House of Lords
International Development
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Craigavon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what priority they are giving in international development to population issues and to reproductive health and rights.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the UN estimates that the world’s population will pass 7 billion this October. Most of the growth will be in high-fertility developing countries. Meeting the need for family planning and maternal and new-born health services would help avert 390,000 maternal deaths and over 50 million unintended pregnancies. The Government are playing a leading role and will enable at least 10 million more women to use modern methods of family planning by 2015.
Viscount Craigavon
My Lords, I am grateful for that positive Answer from the noble Baroness. Does she accept that it is very important to address the unmet need of more than 200 million couples who would like to be able to use contraceptive methods but do not have them available? Does she agree that funds invested in this field provide a return many times over, not only financially but also, more importantly, in terms of human well-being?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the noble Viscount is right. If we fail to respond to the unmet need for family planning, the consequences of rapid population growth will impact on us all. Reducing unplanned births and family size would save on public sector spending on health, water and social services and reduce pressure on scarce natural resources. Reducing unintended pregnancies particularly among adolescents in developing countries would improve their educational and employment opportunities. This would contribute to improving the status of women, increasing family savings, reducing poverty and inspiring economic growth.
Baroness Tonge
The noble Baroness will know that Afghanistan, in particular, has faced civil war and political unrest for many decades. Forty-two per cent of the population live on less than $1.25 a day and three in five children are malnourished. Nevertheless, the fertility rate is 6.6 births per woman, many of them very young girls. With a rapidly rising population, only 15 per cent of women in Afghanistan can access contraception. Will she ensure that our Government’s programme to Afghanistan reflects these facts and prioritises maternal health and family planning?
Baroness Verma
I am most grateful to my noble friend for raising these issues. She is aware that at the heart of our programmes is the maternal health of women and girls. We have focused on ensuring that they receive education and the services that improve their own well-being. But this is also about ensuring that there are rights to access; if they are not available, they cannot be accessed. Therefore, through our programmes, we are pushing to ensure that they know where to get what they need.
Lord Hughes of Woodside
My Lords, while agreeing entirely with the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, can she say how much money has been spent, and how much increased money is to be available, to provide contraceptive services?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that our programmes put women and girls at the heart of being able to access education, healthcare and maternity health. This is not about individual budgets but about programmes being delivered and making sure that part and parcel of our delivery is access to family planning.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that aid is most successful when targeted, science-based, practical and measurable?
Baroness Verma
My noble friend is absolutely right, and that is why we have a relentless focus on results and achieving value for money. I would like to give two examples. Every year, nearly 2 million children die from vaccine-preventable diseases, so I am proud that this Government have pledged to vaccinate more than 80 million children over the next five years. Of course, she is also right that it is through education and research, and through ensuring that our aid is delivered in a focused and targeted way, that we will be able to receive the sort of results that we are looking for, and I hope that we will succeed.
Baroness Flather
My Lords, can the Minister tell me how DfID is counteracting the influence of the Vatican in this area? As we all know, the population of Italy has dropped like a ton, so they are not bothered about this issue, but it does affect developing countries.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, faith organisations play a very important part in working to ensure that we are able to give choices to women and girls on when and how they have their babies. It is not about the Government issuing edicts on how family planning should be accessed but about encouraging choice, so that women are able to make that choice and, it is hoped, have better control over their lives.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, the effect on family spacing and women’s rights is fundamental, but, surely, also important is the effect of the growth in population on soil erosion, on deforestation, and on conflict over resources in so many countries. Why is it, then, that international donors and aid agencies are so coy about mentioning population increase as a factor in development?
Baroness Verma
I am not sure that I can agree with the noble Lord. Agencies accept that population growth is an issue and that it is through targeted programmes that we are going to achieve the reduction in birth rate that we need. But it is also about ensuring that those women and girls have options and are able to access family planning means, rather than us forcing Governments into taking action. This is not a place for Governments; this is for women to have choice and education.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
Is the Minister aware that there is very good empirical evidence of the limitations of choice-based family planning initiatives, such as those that were extensively trialled under the Bush Administration, and is she prepared to put DfID’s commitment behind services that are not entirely choice-based but actually provide access to the sorts of contraception that young women need if they are to attain independent lives?
Baroness Verma
I will repeat that it is about choice; it is about being able to educate girls and women about what is available to them in their countries. We as a Government cannot dictate how people access family planning: they must be able to make the choices for themselves. But it is also about being able to tell them that through better healthcare and planning they will have less need to have more babies as, often as not, more babies are born is because of the belief that many of them will die.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the newly independent state of South Sudan has the highest maternal mortality rate in the world, and that in a population of 8 million there are only about 10 midwives—and this when 3,000 midwives are needed to ensure safe motherhood? How will DfID ensure that the Government of South Sudan’s five-year health sector development plan prioritises the urgent need for obstetric care?
Baroness Verma
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. The onus will be on all donor countries to support South Sudan, particularly through its transient stages of being the newest country on the planet. Again, it is about partnership work and ensuring NGOs and donor countries work closely. It is also about ensuring that our programmes are targeted towards and reach those who we feel most need the help.
Abattoirs
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Byford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the financial impact on small and medium-sized abattoirs of the proposed introduction of a full-cost recovery system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, I am advised by the Food Standards Agency, which is responsible for meat hygiene controls, that following public consultation it has significantly amended its proposals for full-cost recovery. Implementation will be delayed until April 2012, staged over three years. Support will be provided for abattoirs slaughtering up to 5,000 cattle or equivalent per year. A financial impact assessment of the amended proposals is in preparation and will be published this summer.
Baroness Byford
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. Will the agency move much more towards a risk-based, proportionate regime than it has in the past? Secondly, will it consider outside—in other words, private—operators taking over the task that is currently done by state employees?
Earl Howe
My Lords, it is certainly the ambition of the agency to move to a more risk-based approach but, as my noble friend will know, that has considerable implications in terms of EU law and it will take some time for such an approach to be worked through. On her second question, I am aware that the agency will discuss tomorrow the findings of the Macdonald taskforce, so it is probably premature for me to say more on that point.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, I declare my interest as a farmer. Would the noble Earl agree that small and medium-sized abattoirs are essential to our communities? There are serious animal welfare concerns in having to drive animals for miles to gets them slaughtered. The stress on the animals also causes the meat to be not so good. In Worcestershire, we have one abattoir left, and the nearest one to us is in fact in Herefordshire. Do the Government intend to encourage small abattoirs to stay open? Is there any possibility for mobile abattoirs to be developed?
Earl Howe
My Lords, smaller abattoirs are extremely important to the rural economy, as the noble Countess rightly says. They are more likely to be rural. The support to be provided to those abattoirs processing up to 5,000 cattle—a higher threshold than was previously proposed—is intended to help preserve the provision of local services to the livestock industry. That will helpfully reduce the impact on small livestock producers, the rural economy, animal welfare and indeed consumer choice. As regards mobile abattoirs, I am not aware what initiatives are being undertaken, although I believe that there are a few around, so it will be necessary for me to seek further advice on that point.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, was not this so-called risk-based approach used in the monitoring of care homes? Has that not been a disaster?
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, many of the 28 abattoirs left in Wales are the small abattoirs that the Minister described in his Answer. He referred to support. What will that amount to?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the agency has now proposed a stepped system of discounts. For the first 1,000 livestock units processed, the reduction on the full cost would be a maximum of 70 per cent. The next 1,000 livestock units would be subject to a 50 per cent reduction and the next 3,000 subject to a 25 per cent reduction. That will directly assist those smaller abattoirs, many of which are based in Wales.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I find it very unusual for the Minister who usually answers on health to be answering an abattoir Question, but I am very impressed by his knowledge. Can he tell us whether there is a health implication, whether the extra costs that were to be passed on were necessary for health and whether they will be continued to be carried out even if the costs are not being passed on?
Earl Howe
My Lords, there is no direct health implication. What has happened over the past few years is that the costs of regulation have progressively been borne by the Food Standards Agency, as opposed to the industry. There has been a decision taken in principle that the regulator should not subsidise the industry that it regulates. That is the reason for the review of the charging arrangements.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, did the noble Lord indicate in his Answer, and will he confirm, that we owe this folly more to our lords and masters in Brussels than to our very own department for the ruin of agriculture? Does he think that the British people would have voted in 1975 to stay in what they were assured was a Common Market if they had thought that this sort of folly was going to be visited upon them by Brussels?
Earl Howe
My Lords, it is quite correct that European legislation requires the national competent authority to carry out official controls in order to verify that food businesses comply with food hygiene requirements. EU law requires the competent authority to charge food businesses for meat hygiene and welfare at slaughter—the official controls—and sets minimum charging rates. Having said that, I do not think that there is any self-respecting country that would wish to neglect meat hygiene, which has a direct implication for human health.
Children: Parenting
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Northbourne
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they propose to accept the recommendations in the recent report by Frank Field MP on child poverty that all children should receive age-appropriate parental education in school.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, we will consider Mr Field’s recommendations as part of our review of PSHE. Evidence suggests, though, that parenting skills are best taught to parents through a mix of practical application and learning, which is likely to be more effective the closer it is to the age at which people have children. My honourable friend Sarah Teather will shortly publish a foundation years policy statement to respond to recommendations from the Field, Allen and Tickell reviews that deal with the foundation years.
Lord Northbourne
I know that the noble Lord is aware that Frank Field, in this and previous reports, carried out research in his constituency on the teaching of life skills in schools and found a widespread majority of young people in favour of such instruction. This is not necessarily a question only of parenting; I believe that Frank Field recommended life skills and parenting. Is the noble Lord prepared to institute a wider inquiry to find out what children and young people really would find helpful in life skills and parenting education?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, part of the purpose of the PSHE review to which I referred is to look at what element of the content of PSHE is most helpful to children and young people. The other part is to look at what support teachers need in order to teach these important skills to children.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the Minister for being a bit hasty just now. Is the Minister aware that several programmes were run in schools that proved incredibly effective at, apart from anything else, ensuring that young people became parents later rather than early? If the Minister were to talk to some of those young people who had those very effective programmes, he might revise his view that it was better to leave it until they nearly were parents. This is about how young people and prospective parents begin to understand things about their own relationships and about the responsibilities that parenting brings. My experience is that when this has been done in secondary schools it has been very effective, and I hope that the Minister will look at this again.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the points that she makes, and I listen to her experience very carefully. The evidence that the department has had about later life is there, but I am not saying that to disagree with the point that what one wants ideally is a mix. That is why the PSHE review will take the views of children into account. We want to ensure that we learn those kinds of lessons and have the best possible PSHE that deals with those points.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, the Graham Allen report made clear the vital importance of the first few months, certainly up to three years, of a child’s life in brain development, personality development and so on. In the light of that, will the Minister accept that parenting education is needed before the parents are parents—that is, at school?
Lord Hill of Oareford
As I said in my earlier reply, my honourable friend Sarah Teather will respond in her early years foundation statement to the important points that have been raised. We will look at precisely these points and respond to Allen.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, does the Minister agree with the thrust of the Good Childhood report, published by the Children’s Society a couple of years ago when I was chair, that argued that if PSHE education is to be undertaken in schools it is absolutely vital that it is undertaken by properly trained and qualified teachers who have as much experience and qualification as in other major subjects?
Lord Hill of Oareford
Yes, my Lords, I take that point. The right reverend Prelate will know of the Ofsted report that referred to three-quarters of PSHE education in schools being good or outstanding, but it also pointed out that there were some other areas of weakness. As I have already said, part of the review that the department will carry out, which I hope will benefit from the views of outside and expert opinion, is precisely to look at the kind of support that needs to be provided to help teachers provide good quality PSHE.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that in the past two years the number of children before the courts has doubled, that the number of children in care is increasing and that the accommodation and opportunities for children in care are decreasing. With that scenario in mind, what else does he hope to do to ensure that children from poor families, whose choices will be even more limited, get the education that they need so that they do not repeat that cycle?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, there is a range of measures that the Government need to take, starting with our response to the early years, which will be coming shortly, the provision of the 15-hour free entitlement to two year-olds, the increase of that to 15 hours for three and four year-olds and the introduction of the pupil premium. Then there is what we can do to raise standards in our schools, which is clearly vital because we know the connection between failure at school, illiteracy and life going off the rails. There is a range of measures that we need to take across the board.
Afghanistan
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lee of Trafford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their current assessment of the military situation in Afghanistan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)
My Lords, first, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in offering sincere condolences to the family and friends of Highlander Scott McLaren of The Highlanders, 4th Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland, who was killed in Afghanistan on Monday 4 July. My thoughts are also with the wounded, and I pay tribute to the courage and the fortitude with which they face their rehabilitation.
Turning to my noble friend’s Question, the Secretary of State for Defence recently visited Afghanistan and reported back a clear sense of progress being made. While recent weeks have seen an increase in activity as insurgents seek to regain lost ground, it is judged that the insurgency is under pressure and ISAF retains the momentum.
Lord Lee of Trafford
My Lords, these Benches join in the tribute to Highlander Scott McLaren. It is obvious from my noble friend’s reply and the Prime Minister’s Statement on Afghanistan last week that there is a huge question mark over the future of Afghanistan. I shall ask my noble friend two specific questions. First, how can he justify the rules of engagement that apparently prohibit our forces from firing at the Taliban or insurgents if they are seen to be laying IEDs or similar, leaving them free to continue their murderous activities? Secondly, looking to the longer term, the build-up of Afghan forces, police and army to around 300,000 will clearly result in sizeable annual expenditure of several billion pounds a year. Who will pay for those forces? Will we contribute?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, we do not comment on the specific rules of engagement but any use of force in Afghanistan must comply with the laws of armed conflict. However, commanders take the threat of IEDs very seriously. Since June last year, the Government have spent £330 million on equipment to help them tackle that threat.
Turning to my noble friend’s other question, the Afghan economy has been growing at an impressive 9 per cent, on average, each year since 2003. It now collects almost $2 billion in revenue. We are optimistic about Afghanistan’s economic prospects but recognise that it will need the support of the international community for some time to come. We, alongside our allies and other international institutions, stand ready to support Afghanistan for the long term.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, on this side, we also offer our sincere condolences to the family and friends of Highlander Scott McLaren, who was killed in Afghanistan last Monday. His death is yet another reminder of the harsh reality that our Armed Forces put their lives on the line in the service of our country.
In her response to the Statement on Afghanistan last Wednesday, my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon asked whether our Armed Forces would continue to receive all the equipment that they need in the months ahead, including the 12 additional Chinooks, which the Prime Minister promised but for which the order has not yet been placed. No direct answer on when the order would be placed was forthcoming. Will the Minister tell the House when the Ministry of Defence will have completed working towards the main investment decision on these helicopters; when it is expected that the order for the 12 additional Chinooks will be placed; and when they are expected to be operational?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and the Official Opposition for the cross-party support for our Armed Forces and for the mission in Afghanistan. On the question about Chinooks, as we announced in the SDSR, we plan to buy 12 additional Chinook helicopters as well as a further two to replace those lost on operations in Afghanistan in 2009. The Ministry of Defence is working towards the main investment decision on these helicopters.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, despite the courage, professionalism and sacrifice of our soldiers, the consequence of the myriad mistakes that we have made in Afghanistan is that, sadly, a victor’s peace is no longer within our reach? We shall have to take the best peace that we can negotiate. The longer we leave that, the more difficult it will be. Will that peace not have three key ingredients? The first will be a role for the Taliban, who will accept the Afghan constitution in the government of the country. The second will be a constitution that runs more with the grain of a decentralised Afghanistan than the present one. The third will be a regional context that enables the country’s neighbours to play a part.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. We are not living in a perfect world but we are doing our very best. As for the ANSF, it is becoming much more professional, much better trained and bigger. We are about to begin implementing the security transition process by which the Afghan forces will take the lead. It will be a gradual, condition-based process that is on track to put the ANSF in security lead in all provinces by the end of 2014.
Lord Dannatt
My Lords, would the Minister care to comment on the improving situation, in Helmand in particular, with regard to the poppy harvest? Does he agree that we are never likely to have a more stable Afghanistan while its economy is largely based on the illegal activity of growing the poppy for opium? Can he comment on the progress that we have made in changing farming practices and, therefore, the economy in the country over the past two, three or four years?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, yes, we are making progress on that point. The noble Lord mentioned corruption. Our support for the Afghan Government cannot be unconditional. The Afghan Government must ensure that British taxpayers’ money is spent well and wisely, and President Karzai must personally grip the problems around the Kabul Bank and the need for the new IMF programme.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, I am sure that it slipped his mind, but the Minister failed to answer my noble friend’s question. When is the delivery of the Chinooks anticipated and when will the order be placed? The need is urgent.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness an exact day. This is a matter on which the Ministry of Defence is working very hard, and as soon as I have some information, I will report it to the House.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, when the US finishes ground-force combat operations in Afghanistan, which it clearly intends to do by the end of 2014, will it still be providing air support and, if it is, will NATO be providing air support? If so, will the United Kingdom be involved in that and, if it is, will it be based at an air base in Afghanistan?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the Prime Minister has stated clearly that there will not be significant numbers of British troops in a combat role in Afghanistan by 2015. However, we still expect to have some troops there after 2015—for instance at the officer training academy—as part of the enduring NATO and bilateral partnership, at the request of the Afghan Government. The exact size and role of this commitment will be developed over time, taking account of conditions, military advice and the broader security and political considerations.
Business of the House
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 12 July to allow the Police (Detention and Bail) Bill to be taken through all its remaining stages and on Monday 18 July to allow the Finance (No. 3) Bill and the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill to be taken through all their remaining stages.
Communications Act 2003 (Maximum Penalty for Contravention of Information Requirements) Order 2011
Baroness Rawlings
That the draft orders and regulations laid before the House on 23 May and 7 June be approved.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 5 July.
Distribution of Dormant Account Money (Apportionment) Order 2011
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Verma
That the draft orders and regulations laid before the House on 9 and 12 May be approved.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 5 July.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, might I raise a point that is perhaps of general interest? When a matter is debated in the Moses Room and the Minister is unable to give a full reply and promises to write and place a copy of the answer in the Library, should that not be done before the matter returns to the Floor of the House? Perhaps my noble friend the Leader of the House might consider that point, otherwise when the order comes back to the Floor, we will not know what view we ought to take on it.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, perhaps I may take the opportunity of answering. I would always regard that to be the normal course of practice, and if it did not happen, I would very much like it to be brought to my attention.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:41 - Division on Amendment 103A - Ayes: 180 / Noes: 197 - Amendment 103A, as an amendment to Amendment 103, disagreed.
16:54 - Division on Amendment 106 - Ayes: 199 / Noes: 224 - Amendment 106 disagreed.
Lord Beecham
“( ) A decision to amend or veto a proposed precept must be agreed by a two-thirds majority.”
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, if noble Lords are leaving, may they do so peacefully so that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, may be heard by the rest of the House?
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Chief Whip for inflicting me on the House at the earliest possible moment. I move the amendment with what your Lordships may think is not my customary diffidence, because we have here three excellent amendments to do with the majority required to levy a precept. Mine is probably the least attractive, even to my mind. I am moving for a two-thirds majority to be required to overturn the precept. My noble friends Lady Henig and Lord Hunt have respectively better amendments. Mine is therefore something of a fallback position, which I think the noble Baroness has indicated might be acceptable to the Government—a rare event where I am concerned, which underlines my preference for the other amendments.
Nevertheless, we clearly need a better regime than that contained in the original Bill, which required a 75 per cent vote to overturn the precept. As I understand it from previous debates, there is no provision in the Bill to amend the precept. It is the veto or nothing. Presumably it is then envisaged that there would be discussion between the commissioner and the panel about a revision. All the amendments contain the—to my mind, welcome—addition of a proposal to allow the panel to amend as an alternative to a simple veto. I apprehend that the Minister may not be as willing to accept that, but one lives in hope.
That being the case, I move the fallback amendment, as it were, and leave it to my colleagues to make the even better case for their amendments.
Baroness Henig
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 102 and 104 in the group. As my noble friend Lord Beecham said, they both deal specifically with the majority required to veto the precept, and taken together suggest that it should be a simple majority of the panel members present. I have made similar suggestions in relation to other powers of veto through separate amendments in other groups.
The usual way to decide things in a democracy is by simple majority. I cannot see what is wrong with that principle. My amendments would apply that principle to the veto that a panel could exercise over the policing precept element of council tax. Before I argue for that, I mention that I remain concerned that there will be confusion between proposals in the Localism Bill about excessive precepts and the provisions in this Bill on the policing precept. The public may well be confused about the difference between the power of veto and the power to call a referendum on a precept. They may well also be confused if there are to be two referenda: one on the police precept and one on the council tax.
I welcome the fact that the Government have now tabled amendments to reduce the required majority from three-quarters to two-thirds, but that is still too high and too confusing for the public. They might well have trouble understanding why a referendum will be decided on a majority, but the power of veto cannot be exercised in the same way. The public operate on straightforward principles, and I think that they would find that quite difficult. Of course, a straight majority would also give the police and crime panel a stronger role in contributing to policing governance and would guard against giving too much power to one person.
We have heard a lot in Committee and on Report about strict checks and balances. In practice, these checks and balances remain extremely elusive. The police and crime panel remains very feeble. One way of strengthening the panel and providing a stronger check on the commissioner would be to go to a simple majority for a veto rather than two-thirds. The current proposals are inconsistent with democratic practice. They are better than the original proposals but we could go further in strengthening the panel and fostering a mature relationship between the commissioner and the panel. That is the purpose of my amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Harris of Richmond
My Lords, I have a couple of brief points to make about Amendment 102, and particularly Amendment 104 to which I have added my name. First, I welcome the fact that the Government have shown that they are willing to listen to some of the concerns expressed in Committee and I am genuinely pleased that they have moved to two-thirds the majority required to exercise a veto. I am inclined to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, that a simple majority might be even better. It would certainly strengthen the role of the police and crime panel, which I think we all agree is essential. Hopefully, when taken in conjunction with earlier amendments about a more collaborative approach, this would guard against too capricious an attitude by the panel, having helped develop the proposals in the first place. I support this amendment but I am concerned about the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, about the relationship between this Bill and the Localism Bill in relation to the precept and referendum arrangements. I agree that this needs to be clarified. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to provide reassurance on this point.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, we have had a series of debates during the passage of this Bill about the role of the police and crime panel in scrutinising the performance of the police and crime commissioner. The Minister herself has emphasised on a number of occasions the importance of the panel in doing that.
For these panels to do their jobs effectively, they surely have to have a certain amount of leverage. This Bill in effect gives them only two levers; they can veto the appointment of a chief constable, and they can veto the precept that the police and crime commissioner wishes to set. Of course, on other matters it can be consulted and there can be dialogue, but it is very clear from the Bill that the elected party political commissioner can ignore completely any input from the panel unless it exercises the veto. In the past few days we have seen one of the products of a weak regulator, the Press Complaints Commission. That surely shows the problem of having of weak regulators with very few levers. My concern with these new arrangements is that we are establishing police and crime panels inevitably to fail because their influence over elected police commissioners is likely to be limited. The veto in the original Bill was set at a very high level indeed, with a 75 per cent requirement of the members to vote in favour of veto. The Government hinted in the other place that they would be prepared to reduce it and we now see the product of that in the amendment that I am sure the noble Baroness will speak to in a moment.
The question is whether a two-thirds veto is sufficient. Like my noble friends, I do not think it is. To be effective, the police and crime commissioner must surely feel or fear that if he or she were to go too far there would be a risk that the panel would veto his or her proposals. I am speaking here about the precept.
To get a two-thirds majority of the members still places the bar at an impossibly high level. That is why I very strongly support my noble friend and I have tabled an amendment along the same lines calling for a simple majority of those present and voting. The phrase “of those present and voting” is well known to all noble Lords who have taken part in public life. Remarkably, it is not to be found in the Bill. The veto requirement refers to the members of the panel. I very much support my noble friend Lady Henig in wishing to ensure not only that a simple majority is required but that it should be of the members present at such a meeting. I have also laid an amendment to Amendment 103 of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, so even if the House settles on two-thirds as the majority figure, it ought to be of those members present and voting.
Maybe I have confused the wording of the amendment because I see the noble Baroness perhaps assuming that that is what it says. My reading is that it is two-thirds of the membership.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
It is. Why is that? It is normally of those present and voting. It seems to me that simply by not being there you count as an assenter—a dissenter, if you like, from a proposal to veto a precept. It seems rather an extraordinary state of affairs.
I refer the noble Baroness to later amendments where the Government propose that an elected mayor within the area of a police force becomes members of the police and crime panel automatically. I am not arguing about the principle, but elected mayors are going to have many other responsibilities apart from serving on police and crime panels. One can think of a number of metropolitan areas so it is quite likely that under the noble Baroness’s amendment a considerable number of elected mayors will serve on the panels. However, there will be circumstances in which such people will not be able to be present at a meeting of the police and crime panel and because of the noble Baroness’s amendment the numbers relevant to the veto are the members rather than those present and voting. It seems to me a rather extraordinary state of affairs that simply by being away or being ill you add to the threshold that would have to be reached if a veto were to be exercised. I hope the noble Baroness will be prepared to give that point further consideration. It is a very odd state of affairs.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I very much welcome the reduction from three-quarters to two-thirds. I think I said at an earlier stage that it can be a bit disconcerting to see that a Minister has her name to the amendment you thought you had tabled. We came in as back-up on this occasion, although clearly on the same day. I welcome it even though it probably only makes a difference of one individual. However, perhaps as important as the proportion is whether it is a proportion of the whole membership or of those present—I will come back to that in a moment—and more important than both is what can be vetoed, which we have debated and will continue to debate.
I know the Government take the view that a simple majority would detract from a commissioner’s accountability through the ballot box. There is a subsidiary argument the other way that members of the police and crime panel indirectly elected are expected by their own electors to have perhaps a greater voice than can be exercised when the threshold for the veto is set so high. As I say, that is subsidiary; it is a different position from the commissioner, but one that may be a little confusing to the electorate of the councillors who make up the panel.
It is right and proper that the calculation should be made based on those present, but I have a couple of questions. I do not know whether this is going to cause the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, a problem, as I am speaking after him, but what would happen to abstentions under his amendment? Where do they count? Some of us—before I get teased about this—are used to abstaining in person in this Chamber. But we need to sort out—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
It may help if I intervened at this stage. My assumption in drafting “present and voting” is that you have both to be present and to vote. I do not think that abstention can be taken as a positive vote. I hope that is helpful.
Baroness Hamwee
I shall ponder on that. My other question, which my noble friend Lord Shipley may have asked on a previous occasion, is whether, given the importance of the numbers, the Government anticipate providing through regulations procedures for substitutes for members of the panel. Furthermore, is it intentional on the part of those who proposed these amendments that they apply only to the precept and not to the appointments, which is the other candidate for veto? Whatever we end up with should stay the same. I think it is right that a member can affect an outcome by staying away, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister can reassure the House on that point.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
I hope that when the Minister replies the point raised on substitutes will be answered very fully. As for the role of the members of the panel in the public’s eye, in the Government’s own words they are there to provide a check and balance should things become difficult and should the public not wish to support the proposals of the commissioner. That might happen midterm; we have all seen this. I can foresee a situation when members of the public may appear and say, “Can’t you do anything? You’re supposed to have a role—complementary, or a check and balance, or both”. I hope that the Minister can answer that in detail.
On members “present and voting”, having been a whip in your Lordships' House for many years, I think everyone will accept that being present and not voting is a very different thing to count or even to make presumptions about. I have known Members of your Lordships' House, who have been in the Palace but who have not been present in the Chamber during the voting, who have formed an opinion, in advance of leaving, that they do not wish to vote, in line with their own whips’ advice. So we must stick to those who are “present and voting”. It would be impossible to determine which way to allocate votes for those who were present and who did not vote.
Given the time of the year, when there will be a whole lot of different activities for elected mayors, members of local authorities and professionals seeking to formulate their budgets, and when historically quite a few people may be down with flu or other illnesses, I hope that the Minister will take very seriously the point made about the simple majority. Otherwise, we could end up in a situation whereby the hopes of the public, raised by the descriptions of the Bill given by members of the Government, will be dashed when they find that there are no checks and balances.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, in answering I speak to Government Amendments 103 and 192 and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, who in his characteristic way spoke with enthusiasm to Amendment 103. We note the views of the Local Government Association, which stated that achieving a reduction from three-quarters to two-thirds was one of its top five priorities at Report; the Government have met that condition.
I recall that when a directly elected mayor for London was introduced many argued that the London Assembly would be toothless, and not provided with sufficient bodies to check the mayor. I think the noble Lords would recognise that because of process and its relationship with the mayor, and in spite of not having enormous powers to check the mayor, the London Assembly has involved itself in a process in which the necessary dialogue between the two has continued remarkably well. Schedule 5 to the Bill sets out—
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I hesitate to intervene but the noble Lord goads me into it. The point is that the London Assembly has never been able to exercise its power in respect of the budget, which requires a two-thirds majority. That is not because London Assembly members feel they have been previously involved enough in the budget process, it is simply the arithmetic. A threshold of two-thirds is already very high.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say that from my experience the power of the London Assembly is best exercised in conjunction with the press, and today of all days I am not sure that I would want to be saying that any sphere of Government should depend too much on the press.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I take that point. The relationship between a directly elected police commissioner and the police and crime panel in setting a precept is set out in Schedule 5; that is a process, a dialogue in which the final result is the question of a vote on the precept. We see that as the end of a long discussion, a consultation, an exchange of views and detailed information between the police commissioner and the police and crime panel. The date of that meeting will be known well in advance. If there is a sharp disagreement between the police and crime commissioner and the panel, if they have been unable to reconcile their views, that will also be known well in advance. One would expect that meeting of directly elected mayors and others to be well attended and a very important event, not a casual vote in a poorly attended meeting.
