House of Lords
Young People: Creative Industries
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage young people to pursue careers in the creative industries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, the Government support young people wishing to enter the creative industries at all levels through apprenticeships, careers advice, degree courses and business start-up schemes. We are expanding apprenticeships, including those in the creative industries, and the National Skills Academy for Creative and Cultural Skills has been successful in increasing career opportunities for young people.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she acknowledge the significant contribution that the creative industries make to our economy, with over 1.3 million jobs in the sector? Does she agree with the recent CBI report that, despite the progress that has already been made, there is a need for many more flexible apprenticeships in this sector? What are the Government doing to address the fact that informal social networks and unpaid internships are helping children from affluent backgrounds to gain jobs in the sector at the expense of those less well connected?
Baroness Wilcox
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I share her view of the importance of the creative and cultural industries. As she has pointed out, the exports alone are worth £17 billion a year and many jobs are created. When I sat down and started working out exactly what the answers were on this Question, I was amazed at just how much is going on. The Government are committed to expanding apprenticeships in this sector, which often relies on self-employed and contract work. We are providing flexibility in the delivery of apprenticeships to allow for those legitimate variations in working practice. We have to bear in mind what we are taking on, from the poet in the attic to the blockbuster moviemakers. It is a very varied group of people.
On the noble Baroness’s third question, we should ensure that all young people can get work experience or jobs based on merit to ensure the best possible talent base for the country. We have already asked employers to improve access to internships, and the Creative Industries Council will look at improving fair access and providing clearer entry and progression routes to the sector.
The Earl of Clancarty
My Lords, if the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, had used the term “arts” instead of “creative industries” in the Question to address what would really have been the same concern, will the Minister confirm that it would likely have been answered by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, on behalf of quite another department? Can the Minister elaborate on what is likely to be the future balance of involvement and the nature of the dialogue between the culture, education and business departments regarding encouraging the arts and young people into the arts?
Baroness Wilcox
I think that the noble Earl answers his question to me very well himself. We should all be working together and we will endeavour to do so.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the William Morris Craft Fellowship. What are the Government doing to encourage young people to enter the traditional crafts?
Baroness Wilcox
My noble friend talks of crafts. There are so many words to describe the subject of this Question, but the word “crafts” springs to mind. My father was himself a craftsman. What are we doing? We are making over 200 new apprenticeship schemes available and we are speaking with schools to ensure that our careers advice encourages all these craft skills for children who have those wonderful talents but maybe feel at this stage that this will not get them a job. We have to ensure that as we in this country go forward, all our children’s talents get used.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
My Lords, the creative industries need creative people and creativity needs to be nurtured. The new EBacc contains no creative element at all, and it appears to be stopping young people from pursuing subjects such as art, design and computer science. Our thriving creative industries are already seeing a skills shortage. Will the Minister explain why the Government continue to refuse to revise their position on the EBacc? If they do not, the skills shortage will only get worse.
Baroness Wilcox
I am happy to answer this question. We are slimming down the curriculum in ways that enable us to spread the accessible required needs for just the things that my noble friend is talking about.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Would young people not be better assisted in pursuing careers in the creative industries if the Government were to abandon their policy of disadvantaging teaching and research in the humanities in their funding of universities?
Baroness Wilcox
That is slightly wide of the Question, but, as I understand it, we are not doing that.
Lord Foster of Bishop Auckland
Does the Minister realise that the creative industries were one of the most rapidly growing sectors throughout the north-east of England and that all five of the universities there have had a very fine record and are producing some first-class graduates? Is it not a tragedy that the whole of this sector is severely cutting back in employment because of the Government’s economic strategy?
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, I do not see that to be the case. We do not have evidence of that at this time.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, will the noble Baroness provide us with some examples of what, in her view, are non-creative industries?
Baroness Wilcox
Well, the right reverend Prelate himself represents a particular industry, which I support, although there are some who would say maybe not.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
While associating myself entirely with the important question asked a moment ago by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, perhaps I may say that I have had a large number of children, some of whom are in what I believe is known as the creative industries, and it never occurred to me to ask the Government for advice on what career they should pursue. Since when has it been the Government’s job to do that?
Baroness Wilcox
I think that it is now being recognised that the skills and talents that will take this country forward are very broad. We are already extremely successful in the creative industries and, as the noble Baroness who asked the Question emphasised, we really should be encouraging them. This Government are determined to do so.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, will the Government make maximum use of the Cultural Olympiad and the festival of culture next year as a lever to gain the maximum benefit for our youngsters in the future? Quite a lot of money—about £97 million, as I understand it, much of it private, as is correct—is already there. Will she assure the House that we are getting the maximum leverage from that for our youngsters?
Schools: Homophobic Bullying
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce the incidence of homophobic bullying in schools.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, the Government aim to help teachers to promote good behaviour through new legislation that is being introduced in the Education Bill. We have updated our advice to schools to make it clear that prejudice-based bullying such as homophobic bullying should not be tolerated. This advice signposts schools to specialist organisations, such as Stonewall, that can support them. Accountability in how schools tackle bullying will also be sharpened through the new Ofsted inspections framework.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I welcome the Minister’s response. However, we need more than just words; we need tools to do the job. Will the Minister therefore give an undertaking that Ofsted will investigate how schools respond to homophobic bullying when visiting them in future?
Lord Hill of Oareford
Without wishing to be too prescriptive about everything that Ofsted will look for, as the noble Lord will know the whole purpose of our slimming down the inspection framework for Ofsted to concentrate on four core areas—including behaviour and safety—is precisely so that they have more time to look for the kind of issues that the noble Lord is concerned about. The framework that we are putting in place will sharpen the focus on behaviour and the way in which Ofsted looks for bullying of all kinds.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that any bullying for any reason is absolutely obnoxious and should be assailed and stopped wherever it happens?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I agree with my noble friend. If one is on the receiving end of bullying, no matter what the motivation is it feels pretty horrid.
Lord Laming
Will the Minister reassure the House that the issue of bullying, including homophobic bullying, is part of teacher training? Ofsted inspections are fine but are only once every few years, whereas teachers are there every day. Their training therefore ought to emphasise the importance of identifying this behaviour very early on, and the skills to deal with it.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I agree with the noble Lord. He may know that some proposed new standards for qualifications have been published today by a group that has been advising the department. Those standards will then work through to what the initial teacher training providers provide. However, the noble Lord is obviously right; we want to make sure that teachers responsible for classrooms are properly and broadly trained in maintaining a good environment in which to learn, which will include an important focus on maintaining order and discipline and trying to minimise bullying.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, I think it is probably the Labour Party’s turn.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Leader of the House. The Minister invested in his Answer considerable confidence in Ofsted inspections, but he will know that in Clause 39 of the Education Bill, which is currently going through your Lordships’ House, the Secretary of State is taking powers to categorise classes of school that will no longer have to receive regular Ofsted inspections. What is the logic of removing schools from those regular inspections, given the problem of bullying that has been reflected here today? It is also known that a considerable proportion of category 1 schools are reduced in category on subsequent inspections.
Lord Hill of Oareford
The objective of the Bill, as in a number of areas, is to try to have a proportionate approach to inspection that is backed up by safeguards. I recognise that schools in an outstanding category can fall out of it, which is why Ofsted will have powers to carry on not only thematic assessments but risk assessments. Any member of the public or local authorities who have concerns of the sort that the noble Lord raises will be able to go to Ofsted and ask for an inspection.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
My Lords, a few years ago when I was a councillor, I chaired a scrutiny review into the wider issue of bullying. We found that where there is evidence of homophobic bullying, there is often a wider issue in the social environment of the school of bullying in general against children with disabilities and other issues. Does the Minister agree that schools should use organisations such as Beatbullying to combat cyberbullying on Facebook and that sort of thing, which is now very widespread and insidious? Does he also agree that we need greater consistency in standards in schools, including in state-funded faith schools where this is often a difficult subject, and of course academies?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I agree very much that specialist organisations of the sort to which my noble friend refers can play an important part. I also agree about the dangers to children—and, indeed, to staff—of cyberbullying, which is a growing problem. That is one of the reasons why the Government are proposing measures in the Education Bill to tackle that problem. On faith schools, my note of slight caution to my noble friend is that one has to be very careful in making generalisations about whole categories of school. Nearly one-third of the schools in our country are faith schools. Many of them have outstanding records on behaviour, discipline and their work in promoting community cohesion. However, I agree with my noble friend’s underlying point that one needs as much outside help as one can to tackle these problems thoroughly and consistently.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate
My Lords, does the Minister agree that bullying in schools, as with bullying by newspaper tycoons, needs to be challenged and punished?
