 and Schedule 7 from the Bill, Ofcom will not appear as previously tabled, so Amendment 158 has been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 96.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness and of course I shall not press my amendment to a vote. I would say only that the arguments about Ofcom are very similar to the arguments put forward in our debate on the previous group of amendments. The problem is the very appearance of such a body in this Bill, notwithstanding the commitments given at the Dispatch Box by Ministers. This also relates to whether we will reach some sort of agreement on sunset clauses and on the extent to which a body lives on in this Bill for a long time. A time limit would provide great reassurance.

The noble Baroness has said that Ofcom is in the Bill for eminently sensible reasons. Our problem is that, in a couple of years’ time, Ministers might take against Ofcom and use their powers to make much more radical changes. The context is what we have described as the architecture of the Bill. I am hopeful that in the next few weeks we will be able to decide a sensible way forward that enables the Government to undertake reviews of these bodies. I fully accept that they have every right to do so, but they should do so in a way that secures their independence as far as that is appropriate and with proper parliamentary scrutiny. I am grateful to the noble Baroness and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 82 withdrawn.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 1.13 am.