One of the reasons for insisting on a two-thirds vote of all those who are on the committee rather than a two-thirds vote of those present and voting is because we are concerned that the geographical spread of those represented should be on the panel and should therefore also be there and voting. I recognise that in the parallel Localism Bill currently being discussed by a number of those who are engaged in this Bill, there have been questions about the Standards Board regime and the extent to which it has been exploited by some parties against others—and I speak with some bitter knowledge of how this has taken place on one or two occasions. So, we do not want to have casual votes, casual accusations, and that is the reason why we have stuck to the two-thirds dimension here. We think that this government concession strikes the right balance and that it is the end of a long process in which, as all those in this House who have served on local authorities will be well aware, our intention is to see the normal process as one of dialogue and reconciliation between all those involved. The vote to veto the precept will be an exceptional occasion under exceptional circumstances. For that reason, we hold to the idea that, if it comes to that, it should be a two-thirds vote of all members of the panel.
Having said that, I hope that the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for Amendment 103 has increased as I have spoken, that noble Lords on the other side will recognise that the Government have moved and that they will now be willing to support the government amendment and withdraw the opposition amendment.
Lord Beecham
The Minister has prayed in aid the LGA’s claim of a triumph in persuading the Government to reduce from 75 per cent to two-thirds, but it is as modest a triumph as my amendment is modest. Perhaps, under its previous management, the LGA would have been a little less prone to swallow the line, so to speak. However, in reality the position is this. If, as the Minister will be proposing later, you have an authority constituted of perhaps 20 members, it will require, rounding up the two-thirds figure, 14 out of 20 votes to overturn the budget, which seems a particularly high threshold. As we discussed last week on Report, the police commissioner will not be under any obligation formally to consult the local authorities whose areas are covered by the force. The noble Baroness referred to councillor members of that authority as being there to represent the views of their authority, but as I said last week, that is not really an adequate substitute for a proper discussion, particularly as in some cases the members concerned, in order to secure political balance, will not necessarily reflect the views of the majority in control of those councils.
Moreover, as my noble friend Lord Hunt pointed out, the position of the mayor is, frankly, questionable. Given the weight of responsibilities that will fall on elected mayors, either current or those who might conceivably emerge following the referendum and election processes in the Localism Bill, I do not think that they will have the time to spend on seriously engaging, as they will be expected to do, on what is effectively a scrutiny panel. The whole point of the Localism Bill is to vest them with Executive powers, but here they are called upon—indeed required to do so, according to an amendment that the noble Baroness the Minister will move at some point—to be a member of what is in effective a scrutiny panel. If they go at all, I do not think that they are likely to be all that significantly engaged.
I recall that in 1923 Mussolini passed an electoral law of a somewhat unusual nature. It said that a party which achieved a 25 per cent vote in the ensuing elections in Italy would get three-quarters of the seats in the Chamber of Deputies. I am not of course accusing the noble Baroness the Minister of emulating Mussolini, but nevertheless this is somewhat curious arithmetic. I do not think it should commend itself to your Lordships’ House. I take the view that the Government’s concession is exactly that, and any concession these days is welcome. However, this is not as welcome as it could have been if they had gone further and adopted the views of my noble friends Lady Henig or Lord Hunt. In the circumstances, I will not press my amendment and I recommend noble Lords to support the amendment to be moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt.
Baroness Browning
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I was rather disappointed that the Minister did not come back to the point about why the vote should not be of those present and voting. That is a perfectly normal, appropriate action and standing order for public bodies. I see no reason why it should not relate to the precept. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was quite right in spotting that I should I have put down a similar amendment to the Government’s proposal in relation to the appointment of a chief constable. I have no doubt that that can be dealt with at Third Reading. The substantive point is that there will not always be huge amounts of time—you cannot guarantee that. By not attending, one is effectively voting against the veto. I do not think that that is right. I therefore seek to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, I do not wish to move the amendment. It is wholly consequential to the parent Amendment 118, which I apprehend will be dealt with immediately after Amendment 117. I have been told that by the Table Office. I hope that I am not misconceived.
Baroness Henig
Baroness Henig
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 116. Amendment 106 would effectively remove Schedule 6 on the composition of panels, which I seek to replace with the alternative high-level proposal set out in Amendment 116.
As I indicated in Committee, the latter amendment goes to the heart of the issue about politicising policing. I am very disappointed that the Government’s amendments have not reflected the concerns about political balance as the strength of feeling in the House was evident in Committee. It is fundamental to getting checks and balances right that the political balance of panels is prioritised and determined according to rigorous principles. Crucially, my amendment would ensure that no single political party can dominate the policing panel and its agenda. I cannot believe that any Member of your Lordships’ House would oppose this objective.
The balanced appointment objective currently set out in Schedule 6 is not strict enough in this respect because it muddles where the geographic balance, political balance or skills balance is more important; it invites appointments to be made on the basis of a fudge so that none of the criteria will be properly satisfied. I remain concerned—although, in setting out high-level alternatives, I have not gone into too much detail to address this—that the issue of giving some areas a double whammy of representation through the inclusion of district councils in county areas does little to improve the balanced appointment objective. The whole thing seems unbalanced to me.
If we do not get this right and do not set rigorous principles of political balance, as I said in Committee, we risk the majority of panels going one of two ways: they become either the cheer-leaders of the commissioner if they are of the same political persuasion, or there could be a state of constant warfare between the commissioner and panel if they are of opposite political beliefs. Either way, however, they would be an ineffective check and balance against the commissioner and ineffective at contributing to the better governance of policing. I cannot stress how important all the experiences of police authorities have shown this to be. We must get this right, otherwise all the other safeguards that have been built into the Bill will fail.
My amendment setting out the key principles of panel composition also suggests that the number of co-opted members should be increased. I note the Minister has tabled more modest proposals along the same lines. Naturally, I welcome those up to a point. I agree that we need an increase in the number of co-opted members, but I regret that the Government’s proposals miss the point somewhat because they suggest that some of these co-opted members might be local authority members. I am concerned about this. We have quite a lot of local authority members on the panels already and this would make the important balance considerations more difficult.
The whole point of having co-opted or independent members in the first place is to bring in people who are politically neutral, who will improve the diversity of the membership and who will cover specialist gaps in skills. Although as an ex-councillor I hate to say this, I know too well that local authorities do not have a good record in improving diversity—and we will not improve the diversity of panels by looking to appoint co-opted members from local government.
Equally, it is hardly a secret that independent police authority members are generally widely regarded as among the most able and effective members of police authorities. I am not saying that there are not some very good council members out there too, but independent members bring specialist knowledge and skills to police authorities that are not generally present among councillors. I find it hard to understand what sort of specialist skills the panels will access from co-opted local authority members, and I would like to probe the Government’s thinking in this regard. There is a danger that, in proposing more co-opted members who could be local authority members, we might actually be making an already difficult situation even worse. This needs more thinking through.
Baroness Harris of Richmond
My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendments 106 and 116, and I want to add my voice briefly to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Henig. I am concerned that we really do not have the proposals about the composition of panels right at the moment.
In the first place, I feel very uncomfortable about all the powers of mandation for the Secretary of State in this section, and I am rather inclined to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, that mandation is perhaps the wrong response to the problems that have arisen in relation to panels. It does not sit well with the direction we have all agreed is necessary about strengthening the role of panels to have this juxtaposed with greater central powers to determine how those panels are to be made up.
I am also very concerned about getting the political balance right, and I agree that in being unclear which objective is most important in reaching the balanced appointment objective in relation to panel membership these issues will be fudged, and we will end up with little balance at all. In my time as chair of a police authority and a member of the Association of Police Authorities, we spent many hours working precisely on getting this particular problem sorted out, and indeed we now have a much better system within police authorities than is proposed in this Bill.
I have other questions on this point. How will we know what considerations have been included locally—I stress locally—in reaching the balanced appointment objective? Who is going to check this? What powers exist to do anything about it if it is not balanced? I am very concerned about diversity among panel members. It is important that panels should try to reflect the populations they serve, otherwise the public, and particularly those sections of the public that are usually excluded, will question whether their representatives understand the issues that matter to them. This is especially important in the policing context if we take into account all the experiences, from Brixton onwards, that have taught us that it is vital to give people a voice in how they are policed.
In this regard, the Government’s proposal that there should be more co-opted members is helpful, but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, that it is unlikely to improve diversity if these additional co-optees are local authority members, as seems to be proposed. We certainly found that in our own police authorities. There is a danger that this will simply be perceived as jobs for the boys—or, for that matter, for the girls—so the government amendment, although welcome, should go further and provide for more independent co-opted members.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I am slightly puzzled by the Government’s stance on the question of political balance as far as these panels are concerned. When I was first elected to a local council in the 1970s, it was the customary practice that authorities with a majority for one party or another made sure that they packed the committees. That was the norm whether the authority was Conservative controlled or Labour controlled and, for all I know, it was the same in Liberal-controlled authorities. The Conservative Administration under Margaret Thatcher took the view—on this instance, they were right—that it was better that committees of local authorities, and subsidiary and external bodies to which local authorities appointed, should reflect the appropriate political balance, to reflect the wishes of the electorate.
In constructing these panels, the Government seem to be setting that aside. Why, in the Bill, are they repudiating the legacy of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher? Why are they so opposed to having proper political balance to reflect the different strengths of the political parties in particular areas as far as policing and crime panels are concerned? This is precisely an area in which the Government should want to ensure that there is political balance rather than perhaps leading to one-party domination of the way the panels operate.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I follow my noble friend on that particular point about political balance. As currently constituted, police authorities are constituted in a way that reflects the political balance in the area that is affected, whether they are metropolitan areas or single-area county police authorities. I do not understand how the Government propose that political balance should be achieved, if at all, on the basis of the Bill.
I moved an amendment in Committee about using the LGA model, which is well accepted across political groups—including the independent group—in the Local Government Association for achieving a balance within the LGA’s internal bodies and its appointments to external bodies that reflects the strength of the different political groups across the whole country. It should be perfectly possible to import that principle into appointments to these panels, at the level of the new structures which are to be created. If it is not done in that way, how is the objective to be achieved—assuming that the Government share that objective? If the Minister is not in a position to explain that at the moment, perhaps it is something that can be further discussed before Third Reading. I am sure that her noble friend Lady Eaton, who is not in her place, will be happy to enlighten her about the consensual approach that we have achieved in the Local Government Association since it was formed around this particular issue.
I welcome the slight movement that the Government have made on potentially increasing the size of the panels, although I noticed that the Secretary of State will be required to approve the numbers. That seems yet another unnecessary intervention. It should perhaps be subject to a minimum requirement but it should be left to the panel to determine. I am glad that it looks, on the face of it, as though we will be doing a little better than the homeopathic dosage of independent or co-opted members that the Bill in its present form provides for. Again, some assurance about how this might work would be very welcome, because the issue of balance is not confined, as other noble Lords have made clear today and on previous occasions, to issues of politics; there is also the geographical issue.
My noble friend Lord Hunt from the great city of Birmingham would not, I think, be content if Birmingham, with its 1 million population, was to have but one member on the West Midlands Police Authority, which might very well be all it would be entitled to, given the number of authorities that would be involved in that organisation. Birmingham would have a population three or four times the size of some of the other metropolitan districts and there are also county areas involved, as well as all the districts in those county areas to be represented. For Birmingham to be represented by one individual, particularly if it ends up with the misfortune of an elected mayor who would be required to serve in that capacity, would be extremely unsatisfactory.
Of course, when it comes to party-political balance, it is quite conceivable that, as already happens in a number of places, the elected mayor does not reflect the politics of the council involved. So, again, you could have an anomalous position, particularly in a large authority, of an elected mayor of a different party, or no party at all, being the sole political voice in that authority, whereas control of the authority may be in different hands, or, certainly, the balance may very well be different.
In addition to those issues of party-political and geographical balance, issues of ethnicity and gender need to be reflected and are difficult to derive, and the provision for co-opted members ought to be a way of proceeding with that. While it may not be possible in the Bill to prescribe how that should be done, it would be very welcome to hear the Minister say for the record that it would be expected that efforts would be made to reflect those considerations about diversity of ethnicity and gender in particular—there may be others—which are sensitive and important. We have a range of issues, of course, affecting minority communities in some parts of the country and, in general, issues such as domestic violence are clearly ones in which a gender balance is required.
It would be very helpful to have a clear steer on that from the Minister on the record, if not in the Bill, so I hope that she will be amenable to answering some of the points that noble Lords have raised and are about to raise—I see the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, straining at the leash to join the debate.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I shall interject a question from a slightly more sceptical angle, while understanding where noble Lords opposite are coming from. I can understand how the proposal in Amendment 116 might work in a police authority where there is only one local authority. What I do not understand is how it would work in a police authority such as Essex, where there are, if not quite 17, at least well over a dozen local authorities. I shall give way to the noble Baroness—it may be that the question is for her—but I do not understand how such an arrangement could work without local authorities having their choice taken away from them and being told that they have to choose X or Y.
Baroness Henig
Perhaps I can explain to the noble Lord that that is precisely what happens at the moment. In a two-tier area such as he is describing—I am familiar with Lancashire—all the authorities have to get together and, in certain cases, agree to put forward nominations in line with the political balance overall. They do this by a process of negotiation. In Lancashire, there are two unitaries to throw into the mix. On many occasions Blackpool or Blackburn have been told to send a Labour member or a Conservative member in order to reflect that balance. I accept that that is one issue; to get an overall balance, every now and again an individual local authority has to contribute to that balance.
Lord Newton of Braintree
All I will say, if I am allowed to treat that as an intervention, is that I found it pretty messy and I would like to know what is to be done in councils where there is no overall control.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 121 and 123. I mention in passing that it seems clear that the objective of Amendment 140, on which we might have said some things, has been achieved by Amendment 139.
I share some of the concerns of my noble friend Lord Newton. This is a complex matter that requires further thought. We have had some concern about the small size of the panel, so the Government’s proposal is welcome. We had wanted four co-opted members and 15 local authority members, making a total of 19 altogether. It is important that the panel is not too big—otherwise it might become unwieldy—but it has to be big enough to enable the diversity and geographical requirements to be met as part of the construction of that panel. Otherwise, it will not represent the area that it seeks to represent.
There are two outstanding issues. The first relates to the political balance of parties. It could be possible for a party-political label to be attached to the elected commissioner, and that party could have a massive majority of the local authority representatives nominated to the panel. That is not in the interests of the general public, and there has to be a system of meeting what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out—that the issue of proportionality must be delivered. Otherwise, the public will not have confidence in the ability of the panel to scrutinise independently and objectively the work of the commissioner.
The second issue that will have to be addressed is that of substitutes. Whatever the size of the panel, the fact remains that if people send apologies some local authority areas simply will not be represented at a key meeting. It would not be sustainable for a debate on the precept level to be undertaken without some councils being present at it. The issue of substitutes has to be urgently addressed. It is entirely possible that there could be an outcome, given the vote that we have just had, where, thanks to a majority of the members of the panel, if people were not present at the meeting, a different result could have been obtained had there been a higher turnout because of the way in which the veto operates. There is then a question of whether telephone or video attendance would be acceptable.
These are not secondary matters; they are fundamental. If a local authority finds that it cannot be present at a critical meeting and yet, for example, a precept is approved that it would not have supported, that is not going to be sustainable even in the short term. The Government will have to come up with some amendments regarding that.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, I am slightly confused now. Those of us who argued for the “of those present” amendment now see the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talking about the need for substitutes, without which the right result may not come out. That is a little confusing.
I am standing up because I have a déjà vu about a déjà vu. I remember advising the Minister to talk to the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, about the way that he achieved the political balance that her Bill seeks to achieve but I believe, from the contributions today, does not achieve. Like the noble Lord, I, too, live in an area where the police authority has a lot of different local authorities—Essex also has many different local authorities—which is a situation that arises across the country. However, the noble Lord, Lord Howard, as Home Secretary, spent a great deal of time achieving a balance to counteract political dominance of police authorities that was unrepresentative of the local community, and ensuring that no one party—rather than no one person—could dominate and pervert the views of the local area.
The proposal before us today puts most of the power in the hands of an individual who may have been one of the people whom Michael Howard, as he was in those days, thought was unsuitable to dominate what was happening in policing, backed up by a system on the panel that will not give diversity. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to assure me that this proposal, rather than my noble friend’s amendment, carries the Michael Howard seal of approval to ensure balance. Although I did not always agree with him when he was Home Secretary, I recollect that he worked very hard to do something that the present Government are busily unpicking. They ought to stop it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Farrington takes us back to the core of the debate. Of course, the question is: which Michael Howard? I very much agree with my noble friend that the problem we face is that we do not accept that police authorities have failed in the way that the Government say they have. We also do not accept that the police authority should not be the model that might be used to develop the police and crime panels. These issues of political balance and the role of independent members are very important. I should have thought that the model of the police authority was one to be followed.
I know that the noble Baroness has tabled her own amendments. Their intention is to keep the same model as is currently in the Bill but to allow areas to increase their representation by co-opting additional members from existing local authorities or additional independent members, with a cap of 20 members in all. I welcome that as far as it goes. My concern is that I am not sure it is entirely appropriate to give complete discretion to the police and crime panels themselves. If we are preserving any remnant of a tripartite system, it is right for the Home Secretary to lay down through legislation certain minimum requirements for police and crime panels, such as that there should be political balance and a proportion of independent members. That is why I very much warm to my noble friend’s amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised the issue of substitutes. The problem is that the House has now decided, by voting, that the decision will not be that “of those present and voting”. However, the House has not solved the evident problem that, by making sure the veto can be used only in relation to the number of members, there are all sorts of reasons why it will be almost impossible ever to use it. One thinks of illness. I understand that there is no proposal for how to deal with that. What happens if the local authority is setting its own precept at the time that the panel meets and a member of the panel has to attend? In some areas, we are talking about a large number of local authorities. The idea that a noble Lord can come to the Dispatch Box and say, “Oh, but the meeting time with the PCP will be known and, therefore, no other authority will meet”, is unrealistic. In some areas, we will have a number of elected mayors—the Government are forcing referendums on 11 of the largest cities in England. Presumably, if the government amendment is passed, there will be elected mayors in other cities and boroughs who will already, and automatically, be members of the panel. You could have a situation whereby the attendance record at a meeting of the panel is quite low. It would, therefore, make it almost impossible for the veto to be exercised.
The Government and the House have now decided to reject a sensible amendment by which the veto requirement should be “of those present and voting”. I agree with the noble Lord that this matter has not satisfactorily been resolved. The Government will have to think about this matter between now and Third Reading, because this simply should not stand as it currently does in the Bill.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I must confess, for the first time in taking this Bill through the House, that I am genuinely disappointed, because in the government amendments in this group we have tried really hard to address concerns across the House that were raised in Committee about giving more flexibility to achieve balance on the panel. As we know from previous debates, that balance ranges across geography, politics, gender and ethnicity. Of course, among the group of people who the panel can co-opt it is sometimes necessary, because of local circumstances, to co-opt people with particular expertise in an area who will be a useful addition to the panel. By raising the threshold of the panel size to 20, I have gone far in excess of anything suggested in Committee in order to provide those additional co-opted places on the panel so that these matters can be addressed.
Let me establish for the record that paragraph 30(3) of Schedule 6 already places the same duty on a panel to ensure that it represents the political make-up of the force area. This, of course, achieves exactly the same political balance as the current police authority regulations do. Therefore, while there is more scope for these additional nominated or co-opted people to be invited to sit on the panel—there is nothing mandatory about this; the panel can decide whether or not it wishes to go up to that threshold of 20—we have retained political balance based on what already happens in police authorities. The noble Baroness mentioned the attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, to do that. I hope she will accept that we have not departed from that principle in the Bill.
However, I was particularly concerned that noble Lords, in speaking to their amendments, did not seem to be aware that it is not mandatory for co-opted members to come from local authorities. They can, if the panel so chooses, but they need not come from local authorities at all. Later, when I speak to my amendments, I will flesh out a little the fact that where the panel opts to co-opt more people on to the panel to achieve diversity, gender balance and ethnicity balance, the Secretary of State is required to approve these co-options because the panel will, in making that submission to the Secretary of State, be required to demonstrate why these particular people are being co-opted on to the panel. At that point, I would expect there to be a case for balance across a range of gender, ethnicity and expertise—whatever the thinking is behind the panel wanting to make these recommendations. The Secretary of State will then have the opportunity to see that the panel is not filling up those places just with chums—people of a like-minded persuasion or of the same political party. The Secretary of State will want it to be clearly demonstrated that the panel has seriously considered who it needs to add to give a balanced mix to enhance its functioning and to give fairness across the piece.
Lord Beecham
I welcome what the noble Baroness says, but what if, given the discretion to which she referred, the panel decides not to co-opt? What then?
Baroness Browning
I hope that there would be a discussion early on on the panel if there was a debate about the need to co-opt. I hope that would ensure that there was agreement on the need to co-opt. We keep trying to drive down to micromanage the panels. I am concerned to give panels the authority and flexibility to get the balance right, based on their judgment of their local needs, without trying to micromanage through the Bill a lot of situations that may or may not arise. With all due respect, we are talking about adults who—particularly the political nominees to the panel—will be there on behalf of specific local authorities. I should have thought that there would be grown-up discussion.
We have tried to get a balance in the Bill. It is important that the panel has the flexibility to co-opt. Raising that threshold to 20 is far in excess of what anyone asked me to do in Committee and more than generous. I am more than happy to stand here and read out the number for every police force area that will now be able, in the main, to co-opt an extra eight to 10 people. That is a huge number of people to get that balance right.
Lord Beecham
In the noble Baroness’s Amendment 128, does not new subsection (2B)(b) impose a condition that “no such resolution” to have a number of co-opted members may be passed unless,
“the Secretary of State agrees that the panel should have that number of co-opted members”.
What is that if not micromanagement?
Baroness Browning
That gives the Secretary of State, as I just described, the opportunity to ensure that the panel’s motive is to ensure the overall balance of the panel and to prevent the panel being packed with chums and politically slanted, which noble Lords have been concerned about—we have had a lot of discussion in Committee and on Report about this. Noble Lords have asked whether the members will be of the same political party as the PCC may be seen to have. This gives the Secretary of State the opportunity to look at the motivation of the panel in co-opting people. This is not about the Secretary of State wielding a lot of power in the sense of deciding whether or not the panel co-opts, but about whether the Secretary of State believes that the submissions made have met an objective that the panel has clearly identified.
Baroness Henig
I seek genuine clarification from the Minister. She referred to the schedule that states that the balanced appointment objective means that the political make-up of a relevant authority has to be represented on the panel. That means that in some parts of the country—Manchester, let us say—all the political representation is likely to be Labour, whereas in other parts of the country, because of the councils that make up the relevant area all the representation is likely to be from another party. My amendment aims to reflect the voting numbers. There are parts of the country in which Liberal Democrats and Conservatives would not get a look-in on the panel because all the councils are Labour, and other parts of the country where Labour would not get a look-in because the councils are all Conservative. What the noble Baroness is saying about the schedules goes only so far because at the moment police authorities are made up on the basis of the voting figures at the last election. In other words, there is proportional representation in police authorities that is not in this Bill. That is the difference, and that is the issue that I am trying to get at with this point about politicisation. The noble Baroness perhaps did not give me credit for what I am trying to do here.
Baroness Browning
I hate to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, on this because I know that her motives are well-meaning. That paragraph in Schedule 6 has the heading: “Duty to produce balanced panel”—the Bill very clearly already includes the duty to produce a balanced panel. The noble Baroness describes a situation, and it saddens me to say this, in which there may be councils around the country with no elected Conservatives at all, although that can apply to other parties in other parts of the country. However, what I can only describe as the generosity of increasing the number of people that can be co-opted on to the panel means that I would expect a responsible panel to make absolutely sure that it would look to the additional co-optees to redress that political balance. If that is what the panel puts to the Secretary of State, I can see no reason why it cannot do that. If the motivation is to create a politically balanced panel, Conservatives can be co-opted to the panel to get political balance. I see no reason why what I am doing does not address the point that she is making.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, the Minister has failed to see the critical difference between the proposals in this Bill and the solution to the problem that everybody in this debate wishes to overcome, which was achieved by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne. I have yet to hear an answer as to why the proportional representation that was written in to the police authority legislation that we currently have is being done away with. Will the Secretary of State say to authority A: “I am sorry, the system has not worked; you are unbalanced and therefore you will co-opt to balance yourselves”? I am sorry but we have a problem that was fixed and we are now busy recreating the original problem.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, perhaps the solution to that is that PCPs can also set out their own rules and practices for all other business and procedures under Part 4 of Schedule 6, at paragraph 24. There is sufficient flexibility already in the Bill, combined with raising the threshold to 20 members, that gives the panel the opportunity to get the right balance that this House has called for. I genuinely mean this.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
The problem is that there is too much flexibility. The cases have been quoted to the Minister: there will be panels where the political parties in control of the councils will be almost all of one party. The Minister is saying that you can rely on the panel to which these people are appointed to then ensure greater impartiality. This is why we know it will not work. I have said again and again that the Minister will come back in a couple of years’ time with another Bill to put it right, because what she is in fact doing is leading not just to the politicisation of the police commissioner but also the panel, in a way that will be destructive because it does not guarantee either balance or having truly independent members on it.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, again I am very disappointed that the House is not able to identify the flexibility that the increase in the number on the panel offers. I want to make some progress now. I propose to place in the Library of the House as soon as possible—I hope within the next 48 hours—a comparison of the current system and the new system and how it will affect each police authority in the country. If noble Lords have a chance to analyse that, they will see that the flexibility is there. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that I am now creating too much flexibility in the Bill. The inference I have taken in previous discussions was that noble Lords wanted more prescription in the Bill and not flexibility. I believe that these matters are best decided at a local level, case by case, giving the power to the panel to decide what is needed. I am genuinely disappointed that that point of what I believe is a very generous amendment on the part of the Government has not been accepted.
Before I turn specifically to the amendments before us, my noble friend Lord Shipley mentioned deputies and how the panel conducts its business. We can consider the views that he has raised today as the Secretary of State has power in Schedule 5, set out by regulation, to see whether in regulation we can address the problem he has just identified. I will liaise with him on progress specifically on that matter.
Amendments 106, 116, 121, 123, 132A and 140 seek to vary the composition of the police and crime panel. Although I have heard the views put forward again today, I believe the series of government amendments that have been tabled will address many of the issues noble Lords have been concerned about, and I invite noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group not to press them.
Amendment 140, from my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Shipley, seeks to limit the Government’s power under paragraph 32 of Schedule 6 to make regulations applying local government legislation to police and crime panels. As I have said, we will take a look at what can be achieved in regulation but the amendment specifically would mean that the power could only be used to the extent necessary to apply the relevant legislation. I can reassure noble Lords that this power will not be used to a greater extent than is necessary. I will say more about it when I come to the Government’s amendments.
Government Amendments 120, 122, 124, 126 to 128, 130 to 132 and 134 to 137 seek to address, as I have mentioned, the composition of the police and crime panel. I thank—and they may be surprised to hear me say this—my noble friends Lord Shipley and Lady Hamwee and, if it is not going to ruin his reputation, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for their input. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, looks horrified. I have tried to listen, across the House, to the points that have been made. There have been some very good points made, particularly in Committee, and I have tried to incorporate them into the amendments I have tabled.
I fully recognise the need to ensure that the police and crime panels are able to represent geographically large and diverse communities. I also understand the significant challenges that local authorities face in achieving this under current provisions in the Bill. These provide for the inclusion of district councils, which previously have not been recognised in their own right, which reflects the Government’s localism agenda but leads to potential issues relating to proportionate representation.
Fundamentally, the Government still believe that the model set out for police and crime panels in the Bill is entirely appropriate and provides for a clear process and structure in establishing such panels. I believe we have created a structure that is sufficiently flexible to meet local structures while being the right size to avoid being expensive and a bureaucratic burden. However, the Government propose to allow areas to opt to increase their representation by co-opting additional members from local authorities—they do not have to come from local authorities—or independent members.
It is still important not to encourage oversized and unwieldy police and crime panels and it was for that reason that the cap was set at 20 members. For example, Devon and Cornwall’s police and crime panel will have 15 members under the provisions originally set out in the Bill; with these new provisions it will have an option to co-opt a further five members. This provision could therefore be used to enable the panel to reflect more directly the geographical representation of the force area. I remind noble Lords that in the Devon and Cornwall force area, Cornwall as a county is a unitary authority. However, we will not prescribe this; increasing co-option will be a local decision. The Secretary of State will retain a role in agreeing to any proposed increase in the number of co-optees, merely to ensure that local areas have considered all the issues arising from their decision, including other areas of balance.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
I hope that the Minister can give figures. I understand that there are specific circumstances to do with Cornwall, where it is felt that its representation is overmatched by that coming from Devon. But the figures of interest in terms of reflecting needs and all the communities are for Kent, Essex, Hampshire and, to a slightly lesser extent, Lancashire, because of the difference of size of population and the number of local authorities. I can see noble Lords nodding.