Lord Tebbit
My Lords, can my noble friend tell me when this problem arose? It did not happen when I was at school, or I suspect when many of us in this House were at school. What has precipitated it?
Lord Hill of Oareford
The truth is linked to the earlier point raised by my noble friend Lady Knight. Bullying comes in many forms. Types, categories, natures and methods of bullying change over time. When my noble friend Lord Tebbit was at school, homophobic bullying may well not have been an issue. However, it is more of an issue today.
Health: Diabetes
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Morris of Manchester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what further action they are taking to help patients with diabetes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
To support the NHS in improving outcomes, NICE has published a quality standard for diabetes, providing an authoritative definition of good-quality care and building on the existing national service framework. This year, the NHS operating framework specifically highlights the need to do more to improve in-patient care for people with diabetes, the availability of structured education and retinopathy screening for everyone with diabetes, and access to therapies, including insulin pumps.
Lord Morris of Manchester
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that Answer. Is he aware that 1.4 million people with diabetes are now at risk of preventable blindness, over a million of kidney disease, and up to 8,600 a year of having a foot amputated due to delayed diagnosis and treatment; and that doctors of distinction in this specialty insist that, with adequate resources, they could do much more to maximise prevention and treatment? Knowing as I do the depth of the Minister’s own concern for this policy area, when does he expect to be able to announce specific new measures to help the rapidly increasing number of children afflicted?
Earl Howe
My Lords, Ministers often express thanks to those noble Lords who table Questions but I owe a particular debt to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for highlighting one of the greatest public health challenges of our time. He is absolutely right in all that he has said. I alight particularly on his point about prevention. We are committed to preventing type 2 diabetes. All our work on promoting an active lifestyle and tackling obesity will support that aim. The NHS Health Check programme has the potential to prevent many cases of type 2 diabetes and, as the noble Lord said, to identify thousands more cases earlier in their development. The Change4Life programme—the campaign that started under the previous Government, which we are continuing —raises awareness of maintaining a healthy weight and being physically active. A great deal of work is going on in this area, which is one of the major focuses of our public health programme.
Lord Walton of Detchant
My Lords, the Minister has indicated that there is a clear positive correlation between the rising incidence of type 2 diabetes on the one hand and the rising incidence of obesity on the other. What action are the Government taking to advise the population at large of the dangers of overeating?
Earl Howe
I have already mentioned the Change4Life programme, which is designed to raise awareness across a number of public health areas, including obesity and overeating. I think also of the Healthy Schools programme, which instils the need to eat healthily and take exercise in youngsters at an early age. As the noble Lord will know, there is no magic bullet for the problem of obesity. It is something that must be addressed in a variety of ways through public health programmes and general practice.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, does the Minister agree that foot ulceration precedes 85 per cent of amputations? A study in Southampton showed that, by keeping people in hospital and treating them well through preventing foot ulcers, over 36 months not only did patient outcomes improve but the National Health Service saved £1.2 million in in-patient time.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I have an astonishing figure in my brief. On average, 73 amputations of lower limbs occur every week in England because of complications to do with diabetes. It is estimated that, with the right care, 80 per cent of amputations carried out on patients suffering from diabetes would be preventable. That is the scale of the challenge. We are clear that this is a major issue for diabetes. NICE has published guidelines on in-patient management of people with diabetic foot ulcers and infection. That is vital because amputations are often preceded by ulceration. That is also why the national clinical director for diabetes considers diabetic foot care and prevention to be a major priority.
Lord Harrison
My Lords, will the Minister give an assurance that the retinopathy screening that was introduced by the previous Labour Government, and which has been so successful, will continue apace to match his own ambition of ensuring prevention by identifying diabetic disease of the eye at an early stage?
Earl Howe
The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, is quite right. England, along with the devolved Administrations, leads the world in this area. It is the first time that a population-based screening programme has been introduced on such a large scale. We are committed to continuing it. More people with diabetes are now being offered retinopathy screening than ever before and to higher standards, despite the increasing number of people with diabetes. The latest data that I have show that 98 per cent of people with diabetes have been offered screening for diabetic retinopathy during the past 12 months.
Lord Rennard
My Lords, is the Minister aware that people with diabetes are twice as likely to be admitted to hospital as people without diabetes? Will he undertake to look at best-practice models, such as that of the University Hospitals of Leicester, where diabetes specialist nurses have been stationed in the accident and emergency department and are able, in many cases, to advise against admission to hospital and provide more appropriate treatment and support? This is believed to have saved the University Hospitals of Leicester around £100,000. Diabetes UK estimates that, if rolled out nationally, such good practice might save the NHS up to £100 million a year.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am aware of that excellent beacon of good practice in Leicester, which is an example that we welcome. It is an approach that is already being taken in other parts of the country. The NICE quality standard for diabetes states that people who have the condition, and who have experienced hypoglycaemia that requires medical attention, should be referred to a specialist diabetes team for advice and support to reduce admissions in exactly the way that my noble friend described.
Railways: Thameslink Rolling Stock Contract
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will review their decision to award the Thameslink rolling stock contract to Siemens.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the competition for the Thameslink trains was designed and launched in 2008 in accordance with EU treaty obligations and UK public procurement regulations. I am satisfied that the proper process as originally advised to the bidders has been complied with. Both bids have been treated equitably and fairly in the process. The Siemens bid demonstrated that it offered better value for money against the published criteria and consequently the Government will not be reviewing the decision.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the noble Earl for his response. When the Prime Minister and his colleagues came to Derby recently we heard lots about supporting engineering and manufacturing and creating jobs, but there is a wide gap between the words and the deeds. Why were the credit ratings of the two companies such a determining factor? This decision means that the last train maker in the UK—a maker of quality products and inward investor to this country—and the 1,500 people who will lose their jobs, whose families live in and around Derby, never stood a chance. That is a disgrace.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, it is not for me to comment on the ability of bidders to raise the finance. However, the model selected by the previous Administration is a good one and we support it. It is important to remember that the Siemens bid will also create employment in the UK, although I have to accept that it will not be as much.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, on Tuesday, the Conservative MP for Mid Derbyshire said:
“Over the months … we have been waiting for the decision, I personally lobbied the Secretary of State for Transport … Unfortunately, he told me every … time that I was not to worry because Bombardier was fine … as the company had lots of orders and would have no problem going forward. That is clearly not the case, so he misread the situation. I hope that he feels somewhat apologetic about the decision”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/7/11; col. 10WH.]
That statement by the Conservative MP gives the game away. If the Secretary of State will not review the decision, what will he now do in negotiations with Siemens as the preferred bidder to maximise the number of additional jobs that it creates in this country to compensate for the thousands of jobs that will be lost in Derby and elsewhere in the rail supply chain as a result of the complacency and misjudgment which have now been revealed by one of his own MPs to have been behind the Secretary of State’s decision?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, any job losses are highly regrettable. However, Bombardier has previously advised the department that it expected to make redundancies at this time regardless of the outcome of the Thameslink procurement order as Bombardier’s Derby factory is currently operating at peak capacity and several of these orders come to an end later this year. Noble Lords will know that there are several other rolling stock procurement contracts in the offing.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, as I am sure the Minister will agree, it is crucial that we keep in this country the engineering skills to design and build trains. Are there any planned negotiations with Siemens and Hitachi to bring those kinds of jobs to the UK? In the case of Bombardier, has he considered extending some of its existing contracts, for example to provide electrical units to the train sets it has already built, and that are much needed on the Great Western, Northern and Southern lines and would help preserve that skill base in this country?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, on the last point, I am not sighted on that, but I will write to the noble Baroness if I have anything to add. There is an issue about the capacity for Bombardier to design rolling stock in the UK, but it is a matter for that company whether or not it maintains a capacity.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, are the Government aware that under the EU treaties there is no enforceable sanction against a country that refuses to pay a Brussels fine? So, why do we not behave like the French and award the Thameslink contract to Bombardier? Do the Government further agree that there would not even be the slightest risk, alas, that we would be ejected from the EU if we failed to pay any eventual fine? So, why do we not just go ahead and do it?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the United Kingdom has never been fined in respect of an EU infraction and Her Majesty’s Government have no intention of allowing that to happen. I hope that the noble Lord fully accepts the benefits of competition. It would be most peculiar to keep accepting bids that were not competitive.