Baroness Browning
I have said that I will make sure that certainly before Third Reading, and I hope within the next 48 hours, I can write to noble Lords and place a copy of that letter in the House Library showing how this new threshold of 20 will impact on every police force in the country. That will show what the numbers would have been if I had left the Bill unamended with my increase to 20, and what the impact will be after raising the threshold to 20. I hope that noble Lords will be sufficiently encouraged and reassured when they have a chance to compare what the situation would have been in the Bill as previously drafted and the situation as with the new amendment that I have spoken to today.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
I thank the Minister for agreeing that we can come back to this at Third Reading.
Baroness Browning
I have to say that this amendment is a major concession on the part of the Government. It is free to all noble Lords to come back at Third Reading, but I believe that this is a very significant concession, which reflects a lot of the points raised across the House.
Baroness Henig
The problem is that I certainly, speaking for myself, do not fully understand the extent of the concession. Without being able to see the evidence that the Minister is talking about and to compare the former list and the present list under the amendment with old police authorities, I cannot see the extent of the concession. Given that we have not yet seen this information which will be put in the Library, is it possible to reserve the right to come back to this at Third Reading, if concerns remain? It is difficult to be specific about something that we have not yet seen.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I cannot say that the Government will come back to this at Third Reading. I am happy to talk off the Floor to noble Lords who have concerns about this, but this is a major concession. In looking at the exact numbers for each police force area, I remind the House that before I tabled this amendment the ceiling for police and crime panels reflected the number of local authorities plus two co-opted members. For most authorities, we will see significant numbers of co-opted members available to the panel to co-opt, if that is its wish, in order to achieve balance. A significant concession has been made in seeking to address many quite legitimate and important issues raised on the Floor of the House in Committee.
Panels will be required to exercise the power to co-opt additional members in such a way as to achieve the objective that the local authority members represent all parts of the police area and the political make-up of the contributing authorities. They will also need to ensure that all the members—local authority and independent—when taken together, have the necessary skills, knowledge and experience. To ensure that panels do this, any proposal to co-opt will require the agreement of the Secretary of State, who will look purely on the motivation in terms of achieving balance for that co-option. These amendments are considered to address the concerns that have been raised. I believe that the government amendments, particularly that to increase the panel to 20, have seriously addressed some important issues raised across the House. I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Henig
My Lords, this is an extremely serious issue. It first raised its head at Second Reading when nearly all the speakers voiced their anxieties about party politics being put into policing and it is a theme that has run right through our discussions since that time. I accept the assurance of the noble Baroness that she is trying to address this, as indeed we are trying to address it. The problem is that many of us, certainly on this side of the House, feel that the noble Baroness’s way of addressing it will not be sufficient.
It is all very well comparing panels in the original Bill with panels now, but the comparison I am interested in is between the panels under the Government’s amendment and the existing police authorities. We have a tried and tested formula under which there is no party political majority on police authorities. All parties are represented. They have worked harmoniously and they have worked effectively. I suggest to the House that one of the reasons why police authorities have not had a high profile is because they have avoided controversy by having party political balance, with people of all parties working together to resolve problems. That is why we have not seen high profile problems and why police authorities have not been noticed more.
This issue of party political balance is important. We have it now. My concern is that we will lose it. It is a concern that the Minister has not addressed. It is not a question of what the original Bill had in as against what it has in now; for me it is an issue of what we have now—which is very precious— and what we will lose under this proposal if we do not get party political balance on our panels. In the past week or two I have been in meetings with police personnel where a group of Members of Parliament were berating a chief constable for not coming out publically to support the Government’s proposals. The aggressive tone of that meeting—I will not go into detail—left me quite shocked. I am concerned that if we do not address this issue of party politics in policing we will have chief constables being put under pressure to do certain things.
This is not an issue about operational or not operational. It is about people saying, “Chief Constable, you are not giving leadership; you are not saying X, Y and Z put forward by the Government”. There will be pressure of that kind and it will be insidious. That is what I am worried about. I have seen it happening already and it will happen more. The Government should be trying to tackle this head on. It they do not, we will undermine the impartiality of our police authorities and put party politics back into policing. That is what I—and many others—worry about. It is why I put so much emphasis on this amendment. It is crucial. It protects something that has been very precious in our policing over the past 20 years. It protects something that is very precious to chief constables. I very much fear that if we put party politics back into policing it is chief constables who will bear the brunt of it. It is for all those reasons that, despite what the noble Baroness has said, I have to test the opinion of the House.
Open Public Services White Paper
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, our public services face significant challenges over the coming years—cuts that are too far and too fast; an aging population and ever rising expectations—yet it appears from today’s White Paper that the Government are simply obsessed with presenting an argument rather than providing the reform that our public services need. The Government have certainly not lacked ambition in the way they have heralded the White Paper, referring to it as bringing a complete change in public services, where power will be placed in people’s hands. The Government may believe that the narrative is there, but the content appears to be lacking.
The White Paper contains few new ideas and even fewer new proposals. In many cases the Government are lagging behind their earlier rhetoric and the actions of the previous Labour Government. Indeed, some of the proposals are already being implemented as a result of our legislation—for example, the provision of data on health outcomes.
On personal budgets, to which the Minister referred, the Sunday Times newspaper was told several weeks ago that the right to a personal budget, now used by approximately 250,000 adults, was to be extended to those with long-term conditions and to children with special needs—and yet there is nothing of this in the White Paper.
The Minister also referred to the expansion of mutuals. Back in November, the Minister for the Cabinet Office said that every department would put in place rights to provide for public sector workers to take over the running of services. Almost nine months later, only the Department of Health has obliged and no timescale for any other has been forthcoming.
Ahead of today’s White Paper we set out three tests for public services reform. First, will these reforms make services more accountable and responsive to the needs of service users? Secondly, will there be clear accountability for the way in which public money is spent and members of the public are protected? Finally, will the proposals strengthen the bonds of community and family life? So far the Government are failing that test of reform. Their policies are inconsistent between departments and sometimes within them. Little has been done to put service users and their communities in control.
It is now clear that the Government have lost their way on public service reform. After the incompetence that characterised their failed approach to the NHS, the Government’s pace of reform is slowing. They are all over the place on public service reform and the White Paper does nothing to change that.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister, first, are the Government still planning to bring forward proposals for personal budgets and mutuals? Can the Minister give any indication of the timescale on which they are likely to proceed? Secondly, given that the White Paper has little to say on these two important issues and many others, will there be another White Paper with a set of proposals, which are so apparently lacking in this one? Thirdly, in relation to what has been for the employees concerned a major issue about reform—staff pensions and employment conditions—can the Minister assure us that this is being taken seriously and that those members of staff transferred out of the public sector will retain access to the same pensions and conditions of employment that they currently have? Fourthly, if the public will not wear competition by price in the NHS, will the Minister guarantee that this will not form the basis of proposals elsewhere? Finally, we are particularly concerned about the report in today’s Guardian that Ministers have been privately advised that schools and hospitals should be allowed to fail. On the day that Southern Cross has closed down, does the Minister agree that the education of children and the treatment of the sick should not be treated as a commodity to be traded and that these proposals should never see the light of day?
In conclusion, I quote what the independent think tank Reform has said about the Government’s proposals so far: It states:
“The Coalition Government are failing the test of practical reform. Viewed as a whole, the Government’s public service reform policies are all over the place”.
This is a difficult and damaging conclusion for the Government, and there is nothing in the White Paper today which will change that judgment.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, this process is signed up to by all government departments and it has had wide consultation. We are building on what the previous Government were doing—ensuring that there was proper reform and that public services were able to deliver the best possible service and outcome to individual users. I do not accept the noble Baroness’s premise that the White Paper is going nowhere and that it has not responded to the needs of individuals. What we are trying to do is very significant. This is about building accountability and transparency into the processes. As with social care, which is a sector I know well, personal budgets are available to some but this is about ensuring that personal budgets are available to many more. It is also about making sure that people are aware of what they are buying into, and that process takes time.
I have not read the Guardian article so I cannot comment on it. However, I will say that for us it is really important that children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds and are followed by the pupil premium will be able to get better outcomes and go on to enjoy social mobility and rise up, rather than remain stagnated as some children have become through—I am sorry to say to the noble Baroness— policies that were not delivered well under the previous Government. We need to find a way of working together to ensure that our public services deliver the best outcomes for those who need them the most. We have to agree that this will not come through sitting doing nothing. We must ensure that delivery of our public services is done in a way in which everyone has choice and power over how their services are delivered, and this White Paper goes towards that.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
Before the Minister sits down, I remind her of the very important question that I asked towards the end of my response to her Statement about the fact that it is said that the Government are willing to allow educational and health establishments to fail. That cannot happen, and I would like a guarantee from the Minister that this will not be allowed to happen.
Baroness Verma
I apologise for not responding to that. I have not seen any evidence that we would allow schools to fail. It would not be in the interest of children who are growing up today for us to allow failure: they have been failed for far too long. We need to ensure that every child growing up in this country today has an opportunity to achieve their best potential.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
My Lords, while I acknowledge the sense of many of the objectives spelled out in this White Paper, does my noble friend recognise that across the whole White Paper the proposals to achieve these ends raise far more questions than answers? The modes of delivery are very far from clear and this House needs to debate them serially and at length. For example, does my noble friend recognise that cuts in public expenditure are seriously diminishing the access of local people to central services? The closure of the income tax offices and the removal of visa and passport offices in the part of the country that I live in are examples of this. Although these are central services, they cannot be neglected as they touch upon the lives of people in the locality. Does she also recognise that there are big questions about who is going to make the decisions on the money that is to be dispensed by the public service locally—is it to be central, or local government, or some new sources of funding? How is the need of the particular person who is to enjoy the personal budget to be calculated if not by some local organisation which is very closely in touch with the specific circumstances of the individual? I repeat that the general objectives seem unchallengeable but the mode of delivery seems highly opaque.
Baroness Verma
I will reassure my noble friend. We are working against a really difficult economic backdrop, and we will have to make some incredibly difficult choices. Having said that, it is also an opportunity for us to open up to a variety of providers and see if services are then better delivered, with best value incorporated into how those services are delivered. As with personal budgets, delivery will not just be left to one set of providers. What is important is working in partnership—in this case, personal budgets and local government. It is about being able to deliver services far better and with greater choice. Those who have access to personal budgets have said to us in consultations that they feel relieved that they are going to be able to make choices on how their care is delivered.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, is it not ironic on the day that Southern Cross has collapsed—closing 560 residential homes, which account for over 30 per cent of residential care places—that the Government are proclaiming the virtues of diversity? How diverse is a system that allows a single private operator to provide such a high proportion of places, with the results that we can now see? In talking about diversity, how many organisations, particularly voluntary ones, have been contracted on the welfare to work programme? It seems to have been commandeered by a handful of national organisations.
Can the Minister also explain the relevance of the passage in the Statement that talks about,
“open, real-time data on road conditions, speeds and accidents along our motorways”?
Is she suggesting that motorists can then find another supplier of roads on which to travel or is this a question of diversity in the provision of satellite navigation?
More seriously, on the health premium paid to local authorities achieving the greatest improvements in public health, clearly one shares the objective of incentivising the improvement of public health. Is it not going to be difficult for authorities such as my own—the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is also a member—to improve the very serious and long-standing conditions in public health? There are areas where it will be easier to do that and they will be rewarded for achieving targets while authorities that may need investment to secure improvements will presumably struggle to get it. Will that not have to be reconsidered to ensure that the investment goes in the right place to achieve public health objectives? Those are not in any event entirely under the control of local authorities.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, it is a great disappointment that Southern Cross has had to go down the route that it has gone in. The noble Lord is of course aware that many providers perform excellent work and have greater safeguards in place. We do not want to take one example and judge all private providers on it.
I am not quite sure that the significance of the roads question will be answered as fully as the noble Lord would like. I assume that those data are so that the public—the people who use those roads—are able to question why there is not greater improvement and how greater improvement can be brought about. It is not about avoiding roads but being able to say, “Where judgments are to be made about mapping on those roads, how do we deliver better services? Is it about speed or variable speeds”? I suspect that that is what it is, incorporated into that response.
On health premiums, it is absolutely right that those healthcare providers dealing with very difficult health issues in their areas should be given extra support and rewarded if they deliver better outcomes. It is only right that we work in partnership—sometimes with local authorities or across a range of providers. We must not put a full-stop block on this, so that we are driven by the same service that has gone on for many years and that has not delivered the sort of outcomes that we would like everyone to have—and not because they can buy it. It has to be available for everyone.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, as someone who works within local authorities and has local authority experience over 10 years, I welcome the Statement, not least because when we have looked at procurement of services we have, for far too long, seen a repeated reliance on what has happened before continuing. I welcome the White Paper because it opens up different channels, whether it is the state sector, the private sector or, indeed, as we have seen, the growing importance of the voluntary sector in delivering effective services at the ground level, as people desire. One-size-fits-all is not the way forward. Personalised budgets, services which matter to local people delivered by the best provider, are what is desired and this White Paper outlines those objectives. I also ask my noble friend the Minister to emphasise once again that while we have only seen the local DCLG budget being allocated in such a way, we see a relinquishing of Whitehall’s control on budgets and all budgets being delivered effectively by the right provider for local people at a local level.
Baroness Verma
I thank my noble friend for his warm welcome for the Statement and I absolutely agree that it is about decentralisation and being able to give more and more control over to local people and local authorities, so that we can actually get the sorts of services that local people need in those local areas. There is no point in trying to micromanage local areas when one does not have the special needs of those local areas within one’s own way of delivering. My noble friend is absolutely right that it is really important that the decision-makers are part of the communities that are being served.
Personalised budgets, which are something that I know about, are one very good way of being able to deliver. In her response to the Statement, the noble Baroness talked about personalised budgets. Not enough people are signed up to them; we want to deliver, we are building upon what the previous Government were doing, but, of course, it takes time to roll these things out and make people aware. It is about an awareness campaign as well to make people aware of what is available to them so that they will make informed choices.
Lord Soley
My Lords, I do not have a problem with the direction of travel that the noble Baroness is mapping out; indeed, as she said, it builds on what the previous Government were doing, and more acknowledgement of that might make it easier to reach agreement on some of these areas. The problem that the Government are not addressing—as far as I can see, although I will need to look at the White Paper—is the detail of it. I am very much in favour of co-opting mutuals, but I know from personal experience that, for example, setting up a housing co-op and making it work is very difficult and, frankly, it fails more often than not. That has been tried on many occasions.
On more personalised and individual budgets, again I am very much in favour of that. I have argued for children to have budgets enabling their parents to give them extra lessons in whatever they chose—music, or whatever—but that runs into the problem that every now and then a parent wants something which is not considered to be in the interests of the child. To take what is perhaps an extreme example, a parent might say, “I do not wish my child to be in a science lesson which teaches Darwinism; I want to take them out and give them lessons in creationism”. We will run into that problem, so we have to have managerial structures which decide how the money can be used, in what format and who says yes or no. It is not just an issue of money; it is an issue of management structures which allow us to do what I think most of us would like to do, which is to devolve downwards.
Baroness Verma
The noble Lord raises a number of interesting points. I did say that we are building on what the previous Government were doing. We are trying to make it a build-on that will be a bit more directed and focused on what the outcomes are going to be. I think that we are still in that mode of debating. It is important that we debate and discuss the best possible ways of delivering. These conversations do not stop just because a paper is produced. Consultation is an ongoing process, but it is also very important that we do not become so blinkered that we decide that the White Paper is not going to deliver anything. The White Paper is already able to deliver a lot, because we are building on what was already in place.
The structures will, of course, have areas that we will need to fine-tune and to look at how things can be made much tighter, but the Government are making sure that we have continuity plans and safety nets in place so that we can ensure that, when people make those choices, they are not left without support mechanisms. That is why we want to encourage champions to come forward through organisations such as Which? or HealthWatch and also make sure that there are ombudsmen for each sector, so that everyone knows that there is a line of recourse if they face difficulties.
Lord Patel
My Lords, on the face of it, allowing patients a choice as to where they wish their care to be delivered seems a good idea, except that there are several problems. One is the quality of information we have: if that choice is to be based on outcomes, it is pretty poor.
The second is that the outcome is not based on one treatment: it is the quality of the journey of care of a patient that delivers the best outcome. For instance, poor outcomes in cancer may well be, and are, related to late referrals of cancer patients. How does a patient know what quality of information they will be given that will allow them to make a choice as to how they wish their care to be provided, based on these outcomes?
Another issue is that the best quality might be far away from where the patient can go or have access to. So how would they make that choice? Most importantly, if we are going to do this—and the idea seems good—it should be based on what we have learned from pilots. Have there been any pilots done that will tell us how this will work?
Baroness Verma
The noble Lord has raised a number of detailed questions and I suspect that I will not be able to answer them today. I would like to take them away, write to him and place a copy in the Library, because it would be unwise of me to respond to him about outcomes without details of how those outcomes would be delivered.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
My Lords, perhaps I can assist on this. While not agreeing with everything that has been proposed, on the matter of choice there are difficulties in getting information, in travelling away from your local hospital, in transferring records, but that has never stopped the rich exercising their choice. They have always been able to overcome these difficulties. Therefore, if there are obstacles in the way of consumer choice for patients, the answer should not be to remove that choice; it should be to increase facilities for the provision of information. On outcomes, I would simply say that, since the introduction of choice in the National Health Service, hundreds of thousands of people have been taken off the waiting list and the maximum waiting time has been reduced from two years to six weeks from diagnosis to operation. That was due to the element of competition and patient empowerment which was introduced into the National Health Service through choice.
Baroness Verma
I thank the noble Lord for coming in and assisting me, but I will still follow it through with some letters.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of Newcastle City Council. There is much to commend in this White Paper in principle, insofar as it gives greater power and responsibility to groups of individuals and third sector providers. However, will my noble friend the Minister confirm that it is not just about sell-off to the private sector for profit and that the Government really mean that this is about groups of residents, individuals and third sector organisations? Secondly, will she comment on increasing choice? While theoretically a very good thing which I strongly support, there has to be spare capacity in a public service; otherwise, choice becomes a mirage. Having spare capacity is inherently more expensive when what people want is to have high-quality services available in their immediate neighbourhoods. At a time of declining public resource, ensuring high-quality services within neighbourhoods, close to home in order to minimise the need to travel, is more important than extending, at higher cost to the public purse, the choice in a wider area.
Baroness Verma
My noble friend should feel reassured first and foremost that it is not about just a sell-off. It is about introducing a much wider and more diverse provision of service so that people are able to enjoy a much more flexible response to their needs rather than, as so often, a stringent delivery of services through local authorities. Often as not, my noble friend will find that within an independent delivery service there is always capacity built in. It is often a prerequisite required of those who deliver services when they buy from the public sector to deliver, because it has to be delivered in their service plans in the first place. So I do not have a worry about capacity.
It is important that we are able to ensure that people who are going to use these services will be able to have a greater say in how those services will be delivered, whether those services meet their needs and, if they do not, how we can have recourse to get those services made better in responding to those needs.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top
My Lords, will the Minister accept that many of us are extremely disappointed with this so-called White Paper? It seems to be a Green Paper because it consults on a range of things without any precision on what the Government’s intent is. When I saw the coalition agreement saying that there would be an opportunity for millions of workers to be their own boss, I was expecting more from a White Paper than simply, “We will continue to support mutuals and the public sector workers in them”. The lack of ambition is staggering.
Will the Government now seriously address the manner in which they can reform and change public services? They are getting a bad name now for their lack of ambition on reform and their inability to deliver it. On things like mutuals, they need to answer the questions put by my noble friend on the Front Bench, particularly around pensions and pension entitlement.
Baroness Verma
I am sorry that the noble Baroness feels that this does not address public sector reform. Public services are being reformed. This is an exciting and comprehensive paper. I suggest that if she takes the paper away and looks at it in detail, she will see that we are genuinely working across government to ensure that there is a proper reform of public services so that they are delivered to ensure that people have choices, are able to have their needs met and have a say in how those choices are delivered. These reforms will take time because we want the process to be evolutionary and we want to get it right, but it is a build-on to what was happening already. I hope that I leave the noble Baroness assured that we will be working hard with public services to ensure the best delivery.
Phone Hacking
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, by leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place.
“Mr Speaker, the events of last week shocked the nation. Our proud tradition of journalism, which for centuries has bravely held those in positions of power or responsibility to account without fear or favour, was shaken by the revelation of what we now know to have happened at the News of the World. The perpetrators of those acts not only broke the law, they preyed on the grief of families who had lost loved ones either as a result of foul murders or giving their life for their country. I hope that the law shows no mercy on those responsible and no mercy on any managers who condoned such appalling behaviour.
As a result of what happened, the Prime Minister last week announced two independent inquiries to examine what went wrong and recommend to the Government how we can make sure it never happens again. First, there will be a full, judge-led public inquiry into the original police investigation. Witnesses will be questioned under oath and no stone will be left unturned. As the Prime Minister announced on Friday, that inquiry will need to answer the following questions. Why did the first police investigation fail? What exactly was going on at the News of the World, and what was going on at other newspapers? The bulk of the work of this inquiry can happen only after the police investigation has finished, but we will start what we can now.
Secondly, there will be a separate inquiry to look at the culture, the practices and the ethics of the British press. In particular, it should look at how our newspapers are regulated and make recommendations for the future. That inquiry should start as soon as possible, ideally this summer. As the Prime Minister said, a free press is an essential component of our democracy and our way of life, but press freedom does not mean that the press should be above the law. In announcing this inquiry, the Prime Minister has invited views on the way that the press should be regulated in future.
I understand that in the past few minutes News Corporation has withdrawn its undertaking in lieu. On 25 January I said that I was minded to refer News Corporation’s proposed merger with BSkyB to the Competition Commission in the absence of any specific undertakings in lieu. As a result of News Corporation’s announcement this afternoon, I am now going to refer this to the Competition Commission with immediate effect and will be writing to it this afternoon. This will be an outcome that I am sure the whole House will welcome. It will mean that the Competition Commission will be able to give further full and exhaustive consideration of this merger, taking into account all relevant recent developments.
Protecting our tradition of a strong, free and independent media is the most sacred responsibility I have as Culture Secretary. Irresponsible, illegal and callous behaviour damages that freedom by weakening public support for the self-regulation upon which it has thrived. By dealing decisively with the abuses of power that we have seen, I hope on a cross-party basis, this Government intend to strengthen and not diminish press freedom, making this country once again proud and not ashamed of the journalism that so shapes our democracy”.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made in the other place by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I join with her in the sentiments that she has expressed regarding the horror that we have all felt as a result of what has transpired to date.
We are faced with a most distressing and appalling series of allegations that, if true, demonstrate a level of systemic failure that almost beggars belief. The gravity of the situation should have ensured that the noble Baroness’s right honourable friend the Prime Minister had the courtesy to go to the House of Commons to answer this debate himself. We know that he felt it sufficiently important to go 20 minutes down the road to a press conference. That has been a matter of acute disappointment to those on this side. Some have argued—I hope the noble Baroness will understand that many will say properly—that that was a dereliction of his duty. The Prime Minister has failed to take responsibility. The victims of this crisis deserve better, Parliament deserves better and your Lordships will know that the leader of the Opposition has said—I have to say, with regret, that I believe that this is right—that the country deserves better.
My right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition has responded in the other place to the Government’s Statement. I fully agree with everything that he set out in his response. What my right honourable friend has said on this scandal reflects the mood of the country, and I pay tribute to him for that. However, as shadow Attorney-General, there are several specific points that I wish to bring before this House. The Government announced in today’s Statement that they will refer News Corporation’s bid for BSkyB to the Competition Commission. We are pleased that the Government have finally accepted the case that we on these Benches have argued consistently. We said from the very beginning that this matter should be referred to the Competition Commission. This should have been done on 25 January of this year, when the Culture Secretary first announced that he was not going to refer the matter to the Competition Commission but, instead, consult on the terms of the undertakings from News Corporation, which he wanted to accept. I hope the noble Baroness will now accept that that judgment was wrong.
Your Lordships will know that the period of consultation ended last Friday. However, News Corporation announced this afternoon—only moments ago, as the noble Baroness said—that it has withdrawn the undertakings that it gave in lieu of a reference. The undertakings were given in lieu to prevent a reference to the Competition Commission. Without these undertakings in lieu, the Secretary of State has no choice but to refer the matter to the Competition Commission. Therefore, it is not a question of the Government announcing their decision to refer the matter to the Competition Commission. The Government have not made this decision. In effect, News Corporation has made this decision and the Government have finally acquiesced to it. There are still several issues that need to be determined before the Government pursue the reference. I ask the noble Baroness to ask her right honourable friend the Secretary of State to pause before making that reference today. On this occasion we must get it right.
As the noble Baroness is well aware, there are constraints. The Competition Commission is constrained by the original decision, taken by the Secretary of State for Business, to limit the notice to the issue of plurality. The Government at that stage had the choice of including broadcasting standards in that notice and failed to do so. It is clear now that that was a mistake. I say straight away to the noble Baroness: I understand why the Minister then responsible might have been so misled. There is a now a real question mark over whether there has been some bad faith in this matter. When the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport came to make his determination, it was not known that the nature, level, extent and depth of the illegality was such as has been displayed over the past week. That is a matter of critical importance.
Consideration should now be given to whether a second notice can be issued. There are real questions in relation to bad faith, on which I have already touched. Several organisations and people claim that they were misled by News International. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, of the Press Complaints Commission, says that she was misled either by omission or commission. Then there are the police. If the allegations are true, we are now led to believe that News International failed to disclose that from 2007 it had e-mail evidence demonstrating that payments to police officers were authorised and this fact was not disclosed to police until 20 June of this year—four years later. Almost every hour, further disclosures are being made, which, if true, may further demonstrate shocking bad faith. Therefore, timing is everything and something that is peculiarly within the control of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
I have alluded already to the nature, breadth and depth of these allegations. However, we do not know what more may be coming. We have heard that Rebekah Brooks believes, as she told News International staff, that there is much, much more to come. There has to be some assessment of the true level of illegality and criminality that may need to be explored. There is also the interrelationship of News Corporation and News International, and the level of their interdependence. Ofcom has indicated that it is interested in this matter. I ask the noble Baroness to ask her right honourable friend to consider continuing with his request, both to Ofcom and to the OFT, as to how the new reference to the Competition Commission should be framed. Nothing should be done until their advice is forthcoming. There will doubtless have to be consideration of whether Ofcom will now have the time to make a mature decision on the fit and proper person test. Will the noble Baroness give this House an assurance that, before any reference is made to the Competition Commission, the Government will give full and proper consideration to all of these issues so that a fully informed and correct reference can be made?
On the inquiries announced by the Government, will the noble Baroness confirm that no inquiries have yet been established, contrary to what was claimed in the other place today by her right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture? As the noble Baroness will be aware, from the moment an inquiry is established it becomes a criminal offence to interfere with, let alone destroy, any relevant evidence. Therefore, will she assure this House that the Government accept that such inquiries should be established immediately, without any further delay?
The reason why these issues are so important is that News Corporation currently owns 39.1 per cent of BSkyB and wants to own 100 per cent. If it is allowed to purchase these shares, it will become the largest source of news in the United Kingdom after the BBC. It will have a media empire that produces news on radio and television, in newspapers and on the internet. News Corporation will become one of the largest privately owned media empires in the world. Its influence on the United Kingdom’s public life will substantially increase, both directly and indirectly.
So it is right that this matter should be referred to the Competition Commission. That is what we on these Benches have long advocated. But I have to say to your Lordships that it is now of critical importance that this matter be properly dealt with, that the reference to the Competition Commission be fully and properly framed, and that any reference takes fully into account all the circumstances and extraordinary events that we have seen over the past week. None of this should be done in haste. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has time; and on this occasion we urge him strongly to take that time to frame this matter correctly. Due consideration has never been more important than it is today.
Given how far the Government have got this wrong, it is imperative that we now get this right.
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, I of course would not agree that the Government have got this wrong, and I am, in fact, deeply saddened that the noble and learned Baroness opposite should try to score party-political points on something which is this serious.
Baroness Rawlings
I will of course try to answer all her points. The Secretary of State was open-mined at all times during this whole process. He has taken no decision and it was thanks to the Secretary of State that the consultation was extended. The Secretary of State has said that it is his decision that we are taking this bid back to the Competition Commission. The Government said from the start that they would refer the merger but would consider undertakings in lieu. Now that News Corporation has withdrawn its undertaking, the Culture Secretary is reverting to his original decision.
The decision regarding the true worthiness of Murdoch to continue with this BSkyB bid will be under Ofcom and the OFT to wait for their advice. Surely hacking is evil—we all know it is evil—and it is bad for everyone. The inquiries have been established. The Secretary of State has announced immediately, as the noble and learned Baroness heard from the Secretary of State in the other place, that the EU competition issue has been looked into at an earlier stage and the EU gave a decision that on competition grounds it was all right.