Lord Broers
Does the Minister agree with me that this is just a symptom of a long-term problem whereby we have failed to co-ordinate our R&D expenditures, our government procurement and our encouragement of industry to put itself in a competitive position? We really must co-ordinate these things across the board so that our bid is clearly the strongest. I declare my interest as chairman of the Transport Knowledge Transfer Network of the Technology Strategy Board, which is trying to do these things but with precious little resource.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extremely good point. Another point concerns the need to schedule work such as rolling stock and other projects in order to avoid a situation of feast and famine. The McNulty report addresses that issue.
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) Order 2011
Lord De Mauley
That the draft orders and regulations laid before the House on 21 March, 23 May, 13 and 20 June be approved.
Relevant documents: 14th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee, 23rd, 24th and 25th Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 12 July.
Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13 May be approved.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 27 June
Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2011
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That the draft orders laid before the House on 9 and 10 June be approved.
Relevant document: 24th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 12 July
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
11:54 - Division on Amendment 244A - Ayes: 135 / Noes: 136 - Amendment 244A disagreed.
12:53 - Division on Amendment 305ZB - Ayes: 114 / Noes: 159 - Amendment 305ZB disagreed.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
“Exemption from civil proceedings for trespass brought by offender
(1) Section 329 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (civil proceedings for trespass to the person brought by offender) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(b) at the end insert “, and”.
(3) After subsection (1)(b) insert—
“(c) at the material time, the defendant was not a constable acting in the course of his duty.””
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, the purpose of my amendment is to amend Section 329 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to exclude civil proceedings against the police for trespass against the person occasioned during an arrest. Section 329 was designed to cover a situation where an individual harms another while that other is attempting to commit a crime against the individual. It was enacted in response to the case of Tony Martin, who shot two intruders to his home who he thought were attempting a burglary. Section 329 provides that the court must give permission for an offender to bring a civil suit for an assault committed at the time and in the circumstances that the offender committed the act for which he was convicted. There was a great deal of public disquiet that a person engaged in burglary should be able to sue the householder who had injured him.
Under Section 329 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the defendant has a defence to proceedings brought by the injured offender if he believed that the offender was about to commit an offence, was in the course of committing an offence or had committed an offence and that the defendant’s actions were necessary to defend himself or another person, protect or recover property, prevent or stop the offence or catch or secure the conviction of the offender, but only if his action was not grossly disproportionate. In other words, it was designed to protect the householder who reacted instinctively against an intruder into his home and injured that person, so that no suit could lie in the civil courts unless the force used was completely disproportionate. Unfortunately, it appears that only the police have taken advantage of Section 329 when they injure an individual in the course of arresting him.
To cite the judgment in Anthony Adorian v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis—2009, EWCA Civ 18, paragraph 7—the standard historically set for police action and
“painstakingly established in the course of two centuries and more, and fundamental to the civil rights enjoyed by the people of this country”,
is that,
“an arrest must be objectively justified and that no more force may be used in effecting it than is reasonably necessary”.
When a police officer arrests an individual, he may, in the historic development of the common law, use no more force than is reasonable. That was replaced by Section 329 which requires only that the police do not use “grossly disproportionate” force in arresting and that arrests are not in bad faith, even though they may be entirely unreasonable. In the Adorian case, Anthony Adorian suffered injuries in being arrested which were so severe that the force medical examiner concluded that he was unfit to be detained. His class of injury is associated with head-on car crashes or falls from a significant height, but the claimant, Adorian, had been walking at the moment of arrest and, as the judge said in his decision,
“there is at present no evidence suggesting either that he has brittle bones or that anything happened following his arrest which is capable of explaining the injuries”.
When Section 329 was debated in the course of the passage of the 2003 Act, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, introducing it, said that it,
“would strengthen the civil law to improve protection for victims of crime against civil claims for damages by offenders”,
and that it,
“benefits third parties who are not the direct victim of the offence, but who may have intervened to protect the victim or deter the criminal”.—[Official Report, 11/11/03; cols. 1307-8.].
There was no mention during the introduction of Section 329 in 2003 of the police. Nothing was said about the police.
Lord Justice Sedley, giving the judgment in the Adorian case to which I referred, said:
“Conscious of art. IX of the Bill of Rights 1689, we say only that there is no indication that Parliament was aware, much less intended, that what it was enacting would have this effect”.
Nobody thought that Section 329 would be used by police who had used unreasonable force in effecting the arrest of an individual. So there is a mismatch between criminal and civil proceedings as far as the police are concerned. It is a defence to a criminal charge of assaulting a police officer to show that you are protecting yourself against unreasonable force on the part of the police. In that situation, the police cannot argue that although the force was unreasonable, it was not grossly excessive. That is on the criminal side. But if the same person who had been arrested unreasonably by the police tried to sue them for civil trespass to the person, the police could and do rely on Section 329 and will succeed unless the claimant shows not that their actions were unreasonable—that an unreasonable amount of force had been used—but that that their actions were grossly disproportionate. In other words, a test to be applied for the householder defending himself against intruders has only been utilised, as far as research can pinpoint it, by the police to defend themselves against civil cases.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I can be very brief and start by saying how grateful the House should be to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for explaining this amendment so clearly. We support the amendment. It seems sensible; and it seems equally sensible for the Government, when a sensible amendment is put before them, to react favourably. It would cost them nothing to accept the amendment and would put right something that has been slightly wrong in this section of the 2003 Act. As the noble Lord said, this is a classic example of unintended consequences. His analysis of the law seems to us to be correct and it would be sensible for the Government to accept the amendment.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, for having sent a letter to all interested parties on 24 June, included in which is a part that addresses this particular issue. She argued that no formal consultation had taken place between the police and the Government although there had been some informal consultation. She suggested that the Government would not give way on this amendment but we will wait for the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, to answer for the Government. If the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, were minded to push this extremely sensible amendment to a vote, we would support it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, this amendment is near identical to one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, during Committee stage of this Bill, and to which we gave a fairly full response at the time, so I will be brief. We promised the noble Lord in my response at the time that we would give the matter further consideration. Having done so, I am afraid that the advice we have received is that we remain unconvinced that we want to make an amendment that would make it easier for a convicted offender to sue the police for damages until we hear good answers to the questions and issues that I mentioned in Committee and which I will not repeat here.
We have looked at this again and take the view that the previous Government also took when the issue was raised in 2009. The House should be very clear that Section 329 does not give the police carte blanche to use disproportionate force. They are still subject to the criminal law which permits only reasonable force. All that Section 329 does is raise the bar by making it more difficult for criminals to get financial benefit from situations where they were the ones committing an imprisonable offence. It is reasonable and fair to treat a person who holds the office of constable in the same way for these purposes as any other member of the public. We should not rush to the assumption that it is an unintended consequence for the police to enjoy the protection of Section 329. As I have suggested, the police will inevitably be the people most likely to be able to invoke Section 329, given that their job involves confronting people who are in the course of committing imprisonable offences. The text of Section 329 supports this since subsection (5) specifically extends the protection to people who believe their act was necessary to
“apprehend, or secure the conviction, of the claimant after he had committed an offence”.
I therefore remain unconvinced that an amendment to Section 329 of the 2003 Act in the way proposed by the noble Lord is the right way forward. I hope that after the reassurance that we have again considered this issue the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I note that my noble friend Lord Lester raised this matter in the Policing and Crime Bill 2009, and that at that stage undertakings were given by the noble Lord, Lord Brett, on behalf of the then Government to consult the police on the unintended consequences. That was reiterated on Report, and in February of last year, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said that consultation had not yet taken place, and it still has not taken place. I do not think that it is appropriate that this matter should be put on the shelf until we have another Bill into which it can be inserted. It is very important that the police should not be able to shelter behind a provision that clearly was not designed for them, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has just acknowledged. Consequently, I propose to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Browning
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Browning)
My Lords, the government amendments to Schedule 14 correct a number of drafting errors that have come to light during the passage of the Bill. The changes are necessary in order to ensure that the changes to the existing police complaints legislation work properly. I assure noble Lords that in the main they are technical, drafting points that, for example, correct incorrect numbering and add consequential amendments that were missed. I realise that there are other amendments for debate in this group. I beg to move.