As to the reference to the basis of broadcasting standards, the Secretary of State cannot legally issue a second intervention notice. This is ruled out by the legislation. We would totally agree with the noble and learned Baroness that this should not be done in haste, and the Secretary of State has said—and she is right—right from the start that he will take his time, he will not be pressed on this, he will look into every possible side, and the inquiries will be done with due process.
Lord Fowler
My Lords, perhaps I may concentrate on the important questions that my noble friend raised in the first part of the Statement—on the police investigation, on why the first police investigation failed so abysmally, and on the practices and ethics of the press—although I obviously very much welcome the decision on the Competition Commission.
I knew—if I may say so kindly to my noble friend—that the time would come when she would agree with me on the need for a public inquiry. I have now been given two, which is extremely kind of her. More seriously, having reached this point, does she agree with me, particularly in light of some of the comments of the noble and learned Baroness opposite, that it is in no one’s interest at all that this becomes a party-political issue, for we might just remember that virtually everything complained of took place under the watch of the party opposite when they were in government and, furthermore, that the only reason that News Corp is able to pursue a bid for full control of BSkyB is because, after lobbying, the controls that prevented such a bid—and had prevented such a bid for years—were scrapped by the Communications Act 2003. That is simply a matter of history, and some of us said so and opposed that at the time.
Perhaps I might put it to the House: would it not be more sensible to recognise that over the past 30 years all Governments have made mistakes and all Governments have got too close to media organisations such as News International—and not just News International? Would it not now be sensible to take the opportunity to step back and put the relationship between political parties and the media on a proper, more independent and less demeaning basis? If we did that, the public would be very pleased with our action.
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Fowler for his intervention, and I agree totally with him that this should not be a party-political matter. This has been ongoing for several years, as he has clearly pointed out. We should take a step back, which is exactly what the Secretary of State is doing. The Government are determined to find out all that the journalists and their agents were up to in hacking into phone messages, and what the police knew, when they knew, and what they did about it—and how we might learn the lessons for the future. That is why the Prime Minister announced last Wednesday that there would be two inquiries, both of which will be fully independent. I note that my noble friend Lord Fowler has been asking for these inquires for a very long time now. The first will be an independent judicial inquiry to get to the bottom of the specific revelations and allegations. It will look at why the police investigation that started in 2006 failed, what was going on in the News of the World, and what was going on in other newspapers. The second inquiry will be a review, and will look at the wider lessons for the future of the press. We intend that work can start at the earliest opportunity—ideally, this summer.
Lord Kinnock
My Lords, does the Minister share my deep concern, which I am certain extends across this House, that today News Corporation has withdrawn its previous undertaking to hive off Sky News? Does the noble Baroness recall that Mr Murdoch told a Select Committee of this House that,
“Sky News would be more popular if it was more like Fox News”,
and made what he called “the presentational progress” achieved by that notoriously biased channel, which he owns, in the United States of America? Does she think that with those instincts and judgments Mr Murdoch could ever be a fit and proper person to have ownership and control of 40 per cent of BSkyB, let alone the whole of it?
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, asks a question which comes to the heart of the matter and the responsibilities of the Secretary of State. There are rules in this country on plurality, and we have talked about these on several occasions. As to whether Mr Murdoch is a fit and proper person, the “fit and proper” statutory test is a matter for Ofcom, which is taking its duties in this area very seriously and is already in touch with the relevant authorities. The Government have no role in its decisions and have not sought to influence it in one way or another. This is an ongoing situation, and the plurality matter that the noble Lord raises is of the utmost importance.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
My Lords, I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Fowler that this should not be a party-political matter, and congratulate him on all he has done to bring it to this point. Does my noble friend not agree that it is absolutely astonishing that the chief executive of News Corp is still in her job? I was an editor, not of a newspaper but of a television programme. Even if I had not known what was going on, as the person responsible for my programme, I would have resigned. Does not my noble friend think that that person should follow what I believe the Prime Minister has said, which is that it is time that she left her job?
Baroness Rawlings
My noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter asks—this has been mentioned once before—about the resignation of somebody working for a public company. It is up to the chairman and chief executive to look into whether someone should resign, whether it is Rebekah Brooks herself or Mr Murdoch, but it is not up to the Government to interfere on that matter.
Lord Soley
My Lords, it is a mere 20 years since I introduced my Freedom and Responsibility of the Press Bill in the House of Commons, so I think I am making good progress when I see what is happening today. We used to talk then about the problem of some of the practices in the press, which included things such as offering payments to the police. We did not know about hacking then. The first point I want to emphasise is that we must make sure that this is not just about the News of the World. It is a great pity that a newspaper has been sacrificed because a chief executive would not do the decent thing and resign.
The second point is that the Minister said, citing the Culture Secretary in the other House, that the job of the media is to hold people in power to account. That is absolutely right, but as we were saying 20-odd years ago, the problem is that no one holds the press to account. How on earth can we even think of allowing Rupert Murdoch to have such control over the British media? It really should not go ahead for that reason alone. My final point, which is very important following what the Prime Minister said, is: have the Government any idea what they are going to replace the Press Complaints Commission with?
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Soley, that it was probably not just the News of the World guilty for all the problems that we have today. To answer his second question, the press must abide by the law, as do we all. Of particular note are the laws on defamation, data protection and phone hacking and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. Then comes the code of practice.
The press all have to sign up to the code of practice. This is a self-regulatory code drawn up by the committee of editors. It is not intended to duplicate the law, but is complementary to it. For instance, it includes specific provisions on privacy which are not found in the law. Adherence to the code is then overseen by the Press Complaints Commission, which the noble Lord asked about. The Secretary of State is looking into how to deal with the Press Complaints Commission to make it more accountable. He is definitely looking at that at the moment, so the noble Lord is right to have brought up that point. The PCC is made up of a mixture of press and lay members, but lay members form a two-thirds majority, and the chairman is always someone with no connection to the press. As we all know, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, currently holds that position.
Lord Crickhowell
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Fowler has already referred to the events in 2003 when what became known as the Gang of Four, of whom I was one and he was another, under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, sought to temper the over-enthusiasm of the Front Benches and the Government for liberalising the ownership of the press. Had one amendment that I moved been carried—it was resisted on whipped votes by both Front Benches and was defeated by only 11 votes—we would not be in the mess we are now.
Against that background, I was a little surprised to hear the noble and learned Baroness who opened the questioning for the Opposition, who emphasised how we must take time to get it right, arguing that that we simply must rush into the appointment of a judge and a judicial inquiry. The police investigation is already under way, and I feel sure that the police are in a position to stop any removal of evidence, and so on. It is very important that the right judge is appointed after seeking the advice of the Lord Chief Justice and that the right brief is given to the inquiry, after consultation, which I hope will include the Leader of the Opposition. I understand that there is to be a meeting on Wednesday.
The Culture Secretary no longer has to rely on the narrow question of fitness and advice from Ofcom—although I hope that Ofcom will continue to consider the question. Can my noble friend confirm that as a result of News Corporation's withdrawal of its undertaking in lieu, the Competition Commission will be free to delay any decision while huge questions remain over the behaviour of senior management at the very summit of News Corporation, and that those questions are unlikely to be answered until we know the outcome of the police inquiries and the judge-led inquiry?
Secondly, the Statement says that the bulk of the work of the judge-led inquiry can take place only after the police investigation is complete, but that may take many months. Indeed, the legal actions following it could take even longer. Would it not be for the judge to decide exactly how far the activities of his inquiry can be pursued? Does not the judge have considerable scope in that respect as a result of the arrangements put in place in 2005?
Finally—
Lord Crickhowell
I was merely going to observe again that if we are not to hurry it—the noble and learned Baroness laid great emphasis on that—we have to get the scope of the judge-led inquiry right. I hope that my noble friend can confirm that wide consultation will take place about it.
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Crickhowell backs up the most important point: that the Secretary of State will need time for the whole process without rushing the police inquiry—my noble friend is quite right to say that several inquiries are already ongoing—and that he is free to delay it. Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading will also have to report. The Competition Commission must report too, though within six to 18 months at the outside limit. As for the judge-led inquiry to decide, one hopes that it will not take too long. If noble Lords think back to the Saville inquiry, which took 12 years and £200 million, one hopes that this inquiry will come through a little faster.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
My Lords, will the Minister clarify one point that has become less clear during the past half hour? She has spoken of inquiries having been established. Has the remit of the judge-led inquiry been made public? Until it is, I believe that the point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, stands—namely, that it is unclear what constitutes evidence and it will not be a criminal offence to destroy evidence. I should be very grateful if the Minister could tell us whether the remit is in the public domain; and, if not, when it will be.
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, the first inquiry will be an independent judicial one to get to the bottom of the specific revelations and allegations. It will look at why the police investigation that started in 2006 failed, and at what was going on at the News of the World and at other newspapers. The remit of the second inquiry will be to look at the wider lessons for the future of the press, and we intend that work can start at the earliest opportunity, ideally this summer. There will surely be further details on these inquiries, which will be announced in due time.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Fowler, whose contribution to this ongoing discussion is to be commended, I spent some time in journalism before coming into politics; indeed, I was an editor. There is nobody stronger for press freedom than I am. However, can we take advantage of the bipartisanship, which I sense is for the first time on this issue coming about, to have agreement on a law of privacy in this country, which we have long needed and which Governments have known is necessary but have been afraid of confronting the press because the Opposition of the day would take the side of the press under the banner of press freedom? In fact, appropriate privacy legislation is in my judgment an essential part of a civilised society.
Finally, I am slightly concerned that of all the very grave malpractices that have been uncovered, perhaps the gravest—of which no mention has been made so far in this exchange today—is the acceptance on a large and horrifying scale, and going quite far up the ladder, by members of the police of large sums of money in return for confidential information. Of all the appalling things that have happened, in my judgment this is the worst. I hope that the Government will bear that in mind and act appropriately.
Baroness Rawlings
My noble friend Lord Lawson makes a very valid point. We are all horrified by the allegations that have arisen out of this case. Privacy and freedom are probably among the most valued aspects of our society, especially if we think of what used to happen in the Soviet Union and perhaps still happens in various parts of the world today. The Government strongly believe that a press free from state intervention is fundamental to our democracy. However, the press must abide by the same laws as everyone else, including those on data protection and phone hacking. In addition, most newspapers choose to sign up to the code of practice, which imposes further restrictions on them. My noble friend Lord Lawson is absolutely right, but it would be a bad thing to rush into new press legislation without having gone into all the details and heard the results of all the inquiries.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, in relation to the second of the inquiries that the noble Baroness has referred to, into the culture and practices of the press and questions of how newspapers are regulated, I am sure she is aware that whenever committees of this or the other House have looked at anything related to these issues they have always encountered a serious blockage in the refusal of senior people involved with the press to come before committees of the two Houses and be answerable for their actions. That was particularly true of the Communications Committee of this House, chaired very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, who has an extremely good record on these issues. I simply ask if this committee will have the power to call witnesses and to require the presentation of evidence and materials. If it does not have the full authority of Parliament, with sanctions, behind it, I fear that this will be a very ineffective inquiry.
Baroness Rawlings
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has a very valid point and I would agree with him.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:30 - Division on Amendment 117 - Ayes: 139 / Noes: 204 - Amendment 117 disagreed.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“( ) A police and crime panel must—
(a) review the police and crime commissioner’s human resources policy; and (b) make a report or recommendations on that policy.( ) Where a panel makes a report or recommendation on the police and crime commissioner’s human resources policy, the police and crime commissioner must—
(a) review the policy, taking the panel’s report or recommendations into account; and(b) resubmit a revised human resources policy to the panel for the panel’s consideration.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, this group contains a considerable number of government amendments that in essence ensure that all the staff, property rights and liabilities of police authorities pass first to police and crime commissioners and the MOPC on the day of creation in order to maintain current arrangements. They then allow for secondary transfer schemes to be put in place to allow staff to transfer to the chief officer of police.
I understand that the Association of Police Authorities supports the Government’s approach. Much as I admire that association, I believe it is misguided, as do a number of staff organisations. The association may envisage the police and crime commissioner retaining the non-operational police staff and transferring the operational police staff to the chief constable. Of course, that is not necessarily the case, but I am concerned at the proposal to split staff into two legally separate workforces under different employers in each force. This increases the number of police employers from the current 43 police authorities to 86 police and crime commissioners and chief constables. At the very least, that will drain resources from front-line policing and lead to the unnecessary loss of both police staff and police officer posts because of the infrastructure cost involved. Indeed, the split between the staff under the PCC and the chief constable is likely to be haphazard and arbitrary, depending on how local relationships work out. The general public, who rely on the force to keep them safe, will surely be confused and indeed concerned at the proliferation of new police employers and the associated bureaucracy, which would risk the confidence of local communities in their police force.
Having two separate workforces in each force is bound to lead to inefficiencies, confusions and the possibility of a two-tier workforce on different terms and conditions. The Government are proposing a two-stage staff transfer, first from the police authority to the police and crime commissioner and then, at a later date, from the police and crime commissioner to chief constables, resulting in twice the opportunity for things to go wrong and for staff interests to be prejudiced. I remind noble Lords of the requirement under the Local Government Pension Scheme for scheme liabilities to be crystallised at the point of transfer between employers; this will have to happen twice and will require the necessary financial undertakings to be given twice.
The Government say that they believe in the concept of a single police force in which police staff and officers come together in unified, effective work. However, these proposals contain the prospect of the police staff workforce being divided between two separate employers, which could threaten all the good work of the last 10 years to build a one-culture police service. I remind the noble Baroness of Tom Winsor’s independent review of police officers’ and staff’s pay and conditions, which has already delivered its part one report in March this year; part two is expected in January 2012. All the evidence in the part one report shows that there is an appetite for harmonising pay and conditions in the police service as a means of modernising the police employment framework. Two of the unions that have talked to me, UNISON and Unite, support that agenda. However, that positive agenda could be frustrated if the police workforce is carved up in the way the Government propose, with their two-stage, two-employer model.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 257 to 267, which are remarkably similar to the Minister’s amendments except that they refer to PCCs and MOPC rather than to the “policing body”, which is perhaps a more elegant formulation.
I seek clarity as to the Government’s intentions for all this. The Government have brought quite a number of these problems on themselves. At the end of last week, I spoke to a senior lawyer employed by a police service who described the Bill as being “inherently contradictory” because of the confusion about what it is trying to achieve. While I welcome the Minister’s proposals in her amendments—which will allow for a two-stage transfer because it will require a two-stage transfer to sort out exactly what the details, the most sensible disposition of staff and the most appropriate way of doing it are going to be—this is a problem that the Government, policing bodies and the police service did not need to have. I cannot understand what is gained by chief officers of police employing all their staff. What extra ability does it give them, apart from a great deal of hassle and potential problems, over having direction and control of those staff? That is a point that the Minister will no doubt explain.
I want to understand exactly what the Government’s amendments do. I assume that the new amendments that the Minister is introducing are intended to maintain the status quo from the commencement of the Bill until the second transfer scheme is effective. I would be grateful if she could confirm that. There is an interesting anomaly if you have a two-stage process. During the first stage, before the second stage kicks into action, there is presumably the potential for the chief officer of police to employ new staff directly subsequent to the first transfer scheme, and this would then create two classes of police staff. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether having two classes of police staff, because there is a two-stage transfer agreement, is intentional and whether she wishes to return to this at Third Reading. I am also not clear whether there is a deadline by which the second-stage transfer should take place. My own view is that the complexities of this mean that it may take a considerable period of negotiation to reach a mutual agreement for staff to be transferred to the chief officer of police, and it is better that those discussions take place at a leisurely pace to allow all the relevant interests to be consulted and involved.
I have one additional question. Will the Minister say whether the transfers under Schedule 15 are going to be legally effective under Scottish law as well as the law in England and Wales? As I understand it, a number of police authorities around the country hold land in Scotland, so these transfers are important.
My final point—again, I would be grateful for the Minister’s explanation—is that, as I understand it, her amendments to Clauses 19 and 20, which were agreed on the first day of Report, will mean that the police and crime commissioner or the MOPC in London will not be able to delegate either to the chief constable or to the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis any of that body’s staff. They would not be able to delegate to the chief officer of police to arrange a function—the PCC or the MOPC will have to engage the chief officer formally to carry out some functions rather than simply delegate them.
I have seen a letter—rather, I have been provided with a letter; there is no question of it having been “seen” because it was leaked to me or anything like that—from the right honourable Nick Herbert, Minister of State for Policing and Criminal Justice, to the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, a “Dear Paul and Tim” letter, which tries to set out the Government’s policy. However, it leaves me even more confused as a result. He says:
“On delegation, I have said from the outset that I want the office of the PCC/MOPC and the office of the Chief Officer to be clearly distinct so as to enable proper accountability and a clear division of responsibilities. Preventing the PCC/MOPC from delegating to the Chief Officer is an important part of this”.
Will the Minister tell us why that is so important, because delegation is a very clear statement?
Nick Herbert goes on to say:
“This means that should a PCC/MOPC want a Police Force to carry out some functions, he or she will have to formally engage the Chief Officer to do so, rather than simply delegate it. This will help clarify roles and responsibilities, which I do not believe is the case under the current system”.
I dispute that. Will the Minister explain to us very clearly the distinction between delegation and formal engagement? What is the process that underpins formal engagement? Is it a contract or a memorandum of understanding? What exactly is envisaged? I suspect that the Government are creating a new bureaucracy, further uncertainty and further duplication.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Browning)
My Lords, we do not disagree with the principle behind the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that the PCC or the MOPC should be able to make their own decisions about transfers. However, the government amendments will maintain the status quo—the noble Lord asked about that, and that is the intention—and provide stability in the transitional phase by providing that all staff and assets transfer from police authorities to PCCs or the MOPC initially. They then enable the PCCs and the MOPC to write transfer orders to transfer staff to the chief constable or commissioner.
Perhaps I could begin by addressing first the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Amendment 264A would mean that a police authority could transfer staff only to the police force; no member of the police authority staff could be transferred to the PCC or the MOPC. As a preliminary point, the Bill provides for the police staff to be employed by the chief officer of police, not the police force, which does not exist as a separate entity capable of employing staff. Noble Lords whose names have been put to these amendments might like to make the police force the employer rather than the chief officer, but no amendment has been tabled to achieve that. Obviously, I can answer only to amendments that have actually been tabled.
To clarify the separate roles of the PCC or the MOPC on the one hand and the chief officer on the other, and to ensure that each can carry out his or her functions independently, it is essential that each employs his or her own staff. As such, the Bill must allow for staff to be transferred to the PCC and to the MOPC; it does not direct that that happens, but it allows for the best decisions to be made locally.
Amendment 109A would give police and crime panels a role in reviewing PCCs’ human resources policy. This would already fall under the existing general powers of panels to scrutinise PCCs. I do not think that the way forward taken by these amendments would achieve the sort of protection needed, but I make a commitment to the House that I will consider the matter further. Perhaps this can be returned to in the other place, given the late stage of this Bill. I therefore ask that the amendments are not pressed to a vote.
I will now speak to the government amendments and answer some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who asked why delegation was necessary. It is exactly as the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice says; if the PCC wants to ask the chief constable to do something, he or she will need to commission it formally—they cannot just order the PCC to do it.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I am trying to understand how the process that is being described will differ from delegation, which is not the same as simply ordering—it is a process. How is that going to change when you do not have delegation but instead have this commissioning process?
Baroness Browning
I guarantee to write to the noble Lord about this, but the principle behind it is that it is very clear to the public who is responsible for what. The process that will be employed is more detailed than I have information for tonight, but I shall write to him specifically on the issue of process that he has raised.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, would allow PCCs and the MOPC, as well as police authorities, to make transfer schemes to transfer staff and assets. I completely appreciate the position that the noble Lord is coming from. The Government have been working closely with police forces and authorities on how the transitional arrangements should operate.
Many are concerned about whether there is enough time in which to write transfer schemes ahead of the introduction of PCCs and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. They have also expressed concerns about trying to second-guess what staffing a PCC may want when they come into office. As such, it is eminently sensible, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, suggests, to allow PCCs and the MOPC to write transfer schemes. However, government Amendments 256B to 267M in this group simplify matters even further. They simply maintain the status quo for a period, with all police authority staff and assets transferring initially to PCCs and the MOPC. This will enable transfer schemes to be written by PCCs and the MOPC in slower time. I hope that the noble Lord will look at my proposed amendments and agree that they achieve the same end, and I hope on that basis that he will agree to withdraw his amendment and support the government amendments.
The noble Lord also asked about Scotland. I understand why he asked that. Government Amendments 309ZB and 309ZD extend the territorial extent of Schedule 15, so that transfers under that schedule are legally effective under Scots law as well as in England and Wales.
Government Amendments 256A and 267P to 267Q enable the continued employment of chief officers of police. There has been a lot of discussion on this matter, but, finally, Amendment 267N ensures that accounting and audit arrangements can be put in place for police authorities and the PCC or the MOPC in respect of the financial year when the transition takes place. I realise from the interest that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, has taken in this in particular that these are important matters. We want to get it right, and I will promise to write to him on matters of process and update him on where we are.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I am grateful to the Minister. My noble friend and I perhaps come at this from different viewpoints, but I am deeply concerned about the power that is being given to individual elected PCCs over the staff. The fact that you would depend on them for the staff transfer to the chief constable gives huge leverage to the police commissioners in their dealings with the chief constable, which raises all my hackles about the problems with this legislation. One point about the need for government amendments on staff transfers related to the risk of mistakes being made because of the shortness of the timetable. I think the Minister spoke of being “hasty”.
That brings me to the substantive point. The rush to have elected police commissioners in place in all the police force areas in a matter of months is going to lead to risks and confusion. Staff deserve to be dealt with in a fair, effective and administratively sound way, and I worry that the result of this two-tier tight transfer is going to be major problems for the staff.
The Minister said that some of these points could be dealt with in another place. I would be grateful if she would clarify that, because there are very narrow rules in the process of ping-pong. I would have thought that as she has promised to write to my noble friend, we should come back to this point on Third Reading. I would be grateful if she could clarify whether from her point of view that might be a sensible way in which to allow us to explore these matters in greater detail in the light of her letter to my noble friend.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I do not think it will be possible to come back to this matter on Third Reading. However, I have given the commitment to have it looked at again in another place.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, my point is that the rules of ping-pong allow that to happen. You cannot simply use ping-pong to table lots of government amendments. It would be better if we had a further discussion on Third Reading.
Baroness Browning
I was referring only to the chief executive protections for discussion in another place.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I realise that we are stretching the rules of Report, but this is important. Presumably when the matter goes to the other place, we can receive back from them only amendments that relate to amendments passed by your Lordships' House. That will produce a very narrow range of areas. Areas on which there is no amendment from your Lordships' House will not be covered. I make this plea for the fourth time that it would be in the Government’s interests to postpone Third Reading on this Bill to 5 September. It would lose them only one parliamentary day, but it would enable the Home Office, the Minister’s officials and colleagues around the House to spend a little bit more time getting the details right. It would also give the Minister the opportunity to come back on some of these detailed points.
Baroness Henig
My Lords, I have suddenly realised that some days ago I moved an amendment, did I not, about statutory protection for chief executives, and withdrew it because the noble Baroness would not give me any assurances on this. Does this not rule out any changes? I am puzzled because I did move this amendment and, as I recall, it was rejected.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I hear what noble Lords have said about the use of ping-pong and the other place; I am not a business manager and the matter of when Third Reading of any Bill takes place is not in my hands. I have heard what the House has said tonight and I will take it away for further advice.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister, and I would encourage my noble friend to table an amendment on Third Reading to allow us to debate this further. Clearly, there may be some discussions with the usual channels, so I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
Baroness Henig
“Functions of police and crime panels: conduct, complaints and audit committees
(1) Every police and crime panel shall—
(a) deal with complaints and conduct matters in relation to the police and crime commissioner and members of the police and crime panel;(b) monitor the discharge of the police and crime commissioner’s functions to deal with complaints in relation to the police force for its area;(c) monitor the accounts and audit matters of the relevant Police Commission, police and crime commissioner, and chief constable, as the case may be.(2) A police and crime panel must establish one or more independent sub-committees to discharge its functions under subsection (1).
(3) For the purpose of subsection (2) an “independent sub-committee” is one which comprises the following members appointed by the police and crime panel—
(a) an independent person to chair the sub-committee who is not a member or a member of staff of a police and crime panel, a local police body, a police force or a local authority;(b) at least three other independent people to be members of the sub-committee who are not members or members of staff of a police and crime panel, a local policing body, a police force or a local authority; (c) up to three members that are police and crime panel members, at least one of whom must be a co-opted member. (4) In appointing members to an independent sub-committee the police and crime panel must ensure—
(a) that people with sufficient relevant skills and experience are appointed to undertake the role effectively;(b) it does not appoint a person who has or appears to have a conflict of interest or a personal or prejudicial interest in becoming a member of the sub-committee.(5) An independent sub-committee may—
(a) make recommendations to the police and crime panel or police and crime commissioner about action to be taken to resolve a complaint or conduct matter;(b) make recommendations to the police and crime panel, police and crime commissioner or chief constable about audit and finance matters.(6) If an independent sub-committee makes a recommendation in accordance with subsection (5), the person or body to whom it is made shall have regard to it.”
Baroness Henig
My Lords, in moving Amendment 117 I shall speak also to Amendments 144, 148, 149, 150, 154, 156, 232 and 232A.
Amendment 117 confers specific functions for complaints, conduct and audit matters on panels and obliges each panel to establish an independent sub-committee to discharge these functions. It also makes provision about the composition of the independent sub-committee so that it is chaired by an independent person and has a majority of other members independent of the police and of local authorities. The people appointed to that committee must have relevant skills to contribute to its functions and must not have a conflict of interest. The independent sub-committee can make recommendations in relation to conduct or audit matters to the police and crime panel, the commissioner or the chief constable, who must have regard to those recommendations.
Amendment 144 enables panels to require information from chief constables or commissioners about complaints, conduct and audit matters to support this function. Amendments 148 to 150 include provisions about breaching codes of conduct within the proposed new clause that deals with suspending commissioners. At present the standard for suspension is a criminal one and does not include conduct matters. Amendment 154 effectively removes Schedule 7 because this is replaced by the other provisions in my amendments. Amendment 156 provides that a code of conduct will be formulated independently, which will apply to commissioners and panel members. Finally, Amendments 232 and 232A disqualify panel members and commissioners if they fail to sign the code of conduct within a month of assuming office.
I would like to say at the start of this group of amendments that, given the strength of feeling expressed about the Bill’s utterly inadequate provisions relating to the conduct of police and crime commissioners and police and crime panels, I am quite alarmed and dismayed that the Government have not put forward far more far-reaching proposals about this at Report. I appreciate that the Minister has put forward some amendments to include the newly created deputy commissioners within the conduct proposals applying to commissioners and also seems to have an amendment specifying that the MOPC or Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime should be covered by the conduct provisions applicable to local government. I may have missed something but I do not think the same provisions have been applied to commissioners or deputy commissioners outside London—perhaps the Minister can clarify. Even if they have been, these are in the process of being changed and I fear they may not prove robust enough for people charged with police governance. Police governance requires even higher standards of personal integrity than would be expected in other areas of local government because of the nature of the role, and my amendments set out how this might be done.
The other issue that my amendments address is the matter of audit. This relates back to a number of concerns addressed at Committee and on the first day of Report about the creation of two corporations sole in each police area both for the commissioner and for the chief officer of police. Doubts were expressed then, and have not been fully addressed by Government, that it was not clear how this structure was consistent with good financial governance; in particular it was not clear how the need to have two separate strands of audit would work for one police fund. The Minister also supplied some assurances on the first day of Report that the Government were serious about applying principles of good governance to the new structures they envisaged for policing. My amendment, like all my amendments, is an attempt to help the Government in this respect. In relation to good governance of financial issues a key requirement is an effective audit committee. My noble friend Lord Harris brought forward some proposals about how this might be done within a non-executive board linked to the office of the commissioner. However, the House rejected this so I am proposing an alternative method of ensuring sound financial and ethical governance.
My amendment proposes that an independent sub-committee should be formed within the police and crime panel which would have responsibility for audit and conduct matters. In relation to financial governance it would have responsibility for audit matters in relation to both the chief officer’s remit and the commissioner’s office. It would be able to link the audit requirement for one police fund to the two bodies that will manage it. I am not aware of any other accepted method of carrying out financial responsibilities in the corporate context except through an audit committee. The virtue of my proposal is that this will become a function which is to all intents and purposes carried out by independent people, thus avoiding the dangers of politicisation.
An independent sub-committee would also have responsibility for complaints and conduct matters. Incidentally, there is nothing in my amendment to prevent a panel from setting up more than one independent sub-committee, but equally audit and conduct functions could be undertaken by the same committee, if that was appropriate to local circumstances. Either way, my key point is that these independent committees should be comprised largely of independent people; it is essential for good governance and public confidence that this should be the case so there are no doubts about bias or vested interests. It would also help to guard against politically motivated complaints and countercomplaints being traded between the commissioner and the panel if the panel is not alone responsible for this but is required to undertake this at arm’s length through more independent arrangements.