Baroness Doocey
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 256 in this group. Before doing so, I apologise to the House that I may be unable to stay until the end of the debate. I have to attend a special meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority where the commissioner is coming to answer questions about the events surrounding the various police investigations into the News of the World.
The amendment relates to the handling of complaints against senior police officers in London.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
I apologise to my noble friend Lady Doocey and I am most grateful to her for allowing me to intervene. This is the first time that I have heard a Member move their amendment and say that they might not be here at the end of the debate. Clearly, the Minister has to be in a position to respond to my noble friend. Perhaps she will consider her position and either continue and undertake to remain until the end of the debate on the amendment, or perhaps ask one of her very able colleagues to move the amendment on her behalf. I am concerned that we should not deviate from the normal practices of the House. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, may be about to offer her assistance.
Baroness Hamwee
I hope that I can reassure the House. In discussions with my noble friend, neither of us realised that we would reach this group quite so soon. My noble friend should be able to be here until well after we have got through this group—unless she is going to take an hour and a half, in which case there will be other problems.
Baroness Doocey
I apologise to the House if I have got it wrong yet again and I thank my noble friend Lady Hamwee. My amendment relates to the handling of complaints against senior police officers in London. The Bill proposes that responsibility for complaints against senior ACPO officers—that is, officers below the rank of deputy commissioner—should be moved from the Metropolitan Police Authority to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. My concern is not that this would make the commissioner responsible for employing, promoting and disciplining officers—I do not have a major problem with that—but that it would also make him responsible for sackings and, crucially, for hearing appeals against his own rulings. It would remove all the elements of independence and transparency that the Metropolitan Police Authority currently provides and would in effect make the commissioner judge, jury and executioner.
The proposals are deeply flawed because they concentrate too much power in the hands of the commissioner without any proper checks and balances. There is also no effective framework to safeguard impartiality. I am aware of the Government's response to the argument. They argue that it is commonplace for complaints to be decided within an organisation rather than by an external arbiter. However, this fails to appreciate that police officers are in a unique position. They are officers of the Crown who have the power to detain members of the public and to take away their freedom through arrest. Consequently, there is no valid analogy with how other organisations—even the Armed Forces—deal with complaints, conduct, dismissals and appeals. It is in the interest of the police that they should be able to demonstrate an independent element in the assessment of the seriousness and reputational risks of allegations made against their most senior ranks. The Bill envisages allowing appeals to the IPCC, but only at the end of the process. That is no substitute for an independent review of whether standards of conduct may have fallen below those that the outside world would recognise as proper.
Lack of independence also creates another problem. A very likely consequence of the new system is an increase in the number of complaints against the commissioner for failing properly to investigate complaints against ACPO officers under his command. If those making complaints against a senior officer feel that the issue has not been properly or sufficiently well dealt with in the first instance, they will almost certainly lodge a complaint against the chief officer. The whole rigmarole in turn creates an increased possibility of legal challenge.
I believe there is a more fundamental problem. In any closed institution, such as the police, it is common for custom and practice to become entrenched. An independent element is vital to provide a counterbalance and to ensure due process. It is worth considering the virtues of the current system for handling complaints. At present the Metropolitan Police Authority hears complaints through its professional standards cases sub-committee and there is a right of appeal to the Police Appeals Tribunal. This current system is not an accident of history. It evolved to address concerns about the perceived lack of independence and accountability in how complaints and conduct matters had been handled previously. Are we really confident that policing has matured sufficiently to deal with these concerns? The Government seem to be ignoring the lessons of the past and are therefore likely to repeat the errors of the past.
Since the Bill abolishes the Metropolitan Police Authority, the purpose of my amendment is to restore equivalent safeguards to the new arrangements. The amendment would, within London, make the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime the relevant appeals body. It is also essential that the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime has statutory access to all information and systems where complaints are recorded. Without this, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime will be totally reliant on the commissioner advising it of complaint or conduct matters. It would also be unable to discharge the functions proposed in the Bill to ensure that chief constables have fulfilled their duty in the handling of such complaints. The Government’s proposals do no favours to the PCC. They expose him or her to accusations—unjustified, one would hope—of conflict of interest, bias and favouritism. This amendment would avoid these pitfalls without in any way affecting the proper authority of the PCC and the correct limits to his or her discretion. I therefore commend this amendment as a means of preserving the necessary elements of independence, transparency and impartiality. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I understand the thrust of the noble Baroness’s argument, but it is interesting that in her amendment she seems to be proposing that outside the Metropolitan Police area the chief constable still carries out that function. I wonder why she has not amended the situation outside London. The logic of what she is saying is that if it is the MOPC in relation to the Metropolitan Police area, it would presumably be the police and crime commissioner who would do the same thing in other areas. I should be grateful if she would clarify that point for me.
Baroness Doocey
I can only plead ignorance and apologise. My amendment was meant specifically to deal with London and I do not think I was sufficiently good at checking that the final version of the amendment dealt just with London. I crave your Lordships’ indulgence.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that. She has raised an important matter of principle and it will be interesting to see what response the Minister gives. If it were a sympathetic response, in which we had an opportunity at Third Reading to discuss this again, she might wish to look at the wording of the amendment. That depends on the Minister.
The principle that the noble Baroness has enunciated must be right. I hope she will pursue this. As for the government amendments, we, of course, welcome them.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I have a query in relation to Amendment 245. A number of years ago, I was a member of the complaints committee of Northumbria Police Authority. I well remember being advised that every complaint that was written down was provided to the committee to see, whether or not it was regarded as spurious and whether or not action had been taken or was going to be taken. We were given all the original correspondence and a summary of the action that had been or would be taken. That system seemed to work well.
However, I would appreciate the Minister’s clarification on a point in the Bill. Paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 14 to the Bill substitutes paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 with a new sub-paragraph which states:
“Where a complaint is made to the Commission, it shall give notification of the complaint to the appropriate authority”.
So far, so good, but it then states:
“But the Commission need not give that notification if the Commission considers that there are exceptional circumstances that justify its not being given”.
It is not clear to me, but it may be made clear by regulations or other means, what the definition of “exceptional circumstances” is. Years ago, I was in a position where every complaint was written down and was provided to the complaints committee. We need to be reassured that a structure is not being created whereby complaints made are simply not acted upon because there are deemed to be exceptional circumstances that justify there being no further progress on them.
Baroness Browning
My noble friend’s amendment would mean that the responsibility for dealing with appeals in relation to low-level complaints against the Metropolitan Police would be handled by the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime rather than the responsibility resting with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. While the Government recognise that giving the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime responsibility for dealing with appeals against the handling of low-level complaints is one way of providing some independent scrutiny of such matters, we are not persuaded that the duty to consider individual appeals should rest with the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime.
It is commonplace for complaints to be decided—as the noble Baroness said, because I think she has heard me say this before—within an organisation rather than by an external arbiter. In practice, the chief officer will not be hearing an appeal against his own decision. The duties will be delegated so that, for example, the initial decision is taken by the line manager of the officer complained against and the appeal is conducted by the professional standards directorate. A complainant who feels that an appeal has not been properly considered will have further routes of redress, first to the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime, which can direct the chief officer to look again at the matter, and secondly to the courts if the decision is irrational or unfair.
The Government consider that these safeguards are sufficient and achieve the same effect as this amendment suggests. Further, we are concerned that giving the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime responsibility for hearing all low-level complaints against the Metropolitan Police would place a significant burden on the office and distract it from its core duties of securing the maintenance of an efficient and effective force and holding the commissioner to account for the exercise of his or her functions.
As a final point, the amendment would mean, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has already identified to my noble friend, that the police complaints regime would operate differently in London from the rest of England and Wales where low-level appeals would remain the responsibility of the chief constable.
With regard to the interpretation of “exceptional circumstances” raised by my noble friend Lord Shipley, rather than giving a detailed explanation off the top of my head, I will take advice and write to him about it. I hope that will be of help to the House. On this basis, I hope that my noble friend will not press her amendment.
Baroness Browning
“(6) In consequence of the amendments made by sub-paragraphs (2) to (5)—
(a) in section 12(2) (complaints, matters and persons to which Part 2 applies), omit “, paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 3”;(b) in section 29(1) (interpretation of Part 2), omit paragraph (b) of the definition of “recordable conduct matter”.”
“(3) In section 22 (power of the Commission to issue guidance), in subsection (5)(c), omit sub-paragraph (ii) (and the word “and” at the end of sub-paragraph (i)).”.”
“(6) For sub-paragraph (2) substitute—
“(2) The appropriate authority shall notify the complainant —
(a) that the appropriate authority has decided to handle the complaint as permitted by sub-paragraph (1) (in a case where the appropriate authority is not required to apply for permission under sub-paragraph (1A) to so handle the complaint); or(b) about the making of the application under sub-paragraph (1A) (in a case where the appropriate authority makes such an application).”.”
“(5) In paragraph 16(2)(a) of Schedule 3, for “10(4)(b)” substitute “10(4D)”.”
“(5) In paragraph 16(2)(a) of Schedule 3, for “11(3)(b)” substitute “11(3E)”.”
“(9) In sub-paragraph (9)—
(a) for “Commission” (in the first three places) substitute “relevant appeal body”;(b) for “considers appropriate, the Commission shall” substitute “considers appropriate—(a) sub-paragraph (9ZA) applies if the Commission is the relevant appeal body; or(b) sub-paragraph (9ZB) applies if the chief officer of police is the relevant appeal body.(9ZA) The Commission shall—”(9A) Before sub-paragraph (9A) insert—
“(9ZB) The chief officer of police shall take such action as the chief officer thinks appropriate in relation to the bringing of disciplinary proceedings in respect of the matters dealt with in the report.
(9ZC) If disciplinary proceedings are brought by virtue of sub-paragraph (9ZB), it shall be the duty of the appropriate authority to ensure that they are proceeded with to a proper conclusion.”.”
Baroness Browning
“Chief officers of policeCurrent chief officers to remain in post1 (1) At the relevant commencement time a person who, immediately before that time, is in post as the existing chief officer of the police force for a police area becomes the new chief officer of that police force.
(2) Where a person has, prior to the relevant commencement time, accepted an appointment as the existing chief officer of the police force for a police area which is to come into effect at a time (the “effective time“) which falls at or after the relevant commencement time, that appointment is to take effect at the effective time as an appointment as the new chief officer of that police force.
(3) Sub-paragraph (2) is without prejudice to any right of the person appointed not to take up the appointment.
Transfer of rights and liabilities2 At the relevant commencement time, all rights and liabilities which immediately before that time were rights and liabilities of the existing chief officer of the police force for a police area are to transfer to the new chief officer of that police force.
Relevant legislative provisions”
“Interpretation3A In this Part “relevant commencement time” means—
(a) in relation to a police area listed in Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996, the time when section 3 comes into force in relation to that area;(b) in relation to the metropolitan police district, the time when section 5 comes into force.Part 1AInitial transfer from police authoritiesTransfer of property, rights and liabilities3B (1) At the relevant commencement time, all property, rights and liabilities which immediately before that time were property, rights and liabilities of the existing police authority for a police area are to transfer to, and by virtue of this paragraph vest in, the new policing body for that police area.
(2) This paragraph does not apply to any rights or liabilities under a contract of employment (which are dealt with in paragraph 3C).
Transfer of staff3C (1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (5) and (6), this paragraph applies to any person who immediately before the relevant commencement time is a member of the staff of the existing police authority for a police area (the “existing employer”).
(2) A contract of employment between a person to whom this paragraph applies and the existing employer is to have effect from the relevant commencement time as if originally made between that person and the new policing body for the police area in relation to which the existing employer was established (the “new employer”).
(3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not break the continuity of a person’s employment and accordingly such a person’s period of employment with the existing employer counts as a period of employment with the new employer for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996
(4) Without prejudice to subsection (2)—
(a) all the existing employer’s rights, powers, duties and liabilities under or in connection with a contract to which that sub-paragraph applies are by virtue of this paragraph transferred to the new employer at the relevant commencement time; and(b) anything done before that date by or in relation to the existing employer in respect of that contract or the employee shall be deemed from that date to have been done by or in relation to the new employer.(5) Sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) are without prejudice to any right of a member of staff to terminate the contract of employment if a substantial change is made to the person’s detriment in the person’s working conditions; but no such right arises by reason only of the change in employer effected by this paragraph.
(6) Where a person—
(a) has, prior to the relevant commencement time, entered into a contract of employment with an existing police authority which is to come into effect at or after that time; and(b) would, if the contract had come into effect before that date, have been a person to whom this paragraph applies,that person is to be treated as a person to whom this paragraph applies.(7) A person who would (but for this sub-paragraph) be treated as being dismissed by the operation of this paragraph (whether by an enactment or otherwise) is to be treated as not being so dismissed.
(8) Sub-paragraph (7) does not apply to a person who, by virtue of sub-paragraph (5), does not become an employee of a new policing body.
(9) This paragraph is subject to paragraph 3D.
Police civilians3D (1) The new policing body for a police area—
(a) is to have, for the purpose mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), relevant powers to arrange for the new chief officer of the police force for that area to discharge functions of that body; and(b) must exercise those powers for the purpose mentioned in sub-paragraph (2).(2) That purpose is securing that the police civilian members of staff of that new policing body are under the direction and control of that chief officer.
(3) Any arrangements made in compliance with section 15(2) of the Police Act 1996 between the existing police authority for a police area and the existing chief officer of the police force for that area which are in force immediately before the relevant time are to have effect at and after that time as if made under this paragraph between the new policing body for that area and the new chief officer of that police force.
(4) Sub-paragraph (2) applies to a person who—
(a) immediately before the relevant commencement time, is a police civilian member of the staff of an existing police authority, and(b) at that time becomes a member of the staff of the new policing body for a police area by virtue of paragraph 3C.(5) For as long as the person continues to be a member of the staff of that body, the person is to be—
(a) employed as a police civilian member of that staff, and(b) under the direction and control of the new chief officer of the police for that area.(6) Sub-paragraph (5) does not prevent the new policing body from making arrangements with the person for the person to cease to be a police civilian member of staff of that body (whether or not the person remains a member of the staff of that body).
(7) After the relevant commencement time, a new policing body may, for either of the purposes set out in sub-paragraph (8), make arrangements—
(a) with any member of the staff the body who is not a police civilian member of staff to become a police civilian member of that staff, or(b) with a person who is not a member of that body’s staff to become a police civilian member of that staff.(8) In relation to the new policing body for a police area those purposes are—
(a) replacing police civilian members of staff of the existing police authority for that area who did not become members of the staff of the new policing body in accordance with paragraph 3C;(b) replacing police civilian members of staff of the new policing body who have ceased to be police civilian members of staff of that body otherwise than by virtue of a transfer scheme under Part 2 of this Schedule; or(c) to supplement the police civilian members of staff of the new policing body.(9) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (5) are subject to—
(a) any provision included in a collaboration agreement under section 22A of the Police Act 1996, and(b) section 24(3A) of that Act (aid of one police force by another).(10) In this paragraph—
(a) “relevant powers” means powers corresponding to those conferred by sections 101 and 107 of the Local Government Act 1972 on police authorities established under section 3 of the Police Act 1996; (b) references to a police civilian member of staff of an existing police authority or a new policing body are references to a member of the staff of that authority or body who is employed solely to assist the police force maintained by that authority or body;(c) the chief officers’ powers of direction and control referred to include powers of engagement and dismissal.Seconded staff3E In the case of a person who, immediately before the relevant commencement time, is seconded to the existing police authority for a police area, the secondment is to have effect, after that time, as a secondment to the new policing body for that police area.
Interpretation3F In this Part “relevant commencement time” means—
(a) in relation to a police area listed in Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996, the time when section 1 comes into force in relation to that area;(b) in relation to the metropolitan police district, the time when section 4 comes into force.Part 2Subsequent transfer by new policing bodyPower to direct new policing body to make transfer scheme4 (1) The Secretary of State may direct a new policing body—”
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
“5A (1) The Secretary of State may direct a new policing body—
(a) to modify a transfer scheme made by that body, and(b) to submit such a scheme to the Secretary of State for approval.(2) Sub-paragraphs (2) to (5) of paragraph 4 apply to a direction under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph as they apply to a direction under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 4.