In relation to both the commissioner and the panel, the suggestion is that the independent sub-committee should handle any complaints against individuals. If there is reason to believe that a complaint involves a serious matter or criminal behaviour, there is nothing to stop the panel referring this to the IPCC, the police, the CPS, HMIC or another appropriate body. It implies, however, that the first port of call for all complaints matters against commissioners and panel members should normally be the independent sub-committee. It should decide how best to handle the complaint and if it is a relatively routine conduct matter it should be able to deal with it. I believe that this rebalances the proposals in the Bill, which effectively suggests that the IPCC should be the first port of call in relation to commissioner complaints and does not address complaints against members of the panel at all.
Because this amendment reverses the proposals in the Bill about the role of the IPCC, which incidentally is likely to be swamped with complaints when it first takes this role on, I have removed Schedule 7 which proposes the opposite. There could still be a role for the IPCC under my amendment, but it is one that I believe should first be filtered at local level by independent committees which could decide whether to escalate the matter. I also want to mention that, in relation to force conduct matters, my amendment suggests that the independent sub-committee should have a role in monitoring how the commissioner is carrying out his or her functions in this regard to provide public reassurance.
Earlier amendments I put forward also suggested that the independent sub-committee should have a role in dealing with disciplinary matters for senior officers to ensure that a commissioner or chief officer is using disciplinary powers appropriately. In order to carry out functions in relation to complaint and audit matters which have an impact on both the commissioner and the force, it is very necessary for the panel to receive the information to enable them to do this, so there is also provision in my amendments that the panels may require information from both commissioners and chief officers in relation to their responsibilities for audit and conduct matters.
The amendment would also remove the current standard by which conduct matters are judged, which is effectively a criminal standard. In Committee I spoke about my concern that this was a ludicrous criterion to use in the context of police governance. Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that I have not changed my mind. On the basis of zero tolerance, if I may borrow an Americanism, one would address issues of concern at the lowest level. One should not wait for them to become a major problem before taking action. The conduct criteria need to be rebalanced around the standard of acceptable behaviour. Criminal behaviour should be the extreme end of the scale, not the starting point. For this reason I propose a code of conduct, which I shall shortly explain, but first I want to mention that part of the rebalancing exercise should be the inclusion of a clause on the suspension of commissioners setting out provisions that would enable them to be suspended for breaches of the code of conduct as well as criminal behaviour.
Baroness Harris of Richmond
My Lords, I support some of the amendments in this group, to which I have added my name: namely, Amendments 117, 144, 154, 156, 232 and 232A. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, all these amendments deal with the conduct of PCCs, panel members and audit matters. As we have heard, details on these are virtually absent from the Bill except for very limited PCC complaints matters set out in Schedule 7, which is largely predicated on a criminal standard. In my opinion, this is utterly inadequate for a public position where many other types of inappropriate but not criminal behaviour could arise, so our proposal is to delete Schedule 7 and rebalance the way complaints are dealt with.
The proposals in relation to audit committees are consistent with established good governance principles and provide an additional reassurance about probity, particularly in light of the concerns about corporations sole, about which we have heard so much in your Lordships’ House. The amendments require police and crime panels to set up independent sub-committees to deal with both complaints and audit issues on behalf of the panel. The noble Baroness went into detail about those, so I will not try to emulate her. They also enable panels to require information from PCCs and chief officers in relation to complaints and audit matters.
Amendments 156, 232 and 232A propose that a code of conduct for police and crime commissioners and panel members, collectively referred to as police commission members, is drawn up independently. It also provides for both PCCs and panel members to be disqualified from office if they fail to sign the code of conduct. Amendment 144, in my submission, should have been dealt with in the fifth group, but it appears here. It provides that panels should be able to require information from both forces and PCCs about complaints and audit matters. Amendments 232 and 232A also provide that panel members and PCCs should be disqualified for failing to sign the code of conduct within a month. These are sensible and practical amendments, which I support wholeheartedly.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, it has already been pointed out that under the current terms of the Bill, the powers of the police and crime panels are limited to a veto over the appointment of the chief constable and a veto over the precept. The purpose of this group of amendments, moved by my noble friend Lady Henig, is to provide police and crime panels with the powers to act as a much more effective check on the way the proposed police and crime commissioners exercise the considerable powers given to them under the terms of the Bill. As my noble friend Lady Henig has said, the main amendments refer specifically to conduct and complaints, and to the issues of accounts and audit.
The amendments provide for an independent sub-committee or sub-committees to deal with the issues of conduct, complaints and audit, with an independent person chairing the sub-committee, at least three other independent members and up to another three who are police and crime panel members, at least one of whom must be a co-opted member. These independent sub-committees must be established by the police and crime panels.
The amendments provide also for a police and crime panel to require information it needs from the police and crime commissioner and they would change the criteria relating to the powers to suspend the police and crime commissioner to include where the commissioner has breached any required standards of conduct pending investigation of the allegations brought against them. The amendments provide also for a code of conduct for police commission members to be formulated by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, covering standards of behaviour, commitment to equalities and conflicts of interest.
The amendments proposed by the Government, to which the Minister will presumably refer, appear to lack the strength and robustness in relation to police and crime panels of those proposed by my noble friend Lady Henig and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond. As has been said, those amendments come back to the issue that has been raised on a number of occasions during our discussions on the Bill: namely, where are the checks and balances to address the abuse or misuse of the considerable personal powers given to the police and crime commissioners? What is the effective role and purpose of a police and crime panel if it is not to be able to provide part of those checks and balances and thus help ensure that a police and crime commissioner pays regard to the views and concerns of such panels, providing them with the information they need to carry out a meaningful role and thereby helping enhance confidence in the system and structure on the part of the public?
If the Government have really been listening to concerns expressed in your Lordships' House, including over appropriate financial and ethical governance arrangements, they will support the thrust of these amendments.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, parallel to our discussions on this Bill, the Localism Bill is in Committee. In that, there has been discussion both on a code of conduct and on the need for a standards committee. There has been discussion around whether the code of conduct should be voluntary or statutory—there is a strong view, I think, in your Lordships' House that it should be the latter. On standards committees, which are likely to be abolished under the Bill, I also detected in your Lordships' House strong support for each local council having such a committee.
Irrespective of that, there are two major issues of principle here. The first is the role of audit, which, it is important to bear in mind, is not the same as scrutiny and which has statutory force in local government. The second is that audit should be independently led. The powers currently given to the panels are insufficient to deliver those two principles.
Audit is not just about finance; it is also about a whole range of matters including procurement policy, contracting, managing very large budgets, procedures being followed, human resources policies and equal opportunities. An amendment is being made here which I hope the Government might find helpful. It proposes that audit be fundamental part of the checks and balances we need in relation to a police and crime commissioner. Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause is right in stating that every police and crime panel should deal with complaints and conduct matters, monitor the discharge of the police and crime commissioner’s functions and monitor the accounts and audit matters of the relevant police commission, police and crime commissioner and chief constable as the case may be.
The question is whether that task should be undertaken simply by the panel or whether a slightly different structure is needed. I think that a different structure is needed, because audit is an important issue when public money is being looked after. There should be two sub-committees—I refer here to subsection (2) of the proposed new clause—one of which looks specifically at audit and the other at conduct and complaints.
The proposal in Amendment 117 relates to the nature of the independence of the sub-committee. To have someone who is independent and appointed according to Nolan principles chair that sub-committee is important. To have then at least three other independent people, balanced by up to three panel members, means that the public would gain confidence in that structure because they would see that there were more independent members than members of the panel.
At the heart of the problem is the fact that no governance structure lies underneath an elected police and crime commissioner. In other words, there is a perception in the Bill if you simply have direct election of a commissioner there is legitimacy in that. Well, of course there is, but one has to have checks and balances—which the coalition agreement has identified and said have to be strict. Having a clear audit function which is publicly accountable is a matter of fundamental importance; otherwise, those checks and balances cannot be properly delivered.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, for her very detailed amendment and for the care and attention which she has given to this important area of checks and balances. She offers in effect an alternative model to that offered in Clause 32 and Schedule 7 and wishes to replace Schedule 7 with this lengthy and detailed amendment. Schedule 7 sets out that regulations subject to affirmative resolution will be brought to this House to set up a model that is not fundamentally different from what the noble Baroness is proposing, but in which we see the police and crime panel as the body which provides the checks and balances to the police and crime commissioner. To that end, the police and crime panel would set up its own committees, which would be part of the process through which the ongoing process of scrutiny is attended. Schedule 7 talks precisely about that level of complaints which goes underneath criminal activity; that is, inappropriate behaviour, referred to in Clause 32 and Schedule 7 as “conduct matters”. Schedule 7 states specifically that the police and crime panel will deal with conduct matters which are below the level of criminality.
The amendment would expand the panel's role as a scrutiny body, but presents an alternative model. We have set out in the Bill a framework which addresses the conduct of commissioners, including complaints against them. We have been careful also to read across—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley—to the Localism Bill and the changes made there. We are doing our best to balance out some of the problems that we have been left with from the previous regime which arose from the Standards Board for England being exploited by some political parties against their opponents. We stress throughout the Bill that all those involved in the management and scrutiny of policing are subject to the Nolan principles on conduct in public life.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talked about the importance of audit and the extent to which the audit function is allied to but separate from the ongoing process of scrutiny. The police and crime panel will receive audit reports and will be designated as such for the purposes of the Audit Commission Act. The police and crime panel will thus hold to account the police and crime commissioner for the group audit of the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable. The police and crime commissioner will hold the chief constable to account for their audit. It will be entirely appropriate for the police and crime commissioner to form an audit committee, if he or she wishes to do so, in order to monitor the chief constable’s fulfilment of that purpose. The police and crime panel, or a committee of the police and crime panel, will act as an audit committee for the PCC. The detail of the PCC complaints regime will be in regulations. It is not in the Bill, as Schedule 7 sets out. Regulations will state that complaints not involving criminal allegations will be resolved by the PCP. This is the appropriate-level approach that I suggest the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, is asking for. We are already providing for police and crime panels to be able to require the attendance of the PCC, or members of its staff, in order to answer questions.
The PCP will have a role in referring allegations to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, and in receiving reports from the IPCC. Where the IPCC determines that there are reasonable grounds for an investigation to be established, the PCP shall receive a report of that investigation once it has been concluded. The government amendments, which are intended to address criticisms made of the Government’s preferred model, will mean that any criminal allegations against the mayor, the deputy mayor for policing and crime and the deputy PCC would be the subject of scrutiny by the IPCC. I apologise for the acronyms.
In the case of the mayor, criminal allegations would be the subject of scrutiny by the IPCC whether or not the allegation was connected to his or her role as the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. Where a complaint against the mayor, or against a deputy mayor for policing and crime who is an Assembly Member, is not serious enough to require investigation by or under the management of the IPCC, the regulations will provide for it to be dealt with under the local government standards legislation that is applicable to the mayor and Members of the Assembly. Subject to the will of Parliament, that legislation will be amended by the Localism Bill, with which a number of the noble Lords taking part in these discussions are at present engaged.
We accept that removing the reference to “other corrupt behaviour” would achieve greater clarity without significantly reducing the scope of the provisions. Behaviour that could be regarded as corrupt is highly likely to involve the commission of some criminal offence in any event. Any complaints or allegations which fall below this test will be left for the police and crime panel, or for a committee of the police and crime panel, to handle. The mechanism for these complaints will also be set out in the regulations. These regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, and noble Lords will therefore have the opportunity of debating the finer detail of these procedures when they are introduced to the House. I hope that that provides some assurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, and will persuade her to accept and support government Amendments 151, 152, 153 and so on.
Baroness Hamwee
Will the Minister confirm that the proposed arrangements for audit will be voluntary, in that a commissioner may set up an audit committee or, by definition, may not? If that is right, will he tell the House who undertakes audit and how any report will be presented to the commissioner? I think he said, fairly early on in his response, that the commissioner could receive audit reports. Who would make that report if an audit committee was not set up? I am sorry if I have bowled him too detailed a question at this point.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I thank the noble Baroness for that detailed question. PCCs will have a chief finance officer, with the professional qualifications and the professional obligations of a chief finance officer. If a police and crime commissioner does not choose to have his or her own audit committee, the PCP’s audit functions will play a much more active role in scrutinising what the PCC provides, whether by the whole panel or by its own audit committee. The legal obligations for audit are, I am assured, the same as those for police authorities. However, we are very happy to write in detail on that, and a number of these matters will of course come up when the detailed regulations are put for affirmative resolution before the House.
Baroness Henig
My Lords, I have a problem with the response. This is a very big issue about public confidence. It is about putting processes in place that will reassure the public that everything is being done ethically and correctly, and that governance structures meet certain standards. I heard what the noble Lord said. My worry is that some of this is being left to laissez-faire: you can do this or you need not do this; there is a model here that you could follow if you would like to.
These matters are really important. I agree absolutely with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. Therefore, I do not understand why these serious principles cannot be in the Bill, and why we cannot agree on a way to encapsulate them that meets both what the Government want and what I am asking for. The difference between us is not great.
Serious principles are at stake: for example, the serious principle that audit needs to be carried out and needs to be independently led. I think that we all agree on that. Another principle is that codes of conduct and standards need to be established. Again, they need to be led by an independent committee. A third issue, on which perhaps the Minister feels less strongly than I do, is that low-level complaints should be dealt with first at local level and then escalated; they should not be dealt with by the IPCC and then come down.
Baroness Henig
I have just been reading Schedule 7. As I said, it has an element of laissez-faire about it. If the Government agree about the issues and believe that they are as important as I believe they are, what is the problem with putting them explicitly in the Bill? I cannot understand what the difference is between what I am asking for and what the Government want. Why will they not accept that these principles are very important and therefore state that they will try their best to put them explicitly in the Bill? I do not understand their hesitation. What am I asking for that is so revolutionary that the Government are resisting it? All I am asking for are the most basic principles of good governance. If the Minister is not able to meet my concerns, I will have to test the opinion of the House, because the issues are fundamental and I do not understand the problem that the Minister is facing. Perhaps he would like to reassure me in another way.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I suspect that a great deal of what the noble Baroness is asking for is in regulations under previous legislation, and will be in regulations under this legislation. That is why I fail to see a difficulty. I assure her that we all understand that these are extremely important principles, and that the role of the chief finance officer and of the PCP in looking after the audit will be set out extremely carefully in regulations.
Baroness Henig
The problem for me is that this is like justice; it must not only be done but be seen to be done. Not only must we have high standards and regulations, but the public must be convinced, and must see, that they are there and that they are explicit in the Bill. If we care about these things, we must spell them out. I will find it tragic when noble Lords opposite vote against something that they all believe in, but I cannot avoid it. These matters are so important that I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Display and Specialist Tobacconists) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2011
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
That this House regrets that the timetable for implementation of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Display and Specialist Tobacconists) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/1256) may result in up to 4,000 more young people taking up smoking than if the original implementation date had been kept to; further regrets that the Government have not explained how they will mitigate burdens on business “while maintaining the expected public health gains”; and calls on the Government to make the health needs of young people the priority by keeping to the original timetable for implementation.
In its 32nd report, the Merits Committee raised some important points. It suggested that the House might want to seek explanation from the Minister about how the regulations could achieve the Government’s policy objectives. It pointed to the inconsistencies of the growth review, which seeks to reduce the regulatory burden on small enterprises. This might account for the delay in implementation for small shops—although I would question this anyway, and will in a moment—but it does not explain why the implementation date for larger shops is being put back. However, I accept that from today, because of the government delays, three months may not be sufficient time for large shops to prepare for this, although they have had quite a lot of notice. The Minister will need to explain the reasoning behind this decision.
The Merits Committee also called attention to the Written Statement on tobacco control issued by the Government on 9 March, in which the Government state that the take-up of smoking by young people is a particular concern. Smoking is an addiction largely taken up in childhood and adolescence and it is crucial to reduce the number of young people taking up smoking in the first place. The report went on to say that nicotine is highly addictive and that each year an estimated 320,000 young people under 16 will try tobacco for the first time and 200,000 of them will become addicted.
We are all aware of the troubling statistics which surround this issue. The Merits Committee went on to say that, taking the Government’s own baseline statistics, the 18-month delay being proposed as a result of the amended regulations may result in 4,000 young people and children becoming addicted to tobacco, with the consequent long-term health effects. I should therefore be grateful if the Minister would explain whether the Government think that this is a price worth paying for the delay in implementation.
It is worth noting that in March 2009 Norway passed a similar law, which it implemented from January 2010, allowing retailers only nine months to comply and protecting Norwegian children from tobacco marketing five years earlier than the proposals before your Lordships’ House. There is no objective evidence that the Norwegian retail trade has suffered unduly.
I understand—but I am sceptical—that the reason given for such an extended delay for small shops has clearly been the concern that the legislation might adversely affect their businesses. I am afraid I have to question this. I believe that the cynical campaign that has been mounted to delay implementation can be shown to be more for the benefit of tobacco manufacturers than for small retailers. It has become increasingly clear that what purported to be a cry of pain from thousands of small retailers was really a covert and dishonest campaign by the tobacco industry.
Members of both Houses of Parliament have been contacted by three groups, each purporting to represent tobacco retailers: the Tobacco Retailers Alliance, the Association of Convenience Stores and the National Federation of Retail Newsagents. We know that the Tobacco Retailers Alliance is, in effect, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. It is the most obvious kind of front group; it does not even have its own offices but operates from the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association headquarters. At least that is clear and transparent.
The Association of Convenience Stores can claim a little more independence, and yet it, too, is beholden to manufacturers for subscriptions, sponsorship and advertising. When asked by Stephen Williams MP, the chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health, it confirmed that it receives around £100,000 a year from tobacco manufacturers. I would, however, point out that the Association of Convenience Stores has claimed that the cost of compliance would be between £2,000 and £5,000, and yet its own survey of small shops in Ireland found that the average cost of compliance was only £300.
I regret to say that the National Federation of Retail Newsagents has been much less forthcoming, seeking to conceal tobacco industry funding of its far reaching campaign against the display legislation. It recently procured, without any cost to itself, the services of a lobby firm called Hume Brophy, which telephoned and e-mailed the offices of Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs on its behalf in the weeks before the Government were due to announce their decision on the display ban seeking their support for the repealing of the legislation. The Government are to be congratulated on resisting these blandishments.
It was discovered that Hume Brophy also acted for British American Tobacco and the company was asked whether it was funding the campaign. At first BAT denied this but, following questions at its AGM from Kevin Barron MP, it had to admit that not only had it funded the NFRN campaign against the display legislation but that it had also had meetings with Hume Brophy and the NFRN to discuss how it should be taken forward.
Once this was revealed, Hume Brophy wrote to Stephen Williams on 7 June to apologise for its involvement in such covert lobbying—it needs to be congratulated on so doing—and said that the NFRN agreed that it should write to Members of Parliament to explain. John Hume, of Hume Brophy, wrote:
“I understand that a letter to MPs will be forthcoming from the NFRN in the next couple of days”.
So far we are not aware of a single MP having received such a letter from the NFRN. In fact, it has refused to send one.
However, instead of accounting to MPs and Peers for its dubious lobbying techniques, the NFRN has attacked the Public Health Minister for attending the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health celebration of the 40th birthday party of Action on Smoking and Health and for presenting ASH with an award from the World Health Organisation for its work. We know of the right honourable Lady’s commitment to this issue and she is again to be congratulated on her continuing support. Frankly, rather than attacking the Public Health Minister for her commitment to reducing the harm caused by tobacco, the NFRN should do the decent thing and apologise to MPs for covertly doing the tobacco manufacturers’ dirty work.
I believe that the tobacco manufacturers have repeatedly sought to deceive parliamentarians by concealing their central role in the campaign against the display legislation. I would like the Minister’s view of this matter. Does he agree with me that this is unacceptable and does he think that it may have undermined in some way the UK’s publicly stated commitment to live up to its obligations as a party to the World Health Organisation’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control? Indeed, the Prime Minister is on the record committing this Government to putting an end to what he has called the scandal of secret industry lobbying.
The Tobacco Control Plan for England published in March clearly states:
“The Government takes very seriously its obligation as a Party to the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control”.
A full chapter is devoted to protecting public health policy from the vested interests of the tobacco industry. Is the proposed delay not a concession to exactly those vested interests and the result of a campaign by those who sell cigarettes on behalf of those who make them? Specifically, the Government have affirmed that the tobacco industry had no hand in the development of the tobacco plan, that they would publish details of any policy-related meetings with the industry by any part of government, and that they would require those engaging with the Department of Health on tobacco control to declare any links with or funding from the industry and encourage local authorities to follow that lead. In doing so, the Government are reflecting the mood across the House when during the passage of the Health Bill 2009 the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, moved an amendment to require the publishing of written guidelines on engaging with the tobacco industry. That amendment was withdrawn as the Government undertook that the Secretary of State would write to all Cabinet members reminding them of their duties under the World Health Organisation convention.
This is a Motion of regret. I do not seek to overturn the revised regulations, but I would like the Minister to confirm the commitment of the Government to live up to their obligation under Article 5.3 of the World Health Organisation convention to protect their public health policy from all commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry, and to publish without any further delay details of all policy-related meetings with the tobacco industry and its front groups by any part of Government. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie
My Lords, three years ago the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, said that the ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces, which began in 2007, had been a great success in terms of both compliance and improved health. There had been a considerable drop in the number of smokers. I believe that the enclosed spaces ban has indeed been a great success, and for our social environment—a benefit to the whole population.
But in the Health Act 2009 the Labour Government sought to go further and ban the display of cigarettes in shops in order particularly to give even further discouragement to underage smokers. I thought the case for such a ban on display was a thin one. It ignored the fact that in recent years the display has had to be festooned with off-putting words such as “Smoking kills”, plus hard hitting pictorial warnings. Moreover, evidence from the likes of Iceland and the Canadian provinces where displays are banned was somewhat speculative as to the effect on smoking among the young.
In the UK we seem to have given up trying to keep a balance between the rights of individuals to do something which is legal—to sell and consume tobacco and cigarettes—and society’s desire to help people give up smoking and stop children purchasing cigarettes. The Labour Government ruled that a display ban should come into effect in 2011 for large outlets, but to protect small and medium-sized enterprises to some extent from the costs of the new regulations they should be subject to a ban only from 2013. I leave aside the arguments that this distorts competition between one group of retailers and another, and it may have been justified. Now, because of the recession, the present coalition Government seek to delay the imposition of the ban a further six months for large retailers, and a further 18 months for small retailers. My noble friend Lady Thornton from the opposition Front Bench regrets these delays. I regret I cannot join her in grumbling about the modest delays that have been proposed. There are more restrictions in the offing: from campaigning groups, particularly ASH; a ban on open-air smoking—in parks and beaches, such as applies in parts of Australia—bans on smoking in cars, which would be very difficult to enforce; and, of course, banning the use of brand names, which cropped up during the discussions on the Health Act a few years ago.
There is one country in the world to which I draw the attention of the Government: Bhutan, known perhaps to many walkers on the lower levels of the Himalayas as an interesting country somewhere between India and China. I mention Bhutan because all smoking is banned there, as are all displays of cigarettes and tobacco. How far do the Government want to go in their efforts to discourage the young from smoking? It is a splendid objective, but one which sometimes ignores the other aim of allowing people their own individual choices.
Lord Naseby
My Lords, I am not going to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has said, other than to say that I agree 100 per cent with what he has put before your Lordships’ House. I will add a couple of points.
It has to be the right of any manufacturer in this country who is trading a lawful product to consult the Government of the day, the Ministers responsible for their industry, and equally members of the Opposition and all Members of Parliament and of the House of Lords, MEPs, et cetera. That has to be its legitimate right, and I hope nobody is suggesting that some civil servant is going to refuse to communicate with this particular industry. It is a legitimate industry at this point; it has the right to trade. These proposals, albeit at a short delay, are still a restraint to trade for our retail businesses.
I had nearly 30 years in advertising and marketing, and one of the things your Lordships’ House recognises is skill and experience across whole walks of life. I dealt with a great number of branded goods in all sorts of different fields, some of which were sensitive areas. There is no evidence that having a ban on displays does anything for consumption. What it does do is prevent the consumer from deciding to change brands if they so wish. There is no firm evidence, and it is no good anybody shaking their heads—as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has said, the work that has been done in Canada, Iceland and the other places is all peripheral: it would not stand up to the slightest bit of analysis in any other scientific area.
I say to my noble friend that while I am pleased there is a short delay, I hope very much that the Government will think again in this period and certainly not think about plain packaging, which frankly would bring the whole of the package industry down on the neck of the Government and quite rightly so.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
My Lords, it is the clear policy of this Government—and the last one—to put tobacco products out of sight in shops. That must be right. As your Lordships heard when this issue was previously debated, lives are at stake here. There is clear evidence that some 300 lives are lost every day in this country resulting from tobacco-related illnesses. We need to do everything in our power to both prevent young people from taking up the habit and help people trying to quit. Every time we delay implementing this policy, further lives are at risk and more young people will start smoking.
It should also be the policy of this Government to put an end to tobacco industry interference in public health policy—the subject of this Motion. Behind-the-scenes lobbying by the tobacco industry undermines the Government’s clear intent in this area and is bad for the health of our democracy. Decisions of this nature, affecting people’s lives and livelihoods, should be taken transparently. While I know that opinion was mixed during the passage of the Health Bill which became the 2009 Act, there is now broad cross-party consensus that the evidence justifies the prohibition of tobacco displays and that the cost to retailers will not be unreasonable.
The tobacco industry has continued its campaign to undermine the Government’s resolve. Thankfully, it was not permitted to interfere in the development of the tobacco control plan for England—we have already heard about that from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. The Government should receive credit for taking seriously their duties in that respect. Those commitments include publishing details of meetings between the tobacco industry and government departments. I look forward to that happening in practice.
However, consequently the tobacco industry has used its large profits to seek to obstruct the Government’s progress, through the use of front groups and in the courts by the use of judicial review. The combination of legal challenge and what is often called front-group advocacy is used widely by the tobacco industry overseas. Australia is a case in point here. A 5 million-dollar television ad campaign during Australia’s recent general election purported to be by the newly formed Alliance of Australian Retailers but was revealed to have been funded by tobacco companies.
Smoke-free legislation, in place in England since July 2007, is among the most popular of recent laws, supported by some 80 per cent of the population. Just as the vast majority of people understand and support the reasons for a ban on drink driving and the compulsory wearing of seat-belts in cars to reduce road traffic deaths, most people understand why a ban on point-of-sale tobacco advertising is needed to improve public health—not least those trying hard to kick the habit because of the harm it is having on their own health and their loved ones. However, the tobacco industry continues to campaign against the law through industry-funded groups. With almost no chance of reintroducing smoking into pubs, the well funded campaigns have been described as a pre-emptive defence against further legislation.
We have already heard about what happened when Mr Stephen Williams MP, chair of the All-Party Group on Smoking and Health, revealed how the tobacco industry used retailers as a front for its campaign through direct cash payments and by paying for the services of lobby firms. What makes this practice particularly objectionable and unjust is that, when tobacco companies pay for secret lobbying to protect the promotion of their products, it is the poorest who suffer most—and not just in terms of cash. Research shows that poor smokers are just as likely to want to, and try to, quit but much less likely to do so successfully. Research also shows that tobacco displays are not only linked to youth smoking but also trigger relapse among smokers trying to quit.
We have heard different accounts of the evidence from the introduction of tobacco advertising bans in countries such as Canada, New Zealand and Norway. There is plenty of evidence to show that they lead to a considerable reduction in smoking—indeed, by figures well in excess of the official estimates of the likely impact of the measures coming into effect. This is a Motion of regret. I can think of nothing more regrettable than the fact that behind-the-scenes lobbying has led to the delay in the introduction of these much needed display regulations and that lives will be lost as a result.
Lord Palmer
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, will know full well how I abhor the habit of smoking, albeit that I am a smoker. I must declare an interest as the convenor of the Lords and Commons Cigar and Pipe Smokers’ Club. We ought to be very careful about the hypocrisy of the last Administration. If smoking was completely outlawed, the entire British economy would literally collapse. As such, as much as I admire the noble Baroness, I regret this Motion—particularly in these hard pressed times, most especially for very small retailers.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend and applaud the fact that she has brought this Motion before the House. People have spoken with great emotion about the rights of individuals. There is no proposal before us to ban people from smoking—perhaps there should be. It concerns me that we always dance round the brutal, central point about smoking: that it is known beyond doubt to be a killer. We are condoning a delay in discouraging young people and others from indulging in a habit that kills.
It is not just the smokers themselves but their families, the grief, the cost to future production as people fall ill and the heavy cost on the health service when we already know that the health service is stretched almost beyond all reason. In the arguments of those who are against my noble friend, I find it difficult that they seem to suggest that this is a private matter for the individual. It is not: it has social implications and the cost falls upon society as a whole. It is not just a cost upon the individual who decides to smoke. What evaluations have been made of the cost of this delay? What will be the cost to the health service? How many people will die prematurely who would not otherwise have died? What will the cost be of supporting families where people have died prematurely because of indulging the habit? This is an absolutely inexcusable delay.