(3) In the application of paragraph 4(2) to (5) by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)—
(a) references to paragraph 4(1)(b) have effect as references to sub-paragraph (1)(b) of this paragraph;(b) references to the making of a scheme have effect as references to the modification of a scheme;(c) references to a scheme have effect as references to a scheme as modified.(4) The Secretary of State may modify a transfer scheme made by a new policing body if—
(a) the authority does not comply with a direction given to it under sub-paragraph (1), or(b) the Secretary of State decides not to approve the modified scheme submitted by the body.(5) A scheme modified by the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (4) is to be treated as if modified (and made) by the new policing body.
(6) A scheme modified in accordance with this paragraph is to be deemed for all purposes to have come into force with those modifications.”
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
“(3) A transfer scheme may confer functions on any person (including the Secretary of State).”
(a) ceases to be a member of the staff of an existing police authority, and(b) becomes a member of the staff of a new policing body.(4) Section 1 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (politically restricted posts) does not apply to the person for as long as the person—
(a) continues to be a member of the staff of the new policing body, and(b) carries out duties which are the same, or substantially the same, as the duties the person carried out as a member of the staff of the existing police authority.”
“(1A) The replacement of an existing chief officer, the transfer or abolition of the functions of an existing chief officer, and the transfer of the rights and liabilities of an existing chief officer, do not affect anything done before the replacement, transfer or abolition.
(1B) The transfer of the property, rights and liabilities of a new policing body do not affect anything done before the transfer.”
“Foreign property etc: perfection of vesting15A (1) Subsections (2) to (8) of section 414 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (foreign property, rights and liabilities: perfection of vesting) apply in any case where a transfer by or under this Act provides for the transfer of foreign property, rights or liabilities.
(2) In the application of those provisions by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)—
(a) references to a transfer or pension instrument have effect as references to the transfer by or under this Act; and(b) references to the transferor and the transferee are to be construed accordingly.Transfers: supplementary provision15B (1) All property, rights and liabilities to which a statutory transfer applies are to be transferred by that transfer, notwithstanding that they may be or include—
(a) property, rights and liabilities that would not otherwise be capable of being transferred, or(b) rights and liabilities under enactments.(2) The property, rights and liabilities which may be transferred by a transfer scheme include—
(a) property, rights and liabilities that would not otherwise be capable of being transferred, or(b) rights and liabilities under enactments.(3) No right of reverter, right of pre-emption, right of forfeiture, right of re-entry, right to compensation, option or similar right affecting any land or other property shall operate or become exercisable as a result of any transfer of land or other property by virtue of a statutory transfer or a transfer scheme (whether or not any consent required to the transfer has been obtained).
(4) No right to terminate or vary a contract or instrument shall operate or become exercisable, and no provision of a contract or relevant document, shall operate or become exercisable or be contravened, by reason of any transfer by virtue of a statutory transfer or a transfer scheme.
(5) Sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) above have effect in relation to—
(a) the grant or creation of an estate or interest in, or right over, any land or other property, or(b) the doing of any other thing in relation to land or other property,as they have effect in relation to a transfer of land or other property.(6) A transfer scheme may make provision for the apportionment or division of any property, rights or liabilities.
(7) Where a transfer scheme makes provision for the apportionment or division between two or more persons of any rights or liabilities under a contract, the contract shall have effect, as from the coming into force of the provision, as if it constituted two or more separate contracts separately enforceable by and against each of those persons respectively as respects the part of the rights or liabilities which falls to that person as a result of the apportionment or division.
(8) The provision that may be made by a transfer scheme includes provision for—
(a) any transfer of land or other property by virtue of the instrument,(b) the grant or creation of any estate or interest in, or right over, any land or other property by virtue of the instrument, or(c) the doing of any other thing in relation to land or other property by virtue of the instrument,to be on such terms, including financial terms, as the person making the scheme thinks fit.(9) The Secretary of State may by order confer on any body or person to whom property, rights or liabilities are transferred by a statutory transfer or transfer scheme any statutory functions which were previously exercisable in relation to that property, or those rights or liabilities, by the transferor.
(10) It shall be the duty—
(a) of existing police authorities, new policing bodies, existing chief officers, new chief officers and local authorities, and(b) of the trustees or managers, or administrators, of any pension scheme,to provide the Secretary of State with such information or assistance as the Secretary of State may reasonably require for the purposes of, or in connection with, the exercise of any powers exercisable by the Secretary of State in relation to a statutory transfer or a transfer scheme.(11) Where any person is entitled, in consequence of any transfer made by virtue of a statutory transfer or transfer scheme, to possession of a document relating in part to the title to, or to the management of, any land or other property in England and Wales—
(a) the instrument may contain provision for treating that person as having given another person an acknowledgment in writing of the right of that other person to the production of the document and to delivery of copies thereof; and(b) section 64 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (production and safe custody of documents) shall have effect accordingly, and on the basis that the acknowledgment did not contain any such expression of contrary intention as is mentioned in that section.(12) In this paragraph—
“relevant document” means—
(a) any enactment, other than an enactment contained in this Act;(b) any subordinate legislation made otherwise than under this Act; or(c) any deed or other instrument;“statutory transfer” means a transfer under Part 1 or 1A of this Schedule;
“transfer scheme” means a transfer scheme under Part 2.”
(2) An order under this paragraph may, in particular—
(a) amend, or otherwise modify, any enactment;(b) make any provision that may be made by a transfer scheme under Part 2 of this Schedule (whether the provision in the order relates to that Part or Part 1A of this Schedule);(c) provide for the new policing body for a police area to make any payment which—(i) before a day specified in the order could have been made out of the police fund of the existing police authority for that area, but(ii) is not a liability which is transferred to the new policing body by virtue of Part 1A of this Schedule;(d) provide for a new chief officer or a local authority to which property, rights or liabilities of a new policing body are, or are to be, transferred by virtue of a transfer scheme under Part 1A of this Schedule to make any payment which—(i) before a day specified in the order could have been made out of the police fund of that new policing body, but(ii) is not a liability which could be transferred by virtue of such a transfer scheme;(e) make provision in relation to the accounts and audit of—(i) existing police authorities, and(ii) new policing bodies.(3) Provision of the kind referred to in sub-paragraph (2)(e) may, in particular—
(a) amend, or otherwise modify, any enactment relating to the accounts and audit of public bodies in its application to—(i) an existing police authority and the financial year in which that authority is abolished, or(ii) a new policing body and the financial year in which that body is established;(b) provide for the Secretary of State to give directions as to action to be taken in relation to the accounts and audit of—(i) an existing police authority in relation to the financial year in which that authority is abolished, or(ii) a new policing body in relation to the financial year in which that body is established;(c) provide for a person who, in acting in accordance with such a direction, fails to comply with a code of practice or other document relating to proper accounting practice to be taken not to have so failed to comply.”
““existing chief officer” means—(a) in relation to a police area listed in Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996, the chief constable of the police force for that area before the coming into force of section 3 of this Act in relation to that area;(b) in relation to the metropolitan police district, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis immediately before the coming into force of section 5;”
““new chief officer” means— (a) in relation to a police area listed in Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996, the chief constable established for that police area under section 3 of this Act;(b) in relation to the metropolitan police district, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis established under section 5;”
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
“(i) in paragraph (a)(i), for “a senior officer, the police authority” substitute “the chief officer or a person exercising or performing functions of the chief officer in accordance with section 42 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, the local policing body”; (ii) in paragraph (a)(ii), for “a senior officer” substitute “the chief officer or a person so exercising or performing functions of the chief officer”;(iii) in paragraph (b)(i), for “a senior officer, the police authority” substitute “the chief officer or a person exercising or performing functions of the chief officer in accordance with section 42 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, the local policing body”;(iv) in paragraph (b)(ii), for “a senior officer” substitute “the chief officer or a person so exercising or performing functions of the chief officer”;”
(i) for “police authority” substitute “local policing body”;(ii) for “the authority” substitute “the body”;(c) in sub-paragraph (6)(c), for “police authority” substitute “local policing body”;(d) in sub-paragraph (6), in the words after sub-paragraph (c), for “the authority” substitute “the body”.”
Baroness Browning
“and to the person (if any) appointed as the deputy police and crime commissioner under section 19.”
Lord Clement-Jones
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, what a marathon. I wish to move Amendment 304A and speak to Amendments 304B and 304C. I return without apology to the subject of “appropriate” versus “necessary”. The Bill reduces the evidence test for the attachment of licence conditions so that these are “appropriate” rather than “necessary”. These amendments would delete these provisions from the Bill and retain the “necessary” test. In Committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, set out extremely well the need for these amendments and the significance of the change from “necessary” to “appropriate”. I am sorry that he is unable to be with us today.
Review proceedings are quasi-judicial and designed to deal with infringements of the licensing regime, and have a wide range of penalties that are available to be deployed against the premises in question, from the imposition of new conditions restricting the operation of the premises to the suspension or even withdrawal of a licence. Licensing authorities are already able to impose conditions that they and other responsible bodies need in order to promote the licensing objectives without difficulty. In Committee, my noble friend the Minister claimed that “necessary” places a significant evidential burden on licensing authorities.
There is no evidence to suggest that local authorities find the evidential burden too restrictive and plenty of evidence from across the country to suggest that it is not a barrier to imposing tough trading conditions. For those that have experienced difficulties with a lack of representations being made by responsible authorities about problem premises, the Bill makes local authorities responsible authorities. This means that they will be able to tackle problem premises in their own right, not just rely on evidence supplied by other responsible authorities. The licensed trade asserts that the current “necessary” test has worked well and has ensured that conditions attached to licences are fair and address specific concerns, as opposed to being unfair and disproportionate. Where is the evidence to the contrary?
I understand from the Home Office that the plain English meaning of “appropriate” is “suitable”. That seems far too subjective. How about “convenient” on that basis? In these circumstances, the substitution of “necessary” for “appropriate” would allow decisions to be taken on the grounds of, for example, political expediency or subjective judgment. My noble friend the Minister may say I am wrong and that this will not be the case, but how equipped will licensing authorities be to adopt the correct interpretation of “appropriate”? It has been confirmed that the Local Government Association has concerns in this respect. The fact that “appropriate” is not clearly defined in law, unlike “necessary”, on which there is considerable case law, increases the likelihood of legal challenge and appeal.
“Necessary” is also a key component of the test of proportionality under the European Convention on Human Rights. I have given the Minister and her colleagues a copy of the analysis done by the licensed trade into the impact of the convention, and your Lordships will be glad to hear that I will not go into enormous detail at this stage. Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR provides for the “peaceful enjoyment” of possessions and states clearly that:
“No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law”.
The state can enforce such law,
“as it deems necessary to control the use of property”,
for the public interest.
The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill makes clear the importance of the “necessary” test to ECHR compliance in respect of licensing. It acknowledges that an alcohol licence is a possession and is protected under the convention. The imposition of a restriction on a pre-existing permission or the removal of it without clear evidence of harm or irresponsible practice will in some cases amount to interference in the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. There is no analysis in the Explanatory Notes of what the reduction in this evidence burden would mean for compliance. The existing “necessary” test clearly helps to ensure a fair balance between public and rights-holder interests. How will the “appropriate” test do that?
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I joined in the debate on these two terms at the previous stage, and on rereading Hansard I wonder now even more than I did at the time how assessing whether something is appropriate could be evidence-based. If I were still a councillor having to decide whether a condition is appropriate, I do not think I could avoid it being a subjective judgment. My noble friend has referred to this. I also asked at the last stage whether the assessment had to be reasonable. If it is “appropriate” rather than “necessary”, I assume that it would have to be, but the Minister very elegantly sidestepped that question. I do not blame her because I had not given her notice of it.
My final point refers to the statutory guidance, again just mentioned by my noble friend. We are not talking about a particular application, but licensing in general is a quasi-judicial activity. Perhaps this is not strictly quasi-judicial, but it comes quite close to it. I am concerned about the need to rely on guidance as distinct from primary legislation in the way this is approached.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and the Minister will recall that I spoke on this matter in Committee. I have no intention of running the risk of prolonging the debate by repeating what I said on that occasion, but nothing that has happened since the previous stage alters in any way the views I then expressed. The only thing I would say in a wholly friendly manner to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones is that I used the human rights argument on a series of occasions during our debates on the Licensing Bill in 2003. I have to say, in a manner which I hope he will not find too discouraging, that on every single occasion the Front Bench of the then Government shut me up and told me that I did not actually have a case to argue.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I am a bit intimidated by the thought that I might have to defend not only the point that we are talking about today but the whole panoply of human rights law, but perhaps we can duck that for now. As has been mentioned already, we had a good discussion on these points in Committee and we do not need to go over them. What is disappointing is that, as has been said, we do not seem to have moved on since then. We felt that the Minister’s responses to the original discussion were a bit lacking in the sort of detail required to be convincing, but it would have helped if we had been able to have sight of the guidance she promised. The guidance has not appeared, and therefore we are not much further forward. I hope that the Minister will be able to help us today, but if the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, wishes to seek further support from this Bench, we would certainly be there behind him in the Lobbies.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, for some reason we seem to be in a “vote early and vote often” mode today. These amendments seek to remove three clauses from the Bill that lower the evidential threshold that applies to decision-making by licensing authorities. The clauses replace the requirement that licensing authorities should take actions that are “necessary” with the requirement that their actions are “appropriate”. I do not want to engage the House too long on this debate because we would end up rehearsing all that was said in Committee, but I should say that I do not think that the word “convenient” is a substitute for “appropriate”, although I suspect that he was being rather tongue-in-cheek when he said that.
Lowering the threshold will make it less onerous for licensing authorities to refuse or revoke licences if it is appropriate for the promotion of licensing objectives. The four licensing objectives will still apply. My noble friend Lady Hamwee suggested that I was not clear enough about this in Committee, so I reiterate that the four statutory licensing objectives still apply. However, lowering the threshold will make it less onerous for licensing authorities to refuse or revoke licences if it is appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones for advising me in advance of his concerns. On the “necessary” test and the importance of it being compliant with human rights law, the statutory test of what is appropriate as the basis on which licensing authorities must make decisions—alongside clear guidance to those authorities as to what is meant by this threshold, and the availability of statutory rights of appeal for licensing applicants and others affected by licensing decisions—ensures that the ECHR rights of those affected by licensing decisions are safeguarded. My noble friend prayed in aid his experience of previous legislation in this area. The requirement that an interference with ECHR rights must be “necessary” is a concept that has been developed in the context of human rights law and is not directly comparable with the meaning of “necessary” as it currently appears in the Licensing Act 2003.
My noble friend suggested that the only right of appeal against licensing decisions, including the imposition of conditions, is judicial review. That is not correct. Section 181 of the Licensing Act 2003 already provides for a statutory right of appeal to the magistrates’ court against most decisions by licensing authorities, including decisions on the granting or revocation of a licence and the conditions attached.
I must also inform the House that although it has been suggested that the Local Government Association is against these proposed changes, that is not the Government’s understanding. Indeed, in response to our consultation on rebalancing the Licensing Act, the LG Group said that it “broadly welcomes this proposal”.
Lord Soley
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I think I am more sympathetic to the Government’s word “appropriate” than to the suggested use of the word “necessary”. In the context of the Bill, both these words are actually subjective in terms of what is being looked at. I assume that the Government prefers “appropriate” because I would have thought that it would be easier to argue either for or against in court than “necessary” would be, because that word is rather different. Is that not the thinking behind the Government’s proposal? I understand the arguments, but the central issue seems to be that of appeal. It would be easier for a court to reach a decision on what is “appropriate” than on what is “necessary”. However, please tell me if I am wrong.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I am not in a position to try to second-guess how a court would determine that, because we are talking hypothetically and not about a specific example. I will come on to an example which might be helpful to the House. The lower evidence threshold would apply to most conditions, but to show that the imposition of conditions such as the use of plastic glassware or closure of windows after a late hour or the use of CCTV in or outside bars is “necessary” for the promotion of licensing objectives, including the prevention of nuisance or crime and disorder, is an onerous test. It would be less onerous for local authorities to show that such conditions were “appropriate” for the promotion of the licensing objectives. I hope that that is helpful to the House, because when we debated the equivalent amendment in Committee, I was unable to give an example such as that. I hope that that gives the House a feel for the thinking behind the Government’s change to the wording.