In the last 24 hours, we again heard the Prime Minister make great speeches about how he will not brook delay in his decision to decentralise and make sure that people share in responsibility and participate in the kind of society of which he dreams. If he will not brook delay in that circumstance, why does he do so in allowing a practice to go on of encouraging people to take up a habit that is dangerous and results in death? We must face these central facts. If we condone what the Government propose, we condone more death, suffering, cost to the general public and burdens upon the health service. How on earth can that be justified?
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Thornton for tabling this Motion of regret. Like many around this House, I am particularly concerned about the issue of tobacco control and I value this opportunity to seek assurances from the Minister on a number of key questions. For the record, I declare my interest as chief executive of the research charity Breast Cancer Campaign and also trustee of Lung Cancer Campaign Carmarthenshire. I have a particular perspective—it is not necessarily an interest—as my father was diagnosed with lung cancer when he was 40 and I was a child. My noble friend Lord Judd talked about the impact on the family. We have not got time to talk about that but I appreciate that comment.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister a full explanation of the rationale for the delay in the implementation of the tobacco advertising and promotion regulations. My noble friend Lord Judd asked what the cost will be. I would particularly like to know who will benefit from this delay. In the Government’s analysis, who are the real beneficiaries?
The House has already heard very passionate words about the campaign by the National Federation of Retail Newsagents to delay implementation, about how it was funded by British American Tobacco and that this was not made clear and transparent. I personally feel very concerned about that—if we do not address it now, where will that lead? I very much hope that the Minister can give us the assurance that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is seeking that the Government are still committed to the framework convention on tobacco control, which aims to protect a range of public health policies, and this policy as an example, from vested interests.
We should not think for a moment that our understanding of the impact of smoking on our health is fully understood. We are for ever learning more about the impact of smoking on health and, as our understanding of that impact deepens, so does the case for control. We already know that smoking is the single largest preventable cause of cancer, with smoking causing 28 per cent of all deaths from cancer. Worryingly, an estimated two-thirds of smokers started smoking before they were 18 and almost two-fifths started smoking regularly before the age of 16.
Until recently the link between smoking and breast cancer, a particular interest of mine, was poorly understood, but only a few months ago new evidence emerged demonstrating a clear link between smoking and breast cancer for the first time. While previous reviews had not demonstrated an association between active smoking and breast cancer risk, a cohort study published in the BMJ on 1 March has made a very clear association between active and passive smoking and an increased risk of breast cancer in post-menopausal women, the group of women most likely to develop breast cancer. Significantly higher breast cancer risk was observed in post-menopausal women who are active smokers, with links between the intensity and the duration of smoking—what some might describe as a dose response—as well as a link with the starting age of smoking.
Compared with women who had never smoked, breast cancer risk was increased by 16 per cent among current smokers. This is yet more evidence in favour of the need to control tobacco. Among former smokers, the time since quitting smoking was significantly inversely associated with breast cancer risk. It took 20 years for a former smoker’s risk to fully reduce. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about whether or not this is a private matter, passive smoking was also looked at in this research very effectively. The same study suggests an association between passive smoking and breast cancer and this is a really important new piece of understanding. Among women who have never smoked, those with the most extensive exposure to passive smoking had a significantly increased risk of breast cancer compared with those who had never been exposed to passive smoking. This is a very important development in our understanding.
While there is still much more to be done to understand the precise link between smoking, both active and passive, and breast cancer, one thing that is crystal clear to me is that women will not benefit from a delay in this measure. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, makes a very good point about the need for balance in public health policy, but it is important that we recognise that, in that balance, the desire of smokers to quit, the need to prevent young people starting and the fact that our understanding of smoking and the impact on public health continues to unfold need to be factored in.
The case for the tobacco display regulations has already been made. I do not believe that the case for delaying these regulations has been made to the satisfaction of this House and I very much welcome this debate.
Lord Rennard
My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest. It is a non-financial interest, in that I am an unpaid trustee and director of the charity Action on Smoking and Health. In terms of interest, I could talk at much greater length about the damage done to me and my family by the tobacco industry. Time does not allow a lot of personal background this evening, but I set out some of the reasons why I am so personally opposed to the promotion of tobacco in the debate on the Bill of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones on banning tobacco advertising. For noble Lords or others who may be interested, this can be found at col. 1683 of Lords Hansard of 2 November 2001. In two sentences this evening, I simply point out that my mother was a heavy smoker and when she died aged 53 of hypertensive heart disease, smoking was undoubtedly a factor. I was 16 at the time and my brothers and I became orphans, as our father had died some years earlier and smoking may have contributed to his death also.
In spite of this background, however, I am not arguing for a complete ban on a legal activity—even though very few people around now would think that tobacco would be made legal if it was not already a legal product. I am simply against forcing people to suffer the ill effects of other people’s smoking, I am against encouraging anyone—especially young people—to take up smoking and I am in favour of supporting people who have given up and want to give up. In our debates on the Health Bill two or three years ago, there was a genuine debate in the House about the relative merits of different measures to restrict tobacco consumption and promotion. Some noble Lords put the argument for plain paper packaging, others argued for a ban on point of sale advertising, but it seems very clear now that the reaction of the tobacco industry is so vociferously opposed to both measures that they must both be rather effective at reducing consumption.
I was therefore very pleased not very long ago to see the Government’s tobacco control plan. This makes clear the basic commitment to ending tobacco displays and will look further at plain paper packaging, which I hope will follow. The plan makes it plain that there cannot be any responsibility deal with those who make and sell cigarettes. Tobacco seems to be an almost uniquely hazardous product that kills half of the people who use it when they follow the manufacturer’s instructions.
Arguments have been made today about the rights of smokers, but few smokers who I know think that it is right to encourage young people to smoke. Arguments are put forward, directly or indirectly, by the tobacco manufacturers, but these are the same people who denied for decades that there was any link at all between smoking and cancer. Their arguments should have no credibility whatever in these sorts of debates.
Small shopkeepers have been misled. They were told that the display ban would cost them thousands of pounds when in fact the costs would be minimal, perhaps a few hundred pounds. They should also consider that many of their customers might live rather longer if they did not smoke, and that would surely be good for business.
Claims have been made—bogus claims—that tax revenue from tobacco might fall and sales of illicit cigarettes might increase. Common sense tells us that if this were the case, the tobacco manufacturers would not be so bold about these measures. If more tobacco is consumed, they have more profit but less tax is paid. Other measures must be taken to deal with the illicit trade in tobacco. As my noble friend Lady Tyler has pointed out, evidence from other places that have introduced such bans on point-of-sale advertising shows sales falling but at the same time increases in tax revenues and a fall in illicit sales. The evidence that further measures to restrict the promotion of tobacco would be a good thing is clearly shown by the vociferous opposition to it that we have spoken about today.
Earlier today, I heard the Prime Minister, David Cameron, talk about closing the gap in life expectancy between the richest and the poorest in this country. During his campaign to become leader of my party, I heard the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, speak frequently and powerfully, particularly about the gap in life expectancy of people in the poorer parts of Sheffield compared to those in the more affluent parts of Sheffield, just a few miles away. These gaps relate to the prevalence of smoking as much as to any other factor, so it must be right that the Government continue to pursue all the measures set out in their tobacco control plan.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Thornton has given us this opportunity to debate the tobacco display regulations. This goes over old ground a bit, as a number of noble Lords who are taking part today will recall. I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, to our discussions; her speech was outstanding, and I hope that we are going to hear from her again on this subject. She said what many of us agree with and believe needs to be said in this debate.
Although we are debating a Motion of Regret, I would quite like to give the Government a pat on the back for their tobacco control policy. It is a pity that the noble Earl does not have any Conservative supporters behind him supporting the policy. His support is coming from the Liberal Democrat Benches, the Cross Benches and this side of the House, and it would be nice if some of the Conservative supporters of the policy were there too. The Government are sticking pretty closely to the policy of the previous Administration in their approach to the dangers of smoking and in their dealings with the tobacco industry and its lobbyists.
Like my noble friend, I believe that the Government are wrong to delay the introduction of the point-of-sale regulations, not least because there is huge public support for measures designed to make it more difficult for young people and children to start smoking. I remind noble Lords that over 50,000 people signed Cancer Research UK’s “Out of Sight, Out of Mind” petition in support of these regulations, and that over 80 per cent of the 96,000 responses to the Department of Health consultation also supported them.
I commend the determination of the Secretary of State to do something that I wish our Government had done but which they shied away from—the introduction of plain packaging for cigarettes. It is no great secret that that was scuppered under the previous Administration at the insistence of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. I remember, too, that BIS was not very keen on these point-of-sale measures either. It is good that the Government are pressing on with these because they will have a significant effect on tobacco consumption and particularly on the appeal of tobacco to young people.
I also congratulate the Government on winning a series of legal battles against Imperial Tobacco over the ban on cigarette vending machines. That was another tobacco control measure introduced by the previous Government. It too is important because it will make it significantly harder for children and young people to buy cigarettes.
They have also done the right thing in reaffirming their support for the World Health Organisation’s framework convention on tobacco control. I remind your Lordships of the Written Answer in the other place on 16 June by Anne Milton, the noble Earl’s colleague and Minister for Public Health. She said:
“The FCTC places obligations on parties to protect the development of public health policy from the vested interests of the tobacco industry. We have made our commitment to this very clear in Chapter 10 of ‘Healthy Lives, Healthy People: a Tobacco Control Plan for England’”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/6/11; col. 916W.]
This means that Ministers should not meet representatives of the tobacco industry. I suggest that it is pretty unwise of them to accept hospitality from it as well.
This is not a lawful product like any other. This, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said, is a product that kills if it is used exactly as the manufacturer recommends. It is different from alcohol or chocolate or other fattening foods. Tobacco is a killer when used properly, which makes it quite different from all those other products. That is why the Government are right to say that they will not deal with the tobacco industry when framing health policies related to tobacco.
This debate comes just after the fourth anniversary of the smoke-free legislation that came into effect in England. I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Borrie supported it. It was undoubtedly the most important contribution to public health since the Clean Air Act of the 1950s. Such progress is being achieved against a background of consistently strong support from the public and almost total compliance and acceptance by businesses. Despite this, as we have heard from other noble Lords this evening, the tobacco industry still refuses to accept that the party is over. We have all been on the receiving end of a campaign of misinformation, based on lies and fear, that it has funded and orchestrated. The industry’s aim, which it admits in documents that have been lodged in the United States, is to throw sand in the gears of regulatory reform wherever it can. One of the ways that it does this is by covertly funding front organisations, covering up its involvement where it can.
For example, the industry is behind the Save our Pubs and Clubs campaign, which seeks to link the decline in the number of pubs to the smoke-free legislation. When your Lordships receive letters from this organisation, bear in mind that it is funded by Japan Tobacco International and FOREST, perhaps the most mendacious lobby group of all in this area. As we have heard this evening, the industry has also attempted to conceal its involvement in the retail newsagents’ lobbying campaign against the proposed point of sale restrictions. To begin with, British American Tobacco denied that it was doing it. On 27 April, the Guardian carried a report in which a spokeswoman for BAT said:
“To accuse us of underhand tactics and the funding of an independent retailer organisation … via a PR agency that we use solely for work related to the European wide problem of tobacco smuggling, is untrue”.
One day later, on 28 April, a second report appeared in the Guardian under the headline:
“British American Tobacco admits funding campaign against display ban”.
This revelation that the campaign was funded by BAT is significant. Under the international guidelines to which I referred earlier, the United Kingdom Government are obliged to ensure the drafting of all legislation is free from the influence of the tobacco industry.
We have heard of research from Ireland that shows that the implementation of these measures there has not harmed small businesses. It also shows that tobacco point-of-sale displays influence young people’s perception of smoking as a normal, adult activity. We know that the majority of people start smoking before the age of 19. Therefore, it is crucial that we do all in our power to ensure that young people do not see smoking as cool or a social norm. It is a pity that these regulations have been delayed, but I strongly support what the Government are doing elsewhere on tobacco control policy, and I hope that they will press on with it.
Baroness Gale
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Thornton in regretting that the Government are delaying the implementation of this important piece of legislation. I find it very difficult to understand why the Government are prepared to take such risks with the health of our children and young people. All the evidence shows that tobacco advertising encourages children and young people to start smoking. Most people start smoking when they are young—some as young as eight years of age. I met a 14 year-old the other day who had started smoking when she was nine. Even today children are smoking, despite all the measures that have been put in place. That is why this legislation should be in place—to do everything that can be done to prevent children being tempted. They are unaware of the health dangers and, surely, legislation should be enacted to shield them from the dangers of smoking.
According to a statement from the Department of Health, deferring this legislation in accordance with the Growth Review, announced by the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills in November 2010, the Government’s overriding priority is to return the UK economy to balanced sustainable growth, in particular by reducing the regulatory burden on business. The Department of Health says that the priority was to amend the commencement dates in order to provide confirmation for business as soon as possible. The Department of Health also said that it fully recognises that this will defer the public health benefits and that it fully took this into account in reaching its decision. I find it hard to understand that this Government are prepared to delay the implementation in the full knowledge of the damage that will be done mainly to young people and children. There is so much evidence to show that children and young people are heavily influenced by the advertising of tobacco. Surely this should be the Government's overriding priority—the health of children and young people.
If we accept the figures set out in the impact assessment to the Health Act 2009, this delay could mean that up to 4,000 more young people in England will start smoking. We know that the long-term effects on their health will be detrimental and at great cost to themselves, and that there will be a financial cost to long-term healthcare as a result.
On the two policy aims of the regulations, the Department of Health says it expects to amend the display regulations to mitigate the burdens on business, while maintaining the expected health gains. Can the Minister say how this can possibly be achieved, because one policy aim contradicts the other? The Government cannot have it both ways. Children and young people should be our top priority.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, I had better declare an interest, as did the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, in that I am an associate member of the Lords and Commons Cigar and Pipe Smokers’ Club. I am an associate member because I do not smoke, and I therefore cannot be a full member. Nevertheless, I have sympathy with the club’s aims, which are to give some support and protection to people who smoke.
Smoking is, as we have heard tonight, perfectly legal. In spite of all the attacks made on smokers, at least 21 per cent of the population still decides to smoke. In spite of all the measures that have been taken and all the high costs of cigarettes, a fifth of the population still wishes to smoke. Their rights deserve just as much consideration as in any other practice, whatever that may be. They are entitled to the same consideration and protection.
I am most surprised that these regulations from the coalition Government are before the House tonight, because I well remember during our discussion in Committee on the Health Bill in 2009 that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, was very doubtful about these measures of screening tobacco products from the public. It really is an imposition that retailers are prohibited from displaying a legal commodity. That undermines freedom. Make no mistake about it; if you allow people to sell a product and say that it is legal to sell it, why on earth then say that although they want to sell it and advertise it, they may not do so—they may not display to people that they can buy a certain product in their shop?
There is a lot of hypocrisy about smoking. If people believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and others do, that this is the most dangerous product in the world, they ought to come forward bravely and ban it. That is the answer. Why is it not banned? There are probably two reasons. The first is because of the £10 billion which the Treasury gets every year from the sale of tobacco. The Treasury loves to have that money; make no mistake about that. The other reason is that the cost of enforcing the ban would be so high that it would probably have to spend another £10 billion doing so.
Lord Judd
Of course it is powerful to argue that people like me should come out for a ban. We recognise that there is a balance between individual freedom and what is decided about society. That arises in the context of smoking. We are dealing with measures that delay the introduction of a scheme to discourage people from taking up the habit. We are dealing with a proactive situation that is encouraging people to smoke. There is a fundamental difference here.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
There is absolutely no difference at all. The brewers and the distillers wish to promote their product. They want people to start drinking as soon as possible because they make big profits out of people drinking. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, waxed eloquent about the dangers of tobacco. I remind him about the even worse dangers of alcohol addiction. Why are we not doing the same about alcohol? If people smoke, they do not go home at night and beat their wives and children. People who drink too much alcohol do that. Indeed, they kill people outside pubs. Cirrhosis of the liver kills many people at a very young age. Why are we allowing drinks to be displayed? Why do we not tax alcohol in the way that tobacco is taxed?
There are lots of arguments against using this huge sledgehammer against tobacco retailers in particular. We know that a lot of pubs have closed because of the smoking ban in public places. How many retailers will go out of business because of this ban? I have been a small retailer myself, and not everyone realises that the very fact that cigarettes are on display and people go in and buy them helps retailers to sell other things as well. They are not just tobacco retailers, they retail a whole host of other things, and the fact that they are selling and displaying tobacco helps them to sell other products.
I really would like to speak for a long time about this—after all, so far the debate has been rather one-sided—but I realise that time is getting on, there is another Bill to be discussed and the Minister has yet to reply. I repeat that I am surprised that we have this legislation before us tonight, and I will allow the Minister to tell us all about it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, may I begin by saying how much I welcome the opportunity to debate the noble Baroness’s Motion, and that I recognise the key role she played in taking provisions through your Lordships’ House to end the display of tobacco in shops? I add my thanks to all noble Lords who have spoken.
The Healthy Lives, Healthy People White Paper sets out the coalition Government’s determination to improve the health of the nation and the health of the poorest fastest. The tobacco control plan for England, published on 9 March, was the first of a number of follow-on documents on how we will improve public health in specific areas. I welcome the positive remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and others about that plan.
Smoking remains one of our most significant public health challenges, and causes over 80,000 premature deaths in England alone each year. While rates of smoking have continued to decline over the past decades, 21 per cent of adults in England still smoke. Smoking contributes significantly to health inequalities and is the single biggest cause of inequalities in death rates between the richest and the poorest in our communities. Smoking also costs society a great deal. Treating smoking-related disease is estimated to cost the NHS in England some £2.7 billion every year, a point brought out very well by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. Some 5 per cent of hospital admissions for people aged 35 and over in England each year are attributed to smoking.
It is clear that we must keep up the momentum to reduce the harm of tobacco use. The tobacco control plan sets out how comprehensive tobacco control will be delivered over the next five years within the new public health system. The take-up of smoking by young people is a particular concern. Smoking is an addiction largely taken up in childhood and adolescence, so it is crucial to reduce the number of young people taking up smoking in the first place. Nicotine is extremely addictive and young people can develop a dependence on tobacco rapidly. Each year in England an estimated 320,000 children under 16 try smoking for the first time, and the majority of smokers say they were smoking regularly by the age of 18.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has just said that nicotine is very addictive. Is he aware that a cigarette that delivers nicotine to the body without smoke has been developed? Do the Government plan to ban non-smoking cigarettes?
Earl Howe
The noble Lord asks a very interesting question. I have seen some papers in the department about that particular product. I am not in a position yet to give the noble Lord any definitive answer, but I would be glad to do so once the Government have reached a view on the matter. It is a very new development.
I mentioned just now that the majority of smokers say that they were smoking regularly by the age of 18—that is, before the age at which you can now lawfully purchase tobacco products. However, we also recognise that while nicotine keeps tobacco users physically dependent, a wide range of social and behavioural factors encourage young people to take up smoking and make it harder for tobacco users to quit. To promote health and well-being we will work to encourage communities across England to reshape social norms so that tobacco becomes less desirable, less acceptable and less accessible. We want all communities to see a tobacco-free world as the norm and we aim to stop the perpetuation of smoking from one generation to the next. To reduce smoking uptake by young people, we all need to influence the adult world in which they grow up. We must also remove the considerable social barriers that smokers face when they are trying to quit.
One focus of the Government’s tobacco control plan is that we must do as much as we can to stop the recruitment of new young smokers. We know that teenagers are susceptible to experimenting even when there is clear evidence of the dangers. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, expressed some surprise that the Government have decided to maintain the ban on tobacco displays. We looked at the evidence and there is evidence that the display of tobacco in shops can promote smoking. We believe that eye-catching displays encourage young people to try smoking. Displays also undermine attempts by adults to quit by tempting them to make impulse buys of tobacco. That is why we are implementing the legislation set out in the Health Act 2009, and related regulations, to end tobacco displays in shops. This will help to change perceptions of the social norms around smoking, especially by young people, who are often the target of tobacco promotion.
However, the Government are also committed to amending the display regulations to mitigate burdens on business. The growth review announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in November last year aims to reduce the regulatory burden on business, particularly on small and medium-sized enterprises and micro-businesses. In line with this priority, as set out in my Written Ministerial Statement made to your Lordships’ House when the tobacco control plan was published on 9 March, we will both delay the implementation of the tobacco display legislation and make it more practical for shopkeepers. The amending regulations that we are discussing today implement the first step by changing the start dates so that the legislation will apply to large stores on 6 April next year and on 6 April 2015 to all other stores, including small shops.
Of course, delaying implementation will delay the expected public health benefits, but this is only one initiative within our tobacco control plan. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, picked up the point we made that we still aim to maintain the public health gains. The evidence shows that limiting displays can be expected to reduce the number of young people taking up smoking and help quit attempts by adults, but we do not expect an immediate, dramatic effect on rates of smoking prevalence. The effect will be long term as successive cohorts of young people grow up in a world of free of tobacco displays.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I had planned to carry on and cover that point. In broad terms, the impact of this is being recalibrated, and we will publish further figures in due course.
Experience across the world shows that success in reducing smoking prevalence requires a comprehensive approach; the tobacco control plan for England sets out our strategy for the next five years, and it therefore includes a range of initiatives that will help to reduce smoking uptake and in particular help us to achieve our national ambition to reduce rates of regular smoking among 15 year-olds in England to 12 per cent or less by the end of 2015, from 15 per cent in 2009.
The Government are taking the following actions to reduce smoking by young people. We will end tobacco sales from vending machines on 1 October this year. This will remove an easily accessible, and often unsupervised, source of cigarettes for under-age young people. The Government will review sources of tobacco for young people. The Department of Health has commissioned an academic review of the evidence about this. The report will be completed late this year and we will then be able to determine what further action might be needed to reduce under-age access to tobacco. We will encourage and support the effective enforcement of the law on under-age tobacco sales by local authorities, and encourage local authorities and their partners to play an active part in helping to change social norms around smoking, particularly through using behavioural insights. We will also explore whether the internet is being used to promote tobacco use to young people and, if so, to consider what more can be done on a global level. In addition, as part of a new tobacco marketing communication plan to be published later this year, we will explore ways in which to provide young people with information about risky behaviours that can affect their health, including tobacco use, and to help them to resist pressures to take up smoking. This work is likely to involve digital media, because of their popularity, and reach among young people.
I impress on the House that the regulations that we are debating tonight are only one part of a concerted effort to reduce smoking prevalence among young people. My Written Statement set out how the regulations will be further amended, and I want to reassure the House and other interested parties, in particular retailers with large stores, that the Government will publish draft amending regulations as soon as possible. These will set out how the legislation will work in detail. By moving forward in this way, we believe we have struck the right balance between improving public health and supporting businesses during these difficult economic times. This is in keeping with our deregulation agenda, while continuing to make long-term progress to protect public health.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, asked me specifically who would benefit from the delay in implementation. Our decision to delay implementation will most benefit the micro and small businesses that are so vital to communities across this country, and the delay is entirely in line with the principle set out in the Government’s growth review.
We have also heard about how the tobacco industry has been involved, and has involved others, in lobbying against tobacco control legislation. While we want to be sure that all voices are heard in debates on new legislation and policies, there is an inevitable tension between policies that are intended to reduce smoking prevalence and the interests of those who profit from the promotion and sale of tobacco, including tobacco companies and, to a lesser extent, retailers that sell tobacco products. I am sure noble Lords will agree that we need transparency in lobbying.
The Department of Health works hard to develop workable, balanced tobacco control policies and invites views, not least through formal consultation exercises, from all those with an interest in, or who may be affected by, proposed policies, including retailers. However, as set out in the tobacco control plan, the Government take very seriously their obligations as a party to the World Health Organisation’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The FCTC places treaty obligations on parties to protect the development of public health policy from the vested interests of the tobacco industry. To ensure transparency, in future all organisations with which the Department of Health liaises on tobacco control, including through responding to consultation exercises, will be asked to disclose any links with, or funding received from, the tobacco industry. We want all parties that engage with the Government to be honest and transparent when it comes to vested interests.
Lord Naseby
Can the Minister clarify why whoever is lobbying should not disclose where their funding is coming from. Why is it specific to the tobacco industry? There are all sorts of bodies out there with views which may not seem obvious to the Government but underneath there is some objective. Why not have total transparency so that anybody who lobbies discloses where the money has come from?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the principle behind my noble friend’s question is certainly unarguable. He makes a very good point that if somebody is concealing the true basis on which they are making representations then that is clearly undesirable. I will take his point back to my colleagues in the department. Nevertheless, in this particular case the mischief lies in the obfuscation that we have seen on the part of the tobacco industry; I am not aware of any other obfuscation that has been at play in this context.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
I understand that the Government refuse to meet the tobacco manufacturers. Is that the case and if it is are the Government not missing a trick? If they met the tobacco manufacturers they would be able to put all these points of view to them across the table.
Earl Howe
I am not aware that any of my coalition Government colleagues have met representatives of the tobacco industry face to face. I have met representatives of the tobacco industry in the past but not in my capacity as a Minister. It is possible that officials in the Department of Health have had dialogue with the tobacco industry but I cannot give the noble Lord any details because they are not in my brief. If I am able to enlighten him I shall gladly do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked why we had not published any details of government meetings with the tobacco industry. I would say to her that we take very seriously our commitments under the WHO framework convention. We are taking forward work to implement all the commitments in the plan; we will make sure that we publish details of policy-related meetings between the tobacco industry and government departments and we are currently exploring the most effective and appropriate mechanism for doing that.
The noble Baroness and other noble Lords suggested that the decision to delay the display regulations was unduly influenced by the tobacco industry. I want to take this opportunity to reject that emphatically. We are well aware of the views of the tobacco industry through public consultation, correspondence, press articles and the open lobbying that it does. We have listened carefully to the views of a range of retail organisations as well as the public health community; nevertheless we believe that retailers have genuine concerns and that they deserve our support. We have a clear mind on supporting business during these challenging times and we believe that a balance has been fairly struck, although it is open to noble Lords to disagree with that.
My noble friend Lord Naseby and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, mentioned the issue of plain packaging. the tobacco control plan includes a commitment to consult on options to reduce the promotional impact of tobacco packaging, including an option to require plain packaging before the end of 2011. I must emphasise that the Government have an open mind on plain packaging, and we will use the consultation to gain an understanding of the views of interested parties.
My noble friend Lord Rennard asked what we are doing about illicit tobacco sales. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs published a renewed strategy to tackle the illicit trade in tobacco products in April of this year. Our tobacco control plan complements that strategy by stressing the importance of cracking down on illicit tobacco sales, which will in turn reduce tobacco consumption and organised crime and will support legitimate retailers. It is relevant to add that there is no evidence from countries that have stopped tobacco displays in shops that a prohibition increases the illicit trade. For example, we are told by the Irish Government that stopping tobacco displays in the Republic in July 2009 has not caused the illicit trade to increase there. According to a report published earlier this year by Japan Tobacco International, an estimated 22 per cent to 24 per cent of all tobacco consumed in Ireland evaded Irish excise duty, but that is actually a decrease from 2009. It is the first decline since recording began in 2005.
So there are two imperatives here. The Government are committed to improving public health, including by reducing rates of smoking. We are also committed to economic recovery. I believe that our way forward on ending tobacco displays in shops strikes a fair balance between those two priorities. I thank your Lordships for participating in this important debate and I welcome the continuing support of the noble Baroness for tobacco control and I hope that, in the light of what I have said, in particular in the wider context of these regulations, she will feel able to withdraw her Motion.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his usual detailed and very thorough explanation. I will resist the temptation to open up the arguments we went through in detail in 2009, notwithstanding the fact that my noble friend Lord Borrie, the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart, Lord Naseby and Lord Palmer, expressed their consistent views about this matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, was right to say that the Government should take credit for the tobacco plan, and certainly Members on these Benches will support further work on tobacco control.
I thank my noble friend Lord Judd for his support. Even if he is what one might call an ultra leftist, if not an outright Trotskyite on these matters, he knows that I am in sympathy with his views. My former noble friend Lady Morgan as always had wise and considered words on this. I wish her well in her new and very important position. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, rightly reminded us that across the House we have been working on tobacco control issues for many years, and many noble Lords have made significant contributions to that progress. My noble friend Lord Faulkner is a great friend and campaigner on these issues, and I thank him for his hard work. I agree with him that the Government should be congratulated on their plan and their commitment to tobacco control. I also thank my noble friend Lady Gale for her support. She sat behind me and supported me when I was a Minister throughout the days when we discussed these issues at length.
The Minister has offered reassurance on a number of fronts, particularly concerning the tobacco lobby. I am pleased that the coalition Government are building on the policies established by the last Government, and I do not underestimate the battles that the noble Earl, his ministerial team and his honourable friends will be fighting across Government to extend tobacco regulation. The Minister should know that he has support across the House for the battles that he and his noble and honourable friends are fighting. I welcome the banning of tobacco sales from vending machines and the review of access to tobacco, and I look forward to hearing the results of the other initiatives outlined by the noble Earl. I also welcome the promised transparency, in particular on asking about funding from the tobacco industry. The noble Earl has given us an assurance that details of the meetings will be published. Finally, I welcome his emphatic rejection of the reasons for the delay.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Elystan-Morgan
“Police and crime panels in Wales
Each police area in Wales may have a police and crime panel established and maintained in accordance with the arrangements specified by the National Assembly for Wales and with the functions specified by the National Assembly for Wales.”
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, this amendment is the parent amendment for the group, the other amendments being consequential thereto, as was Amendment 105, which I did not move.
The amendments highlight the impact on Wales of Part 1. The technical effect of Amendment 118—I certainly shall not divide the House on it—would be that the authority in relation to the functions and membership of police and crime panels would pass from the body of the Bill and the schedules thereto to the Welsh Assembly, which would decide what the panels would be involved with and what their membership should be.
I have been a sufficient time in the courts and in Parliament to know that to say that this is not the first choice that one would adopt in relation to this matter, nor indeed the second, is not the most impactful or safest way to open a case, but that is the proper and honest way of putting it. This amendment can be fully understood only if one appreciates from where it is coming and the direction in which it is leading.
If I was asked what in my view was the ideal situation—I am pompous enough to assume for a moment that somebody would ask that question—my answer would be, most certainly, that there should be a complete devolution of police services from this Parliament to the Assembly in Cardiff. Secondly, I would say that, in addition to that, there is a fallback position which was taken up by the Welsh Assembly and which I regard as being utterly practical and meritorious.
I shall deal with those matters in some little detail. On the question of devolution of authority, I would respectfully argue that it is not for Wales to show that there is some magical path that allows it to be an exception to the general provisions of the Bill. Wales is a land and nation; Scotland is a land and nation. Scotland, with a population of 5 million, has its own police services. Northern Ireland, with its population of 1.75 million, has its own police services. Your Lordships may very well say that there are very distinct historical reasons in each case, but there are distinct and historical reasons in relation to Wales. Therefore, I would say that there is a national case for the transfer and devolution—some day in the not-too-distant future, I hope—of those jurisdictions to Wales.
The second point is what I would call the contiguity or borderline point. Police services do not exist in a vacuum. They link up at each stage with various other functions of a local nature. All those other relative functions in relation to Wales have already been devolved. I could name a good dozen of them, but the ones upon which I would mainly rely are community safety, youth services, youth justice, health, transport, and substance misuse. All those have boundaries where their jurisdictions are intertwined and interlocked with the police service. It is almost impossible to separate one from the other. There is a demand and a need for a total participation—and indeed, co-operation—between police authorities on the one hand and local authorities and local agencies on the other.
The next reason I would rely on in relation to this matter is the attitude of the Welsh Assembly itself in this connection. As we well know, there has never been devolution of police services to Wales. In fact, when this legislation was being considered, in the late 1990s, all manner of undertakings were given with regard to concordats, as to exactly how this meshing or merger of different jurisdictions should take place. Unfortunately, it appears that none of that has ever been carried out.
In the early part of January this year the Welsh Assembly asked the Communities and Culture Committee to report on the impact of this Bill on Wales. The report reflected a general tidal feeling in Wales of total disapprobation of the Bill. Practically all the evidence was in one direction, and I have no doubt that if a referendum were held in Wales it would be carried by a massive majority, very probably in favour of total devolution, but most certainly against Part 1 of the Bill.
I do not in any way castigate the Minister or indeed her colleague who sits by her. I have some sympathy for them. I think that in many respects they, themselves, would probably have put together an infinitely better Bill. But I will not embarrass them on that account. I think of them as very much the same as General Sir Redvers Buller and General Sir George White, who were the two generals given the task of relieving Mafeking. It was not they who had sent the troops there. It was not they who had created the siege. But they were given the unenviable task of fighting battle after battle, ultimately to bring about the raising of that siege. That, it seems to me, is the situation in which the Minister and her colleague find themselves at the moment.
The Welsh Assembly committee came to the conclusion that the Bill was utterly disastrous and irredeemable, both with regard to the idea of centring public scrutiny on a commissioner, and indeed on a police and crime panel to overlook his or her functions. It went on to make a main recommendation:
“We recommend that the Welsh Government has dialogue with the UK Government to persuade it to defer introducing those aspects of the Bill related to the abolition of police authorities, and establishment of police commissioners and police crime panels in Wales, at least until the effectiveness of their impact in England has been assessed.”
That was not a petulant reaction on the part of the Assembly Government. It was a considered, deeply analysed and well thought out reaction, bearing in mind the constitutional realities and the relationships between the two bodies. In March of this year a very substantial metamorphosis took place in the Welsh Assembly. We had a referendum to decide whether Part 4 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 should be adopted. The people of Wales espoused that proposition—as the Minister will know—by a two-to-one majority. It was as clear a verdict as one could have wished for, and its effect is twofold. It inevitably increases the dynamic of devolution in Wales. Secondly, it elevates the status of the Welsh legislature, now that it has been given wide fields—20 in all—of primary legislative responsibility, from being that of an Assembly to that of a Parliament. On that basis, I present the amendment.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group. As we have heard, these amendments seek to ensure that Wales has an appropriate framework for a real partnership working, taking into account the reality that many of the public services important to good policing are devolved to the National Assembly for Wales.
First, it is essential that good operational links exist between the police and local government. Local government in Wales is fully devolved for both the legislative and financial overview under the Assembly. The Assembly is also responsible for highways, housing, community safety and social services in Wales, all of which are greatly important to the work of the police force. In particular, the road safety partnership is an essential feature of such co-operation. Furthermore, education comes entirely under the National Assembly, and that is relevant to the work of the police and schools liaison officers. The Assembly is responsible for youth services, youth justice and substance misuse—all vital to police work.
As the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said, the National Assembly’s Communities Committee has considered the impact of the Bill, if it becomes an Act, on community safety in Wales. Its report, which I have here, was published in February of this year. It has the headline recommendation which calls for any establishment of police commissioners and police crime panels to be deferred until their impact had been assessed in England. This was a constructive comment to ensure that, if they do come in, they come in with lessons learnt and fit in with the structures that we have in Wales. The committee also recommended that, if the Government go ahead, there should be an equal balance of power and a consensual approach between the commissioners and the police and crime panels.
The evidence garnered by the committee overwhelmingly praised police forces in Wales for developing over the past decade much stronger engagement with communities. As the former chair of the north Wales Crimebeat organisation, I can certainly vouchsafe that that is true in our area. This is reinforced by evidence from a diverse phalanx of organisations that was given to that committee of the Assembly, ranging from Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Constabulary to Welsh Women’s Aid, from the Welsh Local Government Association to the Welsh Audit Office, and from ACPO to the Campaign Against Political Policing.
The community dimensions are an essential ingredient of Welsh life and Welsh culture. After a period of working at arm’s length from the community, the police have learnt that they were ignoring a vital tool in their fight against crime. Having a community actively on your side makes a huge difference in the work of the police. This is true everywhere, of course, but particularly in Wales where communities are so close knit. The National Assembly, with the support of all parties, has led the way towards getting this approach accepted. There is now a happy and successful working relationship which is making real inroads into reducing crime. So, if it ain’t broke, why mend it?
The amendments do not do either of two things: they do not transfer responsibility for policing from the Home Office to the Assembly, although chief constables in Wales have pressed for that to happen; and they do not provide for Wales to be totally and permanently excluded from the provisions of the Bill with regard to the establishment of police and crime panels. The amendments facilitate this to be developed organically in Wales, building on what has been achieved by the National Assembly in partnership with the police forces, and to harness the huge community resource we have in Wales in a partnership between not only the National Assembly and the police forces but with local government.
I urge the Government to think again on this matter; to accept that authoritarian centralism is not always the best approach; and to harness rather than throttle the diversity that we have in these islands.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lords, Lord Elystan-Morgan and Lord Wigley, for bringing this back to our attention. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, asked the Government for some sensitivity. The problem is that the Government have not shown sensitivity when it comes to the way they have dealt with the Welsh perspective.
As noble Lords will know, the Welsh Government made it clear that they did not agree with a proposal for directly elected commissioners. However, they were quite prepared to discuss with the Government a compromise which would have consisted of police authorities remaining—and the noble Lords, Lord Elystan-Morgan and Lord Wigley, gave very convincing arguments as to why they should remain in Wales—but the elected commissioner in Wales would act as chair of those police authorities. For the life of me, I do not understand why the Government were not prepared to accept that very decent offer from the Welsh Assembly. Instead, we have to look at Part 3 of Schedule 6 which gives the Secretary of State the ability to ensure that police and crime panels are established in each police area in Wales, despite the fact that the Welsh Assembly Government do not want those panels established. The only argument that I could recall from our discussion in Committee stage was that this might have a big impact on cross-border crime.
With the greatest respect, I really do not understand the need for Wales and England to have police and crime panels in order to deal with either cross-border crime or cross-border co-operation. One is not aware of the traumas of the relationship between England and Scotland where there are not the police and crime panels north of the border. Indeed, one can look at other aspects of the devolution settlement, like the health service, where one sees different policies developed in different parts of the UK but none the less we still have one National Health Service.
I am delighted that the noble Lords have brought this to our attention. Even now, at this late hour, one hopes that the Minister will show some sensitivity. If not, I hope that the noble Lords will consider other opportunities to bring this to our attention.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I urge the Minister to take account of the issues that have been raised by other noble Lords. The Minister will recall that I raised these issues at Second Reading and that my noble friend Lady Hamwee put forward amendments in Committee that sought to deal with this issue. I am concerned that there is still a problem, but the amendments put forward by noble Lords this evening have the possibility of providing some sort of solution. They could, in principle, offer a practical way out of a currently considerable and undesirable impasse.
The UK Government have recognised that they needed the consent of the Welsh Assembly to legislate for police and crime panels. That is why a legislative consent Motion was put to the Welsh Assembly. It is obviously the case that the issues are intermixed and intertwined, and noble Lords have explained how that occurs. But it is worth dwelling on this issue because it is the devolved policy areas which are so closely interlinked that make it impossible for the police in Wales to operate entirely separately from, for example, the highways department, youth services, or the substance misuse strategy, all of which are under the control of the Assembly—there are very many more I could cite.
Something that has not been mentioned is the fact that only 40 per cent of the money that goes to the police comes from the Home Office. Policing may not be devolved but only 40 per cent of its funding comes from the Home Office. Some 25 per cent comes via the Assembly and a third from the police precept from local taxpayers. The Government have recognised the need for there to be a solution to this. I am sorry that there has been no way out of the impasse so far. The Assembly of course refused legislative consent and the Government have sought to circumvent the problem therefore created by making the Home Secretary responsible for bringing together locally elected representatives. The fact is that the Home Office does not have the infrastructure in Wales to support that. There are considerable practicable problems about how that will actually work in practice.
I make it absolutely clear that I am also critical in particular of the Welsh Assembly Government. There is something rather foolish in the Minister concerned negotiating a solution, putting it to the Welsh Assembly and then abstaining on his own solution—which he had agreed with Ministers in Westminster. There are obviously considerable problems there.
I am also disappointed in the Welsh Assembly Government for their lack of vigour in trying to overcome these problems. I am grateful to the Minister for the information that she has supplied to me and I know that there have been meetings between her officials and those of the Welsh Assembly Government. There have not been meetings at a ministerial level. If I were the Minister in Wales, I would seek to solve this problem with a little bit more vigour. My purpose in speaking tonight is to make clear that we still have a constitutional stand-off. It is a very unfortunate situation. It is clear that negotiations have failed to resolve the issue but it is disappointing that the Welsh Assembly Government have not entered into more positive and effective negotiation. Unfortunately, as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan said, the amendments as put forward do not really solve the problem.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am interested in that last comment but it strikes me that retaining police authorities with an elected commissioner as chairman was a pretty good offer to start discussions. I would be interested in the comments of the noble Baroness on that.
Baroness Randerson
The original plan—the legislative consent Motion—that was put to the Assembly was on the basis of the Assembly Government appointing representatives to that panel. That was the offer that the Assembly rejected. The other proposal that the noble Lord mentioned earlier was not put formally. For the purposes of our discussion here this evening, that cannot be regarded as a formal offer. It is a great pity that that offer has not gone further but it was never put to the Assembly.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
It is just that I have a briefing here, which the noble Baroness probably has herself, which says,
“in a statement to the Assembly on 12th October, the Welsh Minister for Social Justice and Local Government … offered a compromise: ‘I have told the Home Secretary that we believe a compromise whereby, in Wales, police authorities remain, but with the elected commissioner as chair, would offer the democratic accountability that the Home Office is seeking, while maintaining the important strengths of the current system’”.
Baroness Randerson
That was a statement made to the Assembly, but it was not the legislative consent Motion that the Assembly was asked to vote on. The Minister will, I am sure, correct me if I am wrong, but my recollection is that that the Assembly was asked to vote on the issue of the appointment of representatives appointed by Welsh Ministers to serve on the new bodies.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
The noble Baroness is quite right. The matter that was put before the Welsh Assembly under the original provisions of the Bill was a very narrow one: whether the Welsh Assembly—in one way or another; I am not sure whether it was a ministerial or a plenary appointment, but it does not really matter—should select one person from a list, if I remember rightly, of seven different groups which are set out in the Bill. The Welsh Assembly said, “We so fundamentally disapprove of the Bill that we will not do that”. So it was a very narrow issue.
Baroness Randerson
That is my recollection of the procedure: the Minister may have made a statement, but this was not a formal offer made for the Assembly to accept or not. The point that the noble Lord makes is very relevant in that there are a number of different solutions to this. My point in speaking this evening is to urge the Minister to continue to make efforts to reach an agreement with the Welsh Assembly so that we can go forward, maybe not with perfection, but with a practical, workmanlike approach that will seek some kind of centre ground. I regret that it appears that the Minister concerned in Wales does not like the amendments put forward today, because they put the power in the hands of the Welsh Assembly. That is an aspect of the amendments that I heartily approve of, but Ministers, of course, do not approve of that kind of thing, do they? They like power to rest in their own hands, but the fact remains that I believe there is scope for further discussion and for agreement.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
My Lords, we have heard today that the Welsh Assembly is not responsible for policing and, unlike some previous noble Lords who have spoken, I believe that it would be premature to devolve all policing matters to Wales, but there are a number of areas where the Welsh Government do have statutory responsibilities—in particular, crime reduction and social justice. Local government, however, is a devolved competence in Wales and, in terms of police governance, police authorities in Wales have to follow rules set out by the Welsh Assembly on a range of matters including advice on the financial settlement for the police in Wales. It should also be noted that council tax in Wales has an influential impact on funding distributed and available for police authorities. These things are crucial; this is not an area where the Home Office can simply dictate what happens in Wales.
We are all aware that the Bill would abolish police authorities and replace them with directly elected police and crime commissioners. The reasons I believe these are unattractive have been well rehearsed in your Lordships’ House. The proposals will sweep away a system that works well in Wales, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has suggested. Police authorities in Wales have made a strong case against the proposals, based not on self-preservation but on a reasoned analysis of the argument for reform and the practical difficulties of the Home Office proposals. I emphasise that the purpose of this amendment is not to tackle the principle of elected police and crime commissioners, but simply to explain how arrangements for a commissioner and for police and crime panels would operate in Wales. It would give powers to the National Assembly of Wales to establish police and crime panels in Wales consistent with current devolved practices. There is a serious constitutional matter here that should be respected, and that is not the case as the Bill stands. I have received a letter from Carl Sargeant, the Minister responsible in the Welsh Government, giving his assurance that he would welcome support for this amendment, albeit with the slight changes that the Minister has indicated.
After the publication of the Bill, while it has recognised that there might be a constitutional issue to resolve here, rather than sit down and try to thrash out a compromise solution with the Assembly, the Home Office has now come up with amendments on Report suggesting that it is possible to circumvent the devolution settlement somehow by making the Home Secretary responsible for bringing together and supporting the locally elected representatives, rather than placing a duty on local authorities to convene them. That is a nice little effort in thwarting devolution and trying to impose a solution, but there are significant practical problems in terms of implementation as the Home Office simply does not have the infrastructure in Wales to deliver that kind of operation. If it cannot do it now, it certainly will not be able to do it after we see all the massive cuts that we are expecting from the Home Office.
The Government’s suggested solution also ignores the immense amount of co-operation that currently takes place between the police and other devolved agencies in Wales, as my noble friend Lord Wigley has pointed out. The introduction of a standalone proposal for policing governance that fails to emphasise the importance of joint working can serve only to undermine these positive working relationships.
By supporting the amendment, we are not trying to undermine the principle that the Government are trying to achieve—we are trying to do that elsewhere, but not here—but are asking simply for the devolution settlement to be respected and for a workable, practical system to be worked through, rather than an imposed one-size-fits-all solution as has been advocated here.
It is right to say that there have been issues regarding the negotiations. One of the issues has been that the Welsh Assembly Minister perhaps did not feel that he could accept something from the Government in the UK that he did not think it was in their gift to offer. It was a principled decision; he felt that he had to oppose the suggestion coming from the Home Office. I hope that he will take account of the discussions today and find some practical solution. If we can find a way through this, dialogue is probably the way forward if possible.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, in opening this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, made a strong and persuasive case for the devolution of policing to the Government of Wales. As we know, the reality is that policing is a reserved matter under the devolution settlement, but there are related matters that are devolved. I recognise that the Welsh Government remain opposed in principle to the abolition of police authorities in Wales and are against the proposal to replace them with directly elected police and crime commissioners. Although I touched on this in Committee, it might be of help to the House if I outline the history of what has happened and where I see us now.
In the absence of an agreement, with the Bill proceeding through its stages in your Lordships’ House, and with policing being a reserved matter, the UK Government, including the Secretary of State for Wales, remain of the opinion that it is not in the interests of the people of Wales to have a different governance and scrutiny structure for their forces. As I have explained to the House before, we do not believe that there can be two models of governance for a police service whose officers and assets so regularly cross the regional boundary between England and Wales in pursuit of making our communities safer and tackling crime.
When the original Bill entered the other place, there were certain elements that affected the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales. This was specifically with regard to the provision for police and crime panels to be formed and maintained by local authorities in the police area. As noble Lords are aware, the Welsh Assembly has legislative competence over oversight and scrutiny committees of local authorities. Therefore, in respecting the devolution settlement, the Government agreed with the view of the Welsh Assembly Government that the consent of the Assembly would be required to legislate on establishing police and crime panels in the form set out in the original Bill.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, I most warmly and sincerely thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this little cameo of a debate in relation to Welsh policing. I am deeply grateful to the Minister for the most courteous and charming way in which she has dealt with the matters, albeit in a somewhat technical way. However, Wales has not triumphed tonight, but there is an old adage in the Welsh language—“Dyfal donc a dyr y garreg”, which means: it takes many a patient knock to break the rock. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
“(2A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b), the “appropriate number” is—
(a) two, or(b) if a resolution of the panel under sub-paragraph (2B) is in force, the number of co-opted members specified in that resolution. (2B) A police and crime panel may resolve that the panel is to have the number of co-opted members specified in the resolution; but no such resolution may be passed unless—
(a) that number of co-opted members is greater than two;(b) the Secretary of State agrees that the panel should have that number of co-opted members; and(c) the total membership of the panel, including that number of co-opted members, would not exceed 20.”
Baroness Browning
“(2A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b), the “appropriate number” is—
(a) two, or(b) if a resolution of the panel under sub-paragraph (2B) is in force, the number of co-opted members specified in that resolution.(2B) A police and crime panel may resolve that the panel is to have the number of co-opted members specified in the resolution; but no such resolution may be passed unless—
(a) that number of co-opted members is greater than two;(b) the Secretary of State agrees that the panel should have that number of co-opted members; and(c) the total membership of the panel, including that number of co-opted members, would not exceed 20.”
Baroness Browning
“22A(1) If the police and crime panel for a police area has two co-opted members, a member of a local authority which is covered by that police area may not be a co-opted member of that panel.
(2) If the police and crime panel for a police area has three or more co-opted members, a member of a local authority which is covered by that police area may be a co-opted member of that panel only if at least two of the other co-opted members are not members of any such local authority.”
Baroness Browning
“(ba) paragraphs 7C and 7D of Schedule 1;”
“( ) A police and crime panel must, in co-opting persons who are members of relevant local authorities, secure that (as far is reasonably practicable) the balanced appointment objective is met.
( ) A police and crime panel—
(a) must, from time to time, decide whether the panel’s exercise of the power conferred by paragraph 4(2B) or 13(2B) (changing the number of co-opted members of the panel) would enable the balanced appointment objective to be, or would contribute to that objective being, met or more effectively met; and(b) if the panel decides that the exercise of the power would do so, must exercise that power accordingly.”
“( ) For that purpose “local authority members” means—
(a) appointed members of the police and crime panel, and(b) co-opted members of the panel who are members of relevant local authorities.”
“Duty to nominate elected mayor to be a member of the panel“31A(1) This paragraph applies if—
(a) a local authority has a mayor and cabinet executive, and(b) the elected mayor of that executive is not a member of the relevant police and crime panel.(2) If the relevant local authority has power under paragraph 6(2), 7(2), 8(2) or (3) or 16(2) to nominate one or more of its councillors to be members of that panel, any exercise of that power must be such as to secure that the elected mayor is the councillor, or one of the councillors, so nominated.
(3) If the Secretary of State is required by paragraph 10(2), 16(4)(b) or 18(2) to nominate one or more persons to be members of that panel, the Secretary of State must secure that the elected mayor is the person, or one of the persons, so nominated.
(4) The duty in sub-paragraph (2) or (3) does not apply at a particular time if the person who holds office as the elected mayor at that time (the “current mayor”)—
(a) has, since the start of the current mayoral term, already been nominated to be a member of that panel (whether by the relevant local authority or the Secretary of State), and(b) did not become a member of that panel by virtue of the nomination.(5) But sub-paragraph (4) does not prevent the exercise of a power under this Schedule so as to make a further nomination of the current mayor to be a member of that panel.
31B (1) This paragraph applies if—
(a) a local authority has a mayor and cabinet executive,(b) under paragraph 6(2), 7(2), 8(2) or (3) or 16(2) the local authority nominates the person who holds office as elected mayor of the executive at that time (the “current mayor”) to be a member of the relevant police and crime panel,(c) that is the first such nomination of the current mayor since the start of the current mayoral term, and(d) the current mayor does not become a member of that panel by virtue of the nomination.(2) The Secretary of State may not, by virtue of that failure of the current mayor to become a member of the police and crime panel, nominate a person to be a member of that panel under paragraph 10(2) or 16(4)(b).
31C (1) This paragraph applies for the purposes of paragraphs 31A and 31B and this paragraph.
(2) A reference to the start of the current mayoral term of a person who is the elected mayor of the executive of a local authority is a reference to the time when that person—
(a) took office as elected mayor of that executive (if that person has been so elected on only one occasion), or(b) most recently took office as elected mayor of that executive (if that person has been so elected on two or more occasions).(3) The “relevant police and crime panel”, in relation to a local authority, is the police and crime panel for the police area which covers that authority.
(4) The expressions “elected mayor” and “mayor and cabinet executive” have the same meanings as in Part 2 of the Local Government Act 2000.”
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester)
I have to advise the House that if Amendment 139 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 140 for reason of pre-emption.
Amendment 139
Baroness Browning
“(a) amend or otherwise modify any local authority enactment in its application to police and crime panels or members of police and crime panels, and(b) apply any local authority enactment (with or without modifications) to police and crime panels or members of police and crime panels if, or to the extent that, it does not so apply.(2) In this paragraph “local authority enactment” means an enactment which relates to—
(a) local authorities or committees or joint committees of local authorities, or(b) members of such authorities, committees or joint committees.”
Baroness Browning
“( ) If a police and crime panel requires the relevant police and crime commissioner to attend before the panel, the panel may (at reasonable notice) request the relevant chief constable to attend before the panel on the same occasion to answer any question which appears to the panel to be necessary in order for it to carry out its functions.”
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
“( ) In this section and that Schedule “relevant officer holder” means the holder of any of the following offices—
(a) police and crime commissioner;(b) deputy police and crime commissioner;(c) the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime;(d) Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime.
Baroness Browning
“which relate to any relevant office holder.”
(a) relate to a holder of the office of—(i) police and crime commissioner,(ii) deputy police and crime commissioner, or(iii) Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime (unless the holder of that office is a member of the London Assembly), and”
“3A (1) This paragraph applies in relation to qualifying complaints which—
(a) relate to a holder of the office of—(i) the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, or(ii) Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime, if the holder of that office is a member of the London Assembly, and(b) are not, or cease to be, investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission or a police force.(2) Regulations must secure that such complaints are dealt with in accordance with Part 3 of the Local Government Act 2000.”
“(2) But that does not apply to regulations under, or for the purposes of, paragraph 3A.”
(a) ”
(b) for the purposes of paragraph 3A.”
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
“( ) The following provisions apply to the police and crime panel—
(a) the number of members of the panel, and their term of office, are to be fixed by the London Assembly;(b) persons who are not members of the London Assembly may be members of the panel.( ) The following provisions apply to any sub-committee by which police and crime panel functions are to be discharged—
(a) the number of members of the sub-committee, and their term of office, are to be fixed by the police and crime panel;(b) persons who are not members of the London Assembly may be members of the sub-committee.( ) The police and crime panel functions must be exercised with a view to supporting the effective exercise of the functions of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime.”
Baroness Browning
“( ) If the London Assembly requires the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime, or the person who is the occupant of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, to attend proceedings, the Assembly may (at reasonable notice) request the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to attend proceedings on the same occasion for the purpose of giving evidence.”
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
(a) that person is, or has been, a constable in any part of the United Kingdom, and(b) ”
Baroness Browning
Lord Beecham
Baroness Browning
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I have to advise the House that if we accept Amendment 193, I cannot call Amendment 193A for reasons of pre-emption.
Baroness Browning
“( ) In a case where a deputy chief constable or assistant chief constable (the “acting chief constable”) is authorised by subsection (1)(a) or (5) to exercise or perform functions of a chief constable—
(a) the powers of the police and crime commissioner under section 39(2) and (3) are exercisable in relation to the acting chief constable as the powers are exercisable in relation to the chief constable (and references to chief constables in those provisions, and in other enactments relating to those provisions, are to be read accordingly); and(b) the powers under section 40(4) and (5) or section 41(4) and (5) are not exercisable in relation to the acting chief constable.”
Baroness Browning
Lord Harris of Haringey
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 201 to 205. I share with the Government a desire to strengthen and improve police accountability. That is what I understood the Bill to be all about. I have to say that, during your Lordships’ consideration of the Bill, I have slowly realised that the Bill will weaken the accountability of the police to the public. In fact, some changes made in the Bill remove the levers that police authorities currently have to ensure that the police service in their area is accountable. There will be fewer powers and fewer levers for the police and crime commissioners and the MOPC in London as a result of this Bill.
Indeed, the diminution of police accountability in London is even worse than in the rest of the country. First, London will not have the benefit of an individual who is directly elected to be responsible for policing. We will not have the visible answerability of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and his senior officers to public forums. The police authority will disappear, as will the expectation that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis will appear there. There will be a special meeting of members of the Metropolitan Police Authority on Thursday to question the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis about the latest issues and allegations concerning phone hacking and related matters. That public answerability of the police will disappear because all that the Government are substituting for that is the right to invite by the London Assembly, which is of course a current right. All that will disappear as a consequence of the Government’s Bill.
We are also now being told that in practice the Mayor of London and the MOPC will have no say in the selection of the most senior police officers in the London areas, which is why I have tabled this series of amendments. Certainly the Mayor of London and the MOPC will have less influence than they do at present. I find that extraordinary. This Government have told us that they want to strengthen police accountability. Why then have they diminished it, really very substantially as far as London is concerned? No senior officer, in fact no officer at all, of the Metropolitan Police will be appointed on the say-so or otherwise of the Mayor of London or the MOPC. That will simply not exist. The Minister is looking baffled, but that is the reality of the legislation that is being proposed.
The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis will be appointed by Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary is required merely to “have regard” to the recommendations of the MOPC. That is not a very strong power, given that the whole basis of this Bill is supposed to be that the directly elected individual should be able to appoint the most senior police officer in their area. At present, because the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is a royal appointment, there is a joint interview between the Home Secretary and the Mayor of London to determine the nature of the recommendation that is made. Fortunately, when this structure has been tested, the Mayor of London and the Home Secretary have agreed on that recommendation. It is not quite clear what would happen if they did not agree, but the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis must have the confidence of the Home Secretary and the Mayor of London or the MOPC in the future. This Bill does not provide for such a strength in that purpose. There is no expectation of a joint interview. There is no expectation that the Mayor of London and the MOPC will have any right other than to make recommendations to which the Home Secretary will have regard. That is a very weak involvement.
Thus begins a declining scale of involvement of the Mayor of London and the MOPC. For the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the Home Secretary is required only “to consider” representations from the MOPC. That is not even “have regard” to; it is “to consider” representations. For assistant commissioners, deputy assistant commissioners and commanders, all chief officer ranks outside London, the most that is expected is a consultation process. That is why this Bill is so weak on accountability in the London area. That is why this Bill takes away from the Mayor of London even his current responsibilities in relation to senior police officers in the force.
I have therefore tabled a series of amendments that would mean that the Home Secretary’s recommendation had to be agreed with the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime in respect of the commissioner and deputy commissioner and that no person should be appointed as an assistant commissioner, a deputy assistant commissioner or a commander without the consent of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. I know that the Government wish to put chief officers of police in the driving seat for this process. This series of amendments would not alter it—it says that the MOPC should have to give consent. That is a pretty minimalist requirement and expectation if you really believe the Government’s own rhetoric that this Bill is about strengthening accountability and empowering the directly elected representative of the people to have responsibility for the police service in their area. I find it bizarre that the Government, having made such a song and dance about how this Bill is all about strengthening police accountability, are going to leave London, and for that matter the rest of the country, with less influence over policing. I beg to move.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, is it in order to ask the Minister a question? The speakers list for today gives an estimated time of rising of 11 pm and it is now after 10.05 pm. However, it says that the target is to be confirmed. We have not had it confirmed. As Amendment 242 is tabled in my name, and we are now at Amendment 200, can the Minister enlighten me as to whether we intend to take it tonight?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
With the greatest respect, there is no agreement except to go to 11 pm so I would have thought the noble Lord could go home.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey has drawn attention to the clauses in the Bill which are a subject of concern to him and which his amendments seek to rectify. If I have understood him correctly, the first is Clause 43, “Appointment of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis”, subsection (3) of which says:
“Before recommending to Her Majesty that She appoint a constable as the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the Secretary of State must have regard to any recommendations made by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime”.
This presumably means that the Secretary of State could chose to ignore any such recommendation since it does not say “must accept them” or “must reach agreement”
The next is Clause 44, “Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis”, subsection (4) which says:
“Before recommending to Her Majesty that She appoint a person as the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the Secretary of State must have regard to … any representations made by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime”.
Once again, presumably it can be inferred that the Secretary of State could totally ignore those representations.
Moving further down, Clause 46, “Assistant Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis”, says:
“The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis must consult the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime before appointing a person as an Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis”.
Once again, the requirement is to “consult” so, presumably, the Commissioner of Police, having consulted, could appoint whoever he or she wanted to appoint.
Clause 48, “Commanders”, in subsection (2) of that clause, says:
“The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis must consult the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime before appointing a person as a Commander”.
Once again, the role is to “consult”, rather than to reach agreement with, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime.
This group of amendments, tabled by my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey, provides that before the Secretary of State recommends to Her Majesty that she appoint a councillor as the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis or a person as the deputy commissioner, the Secretary of State must,
“agree that recommendation with the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime”.
Likewise, the amendments provide that no person shall be appointed as assistant commissioner, deputy assistant commissioner or commander by the commissioner of police,
“without the consent of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime”.
One would have thought that the amendments addressed the issue of the responsibilities of the police and crime commissioner in London—namely, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime—and whether it is realistic that either a Secretary of State or a Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis should in effect be able to ignore the views of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and make appointments for the most senior positions and other senior posts without the support and agreement of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime.
The Government appear to see the police and crime commissioners as key players in future in increasing public accountability for police, including strategy. The Mayor of London already has overall responsibility for policing in the metropolis, albeit he does not actually have time to carry out this role—so he has, in effect, handed it on to somebody who is not directly elected to carry that responsibility. If the intention is that the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime is ultimately responsible and accountable to the public for policing, as far as the Government are concerned, surely it cannot be right that the mayor’s office can find that the Secretary of State and the commissioner have made a series of senior appointments, including that of the commissioner, with which the accountable mayor’s office does not agree and would not have made.
I share the feelings of my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey in that I am not clear why these amendments are not fully in line with the stated objectives of the Government’s proposals for the future structure and accountability for policing and should therefore apply in London.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, offered a picture of a golden age of policing accountability in London that is about to disappear. I was under the impression that under current arrangements the Metropolitan Police Authority has no power to compel the commissioner to appear before it but has the right to invite the commissioner to appear before it, as its successor body will have under the Bill.
Lord Harris of Haringey
The Minister is confusing the Metropolitan Police Authority and the London Assembly, which at present has no power to compel; it has the power to invite, and that is all that the Government are offering the London Assembly and its policing panel. That was merely by way of an introduction to my more significant remarks. But I think that the Minister is confused.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I still hold to my view that the noble Lord is exaggerating enormously the difference between where we are now and where we will be.
Lord Harris of Haringey
The Minister is misunderstanding the point. At present, the visible answerability of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis is to the Metropolitan Police Authority. Those meetings take place once a month. In the case of the current month, there will probably be an additional meeting in which the commissioner will answer questions in public to the body to which he is accountable on issues concerning the controversies of which we are all aware about phone hacking. That will disappear, and all that the Government are offering in its place is the right to invite by the London Assembly panel.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I take the noble Lord’s point, but these amendments are primarily concerned with the question of appointment. The noble Lord’s amendments are concerned to shift the balance of authority in terms of appointments, with senior appointments between the Secretary of State and MOPC and for other appointments to strengthen the power of the MOPC. My understanding is that the mayor will be able to make recommendations to the Secretary of State, but the national and international responsibilities of the Metropolitan Police are such that the Bill proposes that the final decision should be taken by the Secretary of State on the appointment of the commissioner and the deputy commissioner. The mayor will have the right to make recommendations, which will of course be taken fully into account. That is the whole purpose of the phrase “to have regard”; we envisage a dialogue and a process, but not one that can lead to deadlock between the two authorities, because of the particular national and international responsibilities of the Metropolitan Police.
In terms of other appointments below that of deputy commissioner, the Bill as a whole clings to the idea of the operational independence of the police. It will be the right of the chief constable or of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in this case to make other appointments. These of course will be made in consultation with the MOPC and there will also be external supervision, but the principle will be one of police independence; a clear line of responsibility from the commissioner and the deputy commissioner will then follow for other appointments within the force.
The noble Lord wishes to have the MOPC in the central position; we are putting the MOPC in the position of scrutiny and accountability and not in one of control. That is not dissimilar to the current position. He is asking for a much stronger position for the MOPC than has been the case in the past—
Lord Harris of Haringey
Can you tell me why it is stronger? What element have you strengthened in this Bill? Give me one example of an element in which you have strengthened the role of the MOPC compared with the existing police authority.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
The noble Lord misunderstands me. I said you are asking for a much stronger position for the MOPC than there was even under the previous regime. That is the point I am making.
Lord Harris of Haringey
At present the Metropolitan Police Authority appoints all officers between the ranks of assistant commissioner and commander. That disappears and the MOPC has no role other than to be consulted. The current position for the appointment of the commissioner and the deputy commissioner is that there are joint interviews; there is nothing in this Bill which allows that to continue.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I stand corrected but I hold to the principle which runs through this Bill—that of the independence of the police in terms of command and senior appointment and the international and national role of the Metropolitan Police as an exception in this regard. This is why the Bill is written in this form. On that basis I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I have to say that I do not think the Minister has addressed the central problem. What he is actually doing for the most prominent directly elected individual in the country is reducing that individual’s responsibility for the police service in that area. The Bill removes from the mayor and the MOPC the powers that currently exist. That means that in future the Mayor of London will have less influence over the Metropolitan Police than he and the MPA currently have. That is an extraordinary reversal of what this Bill seems to be about.
I find it extraordinary that the Minister’s response has not addressed that central question. Of course, the Metropolitan Police has a national and international function, which is why, exceptionally, it should be a joint appointment rather than simply the appointment of the mayor’s office. That is the concession that ought to be made as far as the national and international functions are concerned. I fail to see why assistant commissioners, who rank as chief officers of police everywhere else in the country, are not part of the responsibility of the mayor’s office. The Government are diminishing the authority of the mayor in respect of policing in London, and that runs directly counter to the Government’s own rhetoric as to what this Bill is about.
I urge the Government to consider this in the few remaining days that we have left for the consideration of this Bill. On the basis that I am sure they will wish to do so, and to receive further representations from the Mayor of London on this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Doocey
“Transitional arrangements
(1) The provisions of sections 1 to 50 are subject to this section.
(2) Sections 1 to 50 shall not come into effect until 1st October after the first ordinary elections under section 51 have taken place.
(3) The Secretary of State shall make regulations to ensure that the police authorities established for police areas under section 3 of the Police Act 1996 (establishment of police authorities) and the Metropolitan Police Authority continue to exercise their functions until such time as the provisions of sections 1 to 50 come into effect.”
Baroness Doocey
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 310. The purpose of Amendment 206A is to delay the implementation of Clauses 1 to 50 until October 2012 and to allow for a transitional period. During the period until then, the existing arrangements will continue to operate, so in London the Metropolitan Police Authority will continue to exercise its functions until such time as the provisions of Sections 1 to 50 come into effect. The purpose of Amendment 310 is also to move the implementation of this Bill in London from December this year to October next year.
The Government and the Mayor of London are keen to introduce the new system as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. The Bill as it stands would allow this to happen. The Government’s prime duty is to keep London and the country safe. Therefore implementation should be timed optimally to ensure that the transition does not compromise public safety. When we consider issues around public safety, we need to bear in mind that there are some very significant events in 2012. We will have the Olympic Torch Relay from May to July, the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee in June, the Olympic Games in July and August and the Paralympic Games in September. These major events will require a policing operation on an unprecedented scale, so it is difficult to understand why the Government are hell-bent on implementing the changes before these events take place.
My main concern is the policing of the Olympic Games. The Metropolitan Police has described the Games as one of the,
“biggest security challenges the British police have ever faced in peacetime”.
Presidents, kings and queens, heads of state and athletes from all over the world will come together. Their protection will require a security operation of extraordinary complexity. In order to meet this challenge, the Metropolitan Police and the Home Office have spent years planning for every eventuality. As circumstances develop and situations change, these plans are subject to continual revision. The vast majority of Olympic events will take place in London and police officers will be drafted in from every police force in the country to help with the huge operation. For the Government to force the Metropolitan Police to divert their efforts from the security of the Games to a major reorganisation at this critical time almost beggars belief.
Besides the major events I have listed, there is another important event happening in London next year; namely, the mayoral election in May. This election creates a different but no less significant set of problems. It could result in a change of mayor. The new mayor may have a very different vision for the direction of policing in London. If so, this could confront the Metropolitan Police with yet further disruption before the Games. One wonders whether the Government’s unseemly haste may be designed to create a fait accompli ahead of the mayoral election.
Whenever this Bill is implemented, it will require a major reorganisation of the Metropolitan Police. The changes proposed have been described by Sir Hugh Orde, president of ACPO, as,
“some of the most radical changes to police governance since 1829”.
Reorganisations are very disruptive. We all know the anxieties being expressed around the NHS. This particular reorganisation will require the police to change all their reporting structures and to get to know, brief and get up to speed a completely new set of stakeholders and board members. As anyone who has ever served on a police authority will know, gaining an understanding of policing issues is no easy task; it takes time. Let us not forget that this huge organisational change is to be delivered within a framework and climate of an expected reduction in the Met’s spending of some £600 million by 2014-15. Savings to be delivered this year, of £163 million, have already resulted in a two-year pay freeze for police officers and staff, the withdrawing of special payments for police officers and a review of the terms and conditions of police staff.
The reorganisation will be work-intensive, expensive and time-consuming. It should happen at a time when it does not conflict with the London Olympics, so that the police may concentrate their energies and efforts on the huge security challenges surrounding the Games.
The Government have said on a number of occasions that they want to implement the Bill before the Olympics because the Met is in favour of early implementation. In a previous debate in this House on 16 June, my noble friend the Minister said that,
“not just the Mayor of London but the Commissioner of the Metropolis is also keen for the transition from MPA governance to that of the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime as soon as possible after Royal Assent is achieved for this Bill … we have double-checked that there is no real concern with the mayor or the commissioner”.—[Official Report, 16/6/11; col. 1033.]
Well, of course there is no concern from the mayor: he wants the changes before the mayoral elections next May. But what the commissioner actually said to Nick Herbert in his letter of 22 June is:
“London should move forward with the new model as soon as is practicably possible ... there are some measures that need to be put in place in order that the new structures can work effectively. Clearly if these cannot be implemented in the time available, the arguments for going early become less compelling”.
This is somewhat different from the Government’s claim that the commissioner is “keen” and that there are no real concerns.
In addition, the commissioner has always been entirely consistent in his view that it is for the Government and Parliament to decide the governance and accountability arrangements for policing, so it is not surprising that he will carry out the democratic wishes of Parliament. It is therefore disingenuous for Ministers to claim that the Metropolitan Police wants early implementation so we must do as it says. Governments ignore the advice of the police whenever it suits them. Detention of suspects is just one example.
A delay until October 2012 is not drastic; it is only a few months later than the Government envisage. By October 2012, Londoners will have enjoyed the Diamond Jubilee celebrations and the Olympic and Paralympic Games. They will have a mayor who has been elected for four years setting a direction over how London is to be policed. Let us allow this direction to be set in a period of calm, with time to think. Let us also give senior police officers the time and space to prepare for these new directions. We need only to delay these changes for a few months, and London will be a better place for it.
I have no doubt that if the Government go ahead and implement this Bill before October 2012, it will cause serious disruption to the policing of the London Olympics and other major events taking place next year. This proposed reorganisation will cause immense disruption at the worst possible time and compromise the safety of our citizens. I therefore appeal to the Minister, even at this late stage, to reconsider this seriously flawed decision. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I support the amendment for a number of reasons. First, the Bill is amazingly silent on transitional arrangements. In the immediate aftermath of the vote on the first day in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised with a degree of interruption and noises off—from me, I appreciate—the question of the transitional arrangements that should be in force before a new system is put in place. I would not go as far as those who reorganised London government in the 1960s where there was one year of shadow operation. But I note that there were several months of shadow operation when the new arrangements in London for the Assembly and the mayor took effect. All the Bill provides for in terms of a transition period is seven days—seven calendar days, one week—for transition from one system of governance to another. That seems strikingly short to me, under any set of circumstances. However, that is the smallest and most insignificant of reasons for supporting this amendment.
My admiration for the Home Secretary grows every day, because of the bravery she shows. In Sir Humphrey Appleby terms, the decisions she is taking on policing are extremely brave. Currently, in policing, there is a most extraordinary agenda of change. There are substantial budget reductions, starting with the current year, and moving through next year and the rest of the CSR period. Major changes are proposed for the terms and conditions of police officers, which will at least cause a degree of stress, uncertainty and confusion, if not downright anger from many police officers. Changes are proposed in the pensions of police officers, which are also causing a substantial degree of distress, concern and anger. That is all happening at the same time as other parts of the public sector are withdrawing various functions from their activities so that more will be expected of the police force.
At the same time, we have the challenge of the Olympics, which is probably the largest policing challenge that has ever been faced in this country, comparing a modern Olympiad with the last time that London hosted the Olympics, in 1948. There is the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee. Wedged in that very short interval between the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games is the Notting Hill Carnival, Europe’s largest street festival, involving major policing resources. In the midst of all this, our brave Home Secretary is proposing that we change the governance arrangements for policing in London and the rest of the country.
In supporting this amendment I am not trying to frustrate the Government’s intention. I am simply trying to point out that there are major risks in doing this on that timetable, with one week’s transition. That is all that is envisaged for the rest of the country and it is very unclear when the transition in London might take place. All of that will occur, at a time when all of these other things are going on.
I know that our brave Home Secretary has taken the decision to reduce the security alert status, which is always a brave decision for any Home Secretary because that supposes that you know of everything that might be just around the corner. However, the security situation is that there is a very serious terrorist threat against the Olympic Games. There are enormous public order and security challenges. It is not just al-Qaeda and its affiliates that we should be concerned about. Because of the global interest in the Olympic Games—with an estimated several billion people watching the opening ceremony on television around the world—this is an opportunity for any organisation anywhere in the world, pursuing its local objectives, to get publicity on a global scale. The threat is enormous, and in the midst of it our brave Home Secretary plans to change the governance arrangements for policing.
The amendment is very modest. It does not frustrate the Government's objectives. It merely says, “At least get the Olympic and Paralympic Games out of the way before you make this change”. Is there any need for further distraction under the circumstances? Is there any need for that degree of disruption? Is it not better to wait for a few short months, which will have the added benefit of allowing a sensible period of transition to the new governance arrangements? I urge noble Lords to support the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, my recollection of the transition/shadow period for the Greater London Authority was that it was very short and clearly not long enough, but that is not the point I will make tonight.
I sometimes think that, faced with a difficult decision, it is wise to ask oneself, “How will I feel, looking back in six months or a year, if I did or did not do something?”. In this situation, if the Government postpone the changes in London, they will be able to look back a year and a half from now and say, “Phew, that went okay. What damage did we do by not making the changes? Well, none really. What damage have we suffered? Maybe a little to our egos, but does that matter?”. How much better to be in that situation if there has been a problem, which may or may not be related to the changes in governance, than to be told by the noble Lord opposite or my noble friend behind me, “Well, we did warn you”, and for the world to say, “You were warned”.
I do not see a problem if the Government make what is hardly even a concession but more a slight shift in thinking. The balance is between very little on the one hand, and possibly nothing but possibly something catastrophic on the other.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and my noble friend for raising this matter. The Government’s approach to the Bill is on a par with their approach to other pieces of legislation. We have already seen the debacle of the Public Bodies Bill, and the Government are replicating the approach with the Health Bill. I declare an interest as chair of a foundation trust and as a trainer consultant in the NHS. The NHS is facing the biggest challenge that it has ever faced in reducing its spending and in its efficiency programme. At the same time, the Government are drawing up all the structural bodies that are in place and forcing the health service to devote a huge amount of time to structural issues when it should be focusing on how on earth it will cope with the largest reductions in real-terms funding that it has ever faced.
It seems that the same thing is happening to our police forces. The Government have drawn all the wrong conclusions from the first Blair Administration. They feel that they need to speed on, but destruction is inevitable because of the speed with which they are moving. I can only conclude that it is because no senior Minister in the Government has any experience whatever of running anything. If they had, they would not rush in the way the Government are rushing, with no understanding of the impact on essential public services.
When one considers the challenges facing the Metropolitan Police—I shall not go through the list again but they include: the Olympics; the continuing threat of terrorism; the mayoral elections; the budget reductions; staff issues, to which my noble friend referred, including pensions; and the phone hacking issue—it is obvious that over the next months and years there will be intense scrutiny on the force and its senior officers. There are to be two inquiries into the phone hacking issue, one of which is bound to look in close detail at the actions of the Metropolitan Police. The last thing the force needs during the next two to three years is to cope with a structural change in governance. The noble Baroness’s amendment is eminently sensible, and I hope that even at this late stage the Government will give it sympathetic consideration.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I reiterate what I have said in previous discussions on this subject to my noble friend Lady Doocey: the commissioner has personally asked the Home Secretary to go as early as possible with London. That is a fact. The commissioner, deputy commissioner, the mayor and deputy mayor are very keen for the London provisions to be commenced as soon as possible.
My noble friend mentioned a letter. That letter outlines issues that the commissioner has flagged up for the Government to look at so that London can go early. The issues in the letter are being looked at and many of them have already been agreed in earlier amendments in the House. We debated earlier today the government amendments to the transitional provisions in the Bill to ensure that the PCCs and the MOPC can operate effectively from the outset and that there is no need for a period of shadow operation. The changes to policing governance do not affect operational control and so will not impact on operational issues.
We are going round this circuit for about the third time. My noble friend may totally disagree with me but I have checked and double checked—as has my right honourable friend the Minister of State in another place—to make sure that our understanding of both the commissioner’s and the mayor’s view on this subject are as we have described them in this House. I can but repeat what I have already said to my noble friend in the House: they are keen to commence as soon as possible and they have in no way sought to delay London.
Baroness Doocey
My Lords, I have listened to the Minister with a very heavy heart because, being an eternal optimist, I had hoped against hope that the Government might take some responsibility upon themselves and say, “We are the Government and we are making the decision. On reflection, we do not think that it is a good idea to put citizens’ lives at risk in order to implement the changes in the Bill immediately”.
I have concluded that I have done everything possible to persuade the Government that this is not only a bad idea but a positively dangerous one. I have also concluded that all my pleas have fallen on deaf ears, and it is with a heavy heart that I feel I have no choice but to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“( ) about the regulation of spending with the intention of influencing the outcome of an election by campaigners who are not standing in that election;”
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I do not have any other amendments in this group but there are also the two government amendments, Amendment 230 and Amendment 234, and Amendment 231 from the noble Baroness, Lady Henig.
My amendment repeats an amendment tabled and spoken to by my noble friend Lord Shipley at the previous stage. This point was drawn to our attention by the Electoral Commission—I am well aware that the Minister was until recently a commissioner—regarding funding by third parties. The Electoral Commission pointed out that it would be helpful, useful or necessary—I do not remember which; I suspect necessary in its view otherwise it would not have contacted us—to add a regulation about spending by those who seek to influence the outcome of an election: that is campaigners who are not themselves standing. It seemed to me that in the Minister’s reply to the debate on 6 June there was not a response to this point and I hope that she will take this opportunity to give an answer.
I also have a point on the Minister’s Amendment 230 which disapplies, as it were, the two-term limit on commissioners. She will recall that I tried to do the opposite by imposing a two-term limit on the MOPC to bring it in line with commissioners outside London, and therefore my sympathy for this amendment is limited, but I do understand the need for consistency. The amendment is being proposed, I believe, because of arguments that, faced with the prospect of an election coming down the track, accountability will be limited in the eyes of commissioners because in the second four years they do not have the prospect of a further election. My short point is that there is always going to be a final four years. I do not see that this is going to avoid that problem entirely and it could of course mean that some commissioners remain in office for a long time. That can do nothing but increase the concerns that have been expressed about the concentration of power in one person’s hands. I beg to move.
Baroness Henig
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 231 and Amendment 234 in this group. I hope your Lordships will have noted the balanced symmetry of my amendments, one with the Minister for the Government and the other with my noble friend Lord Hunt, leading for the loyal Opposition, so I have one with each person in this group.
Amendment 231, which I have tabled with the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, and my noble friend Lord Hunt, suggests that no serving police officer or a person who has served as a police officer in the past 10 years may stand as a commissioner. Amendment 234, tabled, I am delighted to say, with the support of the Government, will ensure that noble Members of this House may be elected as commissioners and continue to fulfil their duties within the House. It removes Clause 74 which would have barred your Lordships from being both a commissioner and an active Peer, a proposal which, as I recall, caused considerable disquiet in Committee. I am very happy that this amendment provides the Government with a way out of what I am absolutely certain would have been a defeat on this proposal and spares the Benches opposite from any further blushes on this Bill. I look forward to the possibility of noble colleagues—not myself, I hasten to add—who may consider putting themselves forward to be commissioners. If they do that I will look forward to hearing about their experiences on their probably infrequent visits back to this House. That option should be open. Under this amendment it will be open. I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to that amendment.
On serving police officers—or people who have served as a police officer in the last 10 years—then serving as a commissioner, that proposal is not intended as a slight on the noble profession of police officers in England and Wales. There may well be individual police officers whose skill sets would enable them to be very effective commissioners. The valued contributions in your Lordships’ House of noble Lords who have previously served as chief commissioners are testament to that. Yet here, we are 827 noble Lords. The expert contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Blair, Lord Condon, Lord Dear and Lord Stevens, and others are a valuable addition to debates on policing, alongside the views of a whole host of others—civil libertarians, local government experts and those with other viewpoints from outside the policing profession. Peers with a policing background bring a valuable perspective but they are not the sole arbiter of policing policy. I dare say that they would not wish to be.
The fact is that these commissioners will be a novelty introduction to British politics—a sole, directly elected arbiter of policy in one particular area, effectively unconstrained by his or her peers, or by Cabinet or other collegiate responsibility and elections every four years. It is incumbent on us to ensure that such a single individual can carry as much public trust and confidence as possible. He or she must be seen to be impartial in holding the police to account. Perhaps controversially, I am not convinced that under this system, reliant on a single individual, one person who is associated exclusively with the police service could carry the perception of impartiality from the police force that is necessary if every section of the community is to trust that their police force is being held rigorously to account.
We have an established principle in our public life whereby there are safeguards against what the public could reasonably perceive as potential conflicts of interest, or undue or improper influence, as individuals with relevant experience move between related fields. For instance, the Ministerial Code of May 2010 makes it clear that no former Minister may take up an appointment with a lobbying company for at least two years after leaving office. I am not suggesting that the parallels with policing are exact but the public has an expectation that, if an individual has been on one side of the fence and decides to swap over, there should be an appropriate break between the two to mitigate against the perception of conflicts of interest.
The noble Baroness, my noble friend and I are not wedded to 10 years but believe that there should be some separation between people serving as police officers and then standing as commissioners. Maybe 10 years is not considered appropriate but there should certainly be some period of time. That period would also enable any police officers who would be commissioner candidates to broaden their experience of fields beyond policing, perhaps trying business or community-based endeavours, not to mention developing the contacts and support that they would undoubtedly need in order to be elected.
One or two other matters are worth mentioning briefly. One that bothers me is that, without the safeguards offered by the amendment, it is possible that a disaffected police officer could choose to stand as a commissioner so that he or she might laud it over his or her chief constable or force. I hate to mention that but I have come across individuals who have had those motives. One cannot rule that out completely. It may sound fanciful but it is a real risk and one that we should take the opportunity to remove now.
Given the hour, I am trying to be as brief as possible. I encourage the House to look at this carefully. The amendment in relation to police officers would be a step towards preserving and not diminishing the recent substantial gains that the police and authorities have together made in raising public trust and confidence in the police and the impartiality of those who hold them to account.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I welcome the two government amendments, which we are glad to support. On Amendment 218, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has done a great service by bringing this issue to your Lordships’ attention.
I am assuming that the noble Baroness will be able to say that the order-making power in the Bill is sufficient, but if not, it would be helpful if she acknowledged that. She will be equally helpful in relation to my own Amendment 231; alas, perhaps I am wildly optimistic on that.
I agree with the worries expressed by my noble friend Lady Henig about whether it is right and appropriate for former police officers to stand for election as police and crime commissioners. There are two areas we might discuss. First is the question raised by my noble friend about disaffected police officers. There are known to be disaffected police officers; they do surface from time to time. I worry about such a person being elected as a police and crime commissioner and the approach that they would then take to the chief constable and the force over which they had such influence. I also worry about any police officer elected as a police and crime commissioner.
Noble Lords will know that one of my major concerns about the legislation is that, in effect, the police and crime commissioner will act as the chief constable. We have still to hear about the Memorandum of Understanding—I assume we will come back to that on Third Reading—but even with a statutory Memorandum of Understanding, in the end all the levers are with the police and crime commissioner. I believe that it is almost inevitable that that person will seek to unduly influence the way in which the chief constable operates. It would be even worse if the police and crime commissioner is a former police officer. The temptation, the itch, to intervene in the details of that force would, I believe, be overwhelming. I know that it is unusual, when it comes to elections, for us to say there is a category of people who ought not to be able to stand, but in the case of police and crime commissioners, who are corporations sole, we have a huge responsibility. I wonder whether it would be appropriate for a former police officer to stand.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, the House will be aware that, as originally drafted, the Bill provided that a PCC could only serve two terms and would not be able to stand in a third election. I know that many noble Lords were concerned that for a PCC in his or her second term, being unable to stand again would effectively mean not being accountable to the public. The Government listened carefully to these concerns and looked at other elected posts in the UK, none of which has term limits. We have concluded that there is no need for PCCs to have term limits. It should be a decision for the public as to whether they want their PCC to serve a third term, rather than for the Government to dictate centrally that they cannot.
Noble Lords will also be aware that, as originally drafted, the Bill provided that Members would not be able to sit or vote in this House during the period they served as a PCC. Our thinking was that being a PCC was a full-time job and therefore was incompatible with active membership of this House. In Committee many noble Lords expressed concern about this and, indeed, set out to the House the many important and time-consuming roles they fulfil while being active in this House. I was extremely influenced by that and on reflection the Government agree. Membership of this House—like being a councillor, for example—very often goes hand in hand with full-time employment elsewhere and there is no reason why someone could not fulfil both roles. It is for that reason that we have tabled amendments to put that on the statute book and I am grateful for the support of the House.
On Amendment 231, which would prevent police officers from standing as a PCC within 10 years of leaving their force, noble Lords will probably know that the Home Affairs Select Committee suggested a cooling-off period for senior officers of four years and the Government committed to considering that.
As I set out in Committee, the Government feel that senior officers can bring much to the role of a PCC. Their experience of policing and the relationships necessary to make the role of PCC work would be invaluable. The Government are generally of the view that, apart from in extreme circumstances, it should be the public who decide whether or not a person should be a PCC. I cannot agree with the noble Lord’s case or his amendment. We believe that the public should be able to see the potential tensions of a former chief officer taking on this role if it was very shortly after they had left their post, and it is for the public to decide whether or not they want that person to represent them.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee spoke to Amendment 218 to Clause 59, which would allow the Secretary of State by order to make provisions about the regulation of spending by campaigners who were not themselves standing in an election to be a police and crime commissioner but who intended to influence the outcome of the election. I am grateful to her for tabling the amendment; this is an important principle, and the Government must ensure that it is given proper consideration. I will commit to coming back to the House at Third Reading to set out how we will deal with this important issue. For now, I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
I will move the government amendments standing in my name and invite noble Lords to withdraw theirs.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am extremely grateful for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.