I can assure my noble friend that these decisions will still need to be evidence-based. We will include statutory guidance on the new tests, as I have suggested. I am not in a position to say that the guidance will be available at this stage of the Bill, but it will be made available. It will be consulted to ensure correct interpretation once the legislation is applied. On that basis, I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her response. I thank also my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for their support. The Minister’s reply to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, illustrated only too well how cunning government departments are in answering questions about the ECHR. The response was fascinating, being essentially that there is “necessary” and “necessary”, and that, for the purposes of the ECHR, “appropriate” equals “necessary”. That seemed to be what the Minister was saying. It is clearly highly dangerous to quote the ECHR in these circumstances, because you get an Alice in Wonderland type of response.
However, I was very grateful for the remainder of the Minister’s response. Her undertaking to consult on the statutory guidance will, I think, be welcomed by all concerned. Some of the examples that she gave might not be considered “necessary”, although, as I said in my opening contribution, if licensing authorities are able to impose 64 conditions on a takeaway, they do not lack powers. I am not going to push this. We have had a good debate over two stages of the Bill. I have tried to express the concerns of the trade on this matter. I hope that that dialogue will continue in the statutory consultation so that “appropriate” is confined —so that it is not equivalent to “suitable”, and certainly not equivalent to “convenient”. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, the amendment is designed to probe whether the Government have firm plans to introduce exemptions for the EMRO regime. I have a later, similar amendment, on which I shall not speak at great length, designed to probe whether there are plans to introduce exemptions from the late night levy and, if so, what those might be. As such, it represents at least a first attempt at defining some of those exemptions.
The Minister promised in Committee that there would be wide consultation on the exemptions to be introduced. It is important for the House to know what the Government are minded to introduce. For instance, will they introduce exemptions for private members' clubs which do not sell to members of the public but are membership-based? They are not, as I explained in Committee, generally positioned on the high street or close to centres of the night-time economy. Rather than basing the regime solely on premises type, can individual well run premises be exempted? Will exemptions recognise best practice and social responsibility initiatives such as those that we debated in Committee—for example Best Bar None, business improvement districts, Purple Flag, Pubwatch and so on?
I hope that the Minister can give us more detail and say that these exemptions will also be consulted on. I beg to move.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, my noble friend’s Amendment 305ZA would make it a requirement that regulations containing the cases or circumstances which may be exempt from an early morning alcohol restriction order include exempt cases that are defined by reference to particular kinds of premises or particular days. He was good enough to say that it was a probing amendment. I hope that I can give him the reassurance that he seeks when I say that the Government will ensure that exceptions to early morning restriction orders will define cases by reference to particular kinds of premises or particular days. Officials have already had useful discussions, including with representatives of the drinks industry and licensing authorities. As my noble friend acknowledged, we will carry out a full public consultation on the secondary legislation on EMROs later this summer. He asked specifically about private clubs. We will consider whether to include not-for-profit clubs and sports clubs as a separate class, and include that in consultation, before bringing forward the regulations. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
I thank my noble friend the Minister. What he has said will be very useful standing on the record for those who want certain exemptions. He has given a useful taste of the kind of exemptions that will be consulted on and indication that the whole EMRO regime will be consulted on later this summer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
( ) the costs of social services and trading standards when discharging their functions as responsible authorities under this Act”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, we discussed this matter in Committee and we want to probe further whether the Government have moved in their thinking. We welcome the Government’s move through Clause 123 to allow licensing authorities the ability to set fees locally on the basis of full cost recovery. Operating the licence system since 2005 has cost council tax payers over £100 million more than they anticipated due to the current, centrally set fee structure, which does not allow licensing authorities to set cost-neutral local charges. Given the economic climate, there is a real imperative to allow cost-neutral fees to be set as soon as possible. However, as we discussed last time, there is a drafting error within Clause 123, which would mean two-tier authorities not being able fully to recover all the costs associated with licensing. This was debated in Committee. When the Minister replied, he acknowledged that, as drafted, the Bill would exclude the relevant costs of trading standards and social services departments and that, even though they were discharging duties under the Licensing Act, they would not be able to recover them. He concluded by saying:
“I see sense in the intention of [the amendment] and, if I may, I shall reflect on it further”.—[Official Report, 16/6/11; col. 911.]
The purpose of the amendment is to press the Government for their response on this issue. I hope that they have some good news for us.
Baroness Hamwee
I support the amendment. I reacted rather to the suggestion that what is a marginal cost is therefore almost irrelevant in the case of the authorities affected. I, too, look forward to hearing the outcome of the reflection.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has explained, Amendment 305ZB seeks to ensure that the costs of social services and trading standards, in their role as “responsible authorities” only, can be covered by fees when they are located outside the licensing authority as well as within it. I certainly acknowledge that I said in Committee that I would reflect further on the proposal. I have done so very carefully and taken legal advice. Having examined it, I have found that the practical difficulties unfortunately outweigh the benefits.
The role of responsible authority involves, for example, considering applications and, in rare cases, applying for review. The costs arising will be very marginal—I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Hamwee objects to the use of that wording—in the context of overall fee income and the wider functions of these bodies. To set fees locally, each licensing authority will be required to calculate its own costs. We would not wish to require it to calculate the costs of another body without very good reason. The amendment would also imply a duty on county councils to report fractional costs and on the licensing authority to pass the funds to the county. The cost of this would then be passed on to fee payers even if the net gain to local government was very little or even nothing. The current fees regime makes no provision for district councils to pass funding to county councils in respect of these functions and we understand that no money has been transferred.
As I said, I have considered this matter carefully. In a nutshell, I am asking noble Lords to accept that the amendment would result in substantial extra bureaucracy and costs which would be passed on to licence holders for very little benefit. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether these practical difficulties have been discussed with the Local Government Association, which would undoubtedly have an input into this? If not, that is a pity.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, flicking rapidly through my papers, I cannot find the answer to my noble friend’s question. I shall write to her about it.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord opposite and I would have heard if there had been a discussion. I put that rather gently but firmly.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
There was, I think, a hint of menace in what the noble Baroness was saying. She was leaning forward slightly, and it was well judged to deliver that blow.
The LGA has indeed been concerned about this issue and has circulated documents widely which address the issue and make the main points that I repeated in the discussions earlier. It has also made it clear that it is very concerned about this matter. Although the Minister said that it was a marginal cost, every pound is important to local government. It is unfortunate that the Government have said that the cost of the bureaucracy of this might outweigh its benefits when those who are responsible for delivering it say that they want it to happen.
The Government are hiding under the question of bureaucracy. They promised a very important principle—that there would be a full cost recovery basis for licensing. They have gone so far down the line but they are not prepared to go the further stage. This is a disappointing result and we would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Bilston
“Limits on temporary event notices
In section 107(4) of the Licensing Act 2003 (counter notice where permitted limits exceed) for “12” substitute “15”.”
Lord Bilston
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to move Amendment 305A, in my name and that of other noble friends in many parts of the House. The purpose of the amendment is to extend the limits on temporary event notices under Section 107(4) of the Licensing Act 2003 from 12 to 15 events per annum.
I readily concede that, within a Bill as controversial and weighty as this police reform and social responsibility legislation, our amendment is both simple and harmless. Yet it carries with it the hopes and aspirations of many thousands of clubs throughout the UK—working men’s clubs, Conservative, Labour and Liberal clubs, British Legion, miners’ and Armed Forces’ clubs, all of which play a vitally important part in the lives of their communities in every part of this green and pleasant land. The proposal to extend that by three occasions a year gives these non-profit-making clubs the opportunity to play a greater part in contributing to fundraising and community events and supporting good causes, which are the essence of good community life.
The All-Party Group on Non-Profit-Making Members’ Clubs—of which I declare that I am currently the secretary and was chairman for many years when I was in the House of Commons—fully backs this modest extension of the temporary events for clubs, as also does the Minister for pubs and clubs, Mr Bob Neill. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee in reporting on the operation of the Licensing Act 2003 also recommended an increase to 15, as proposed in this amendment.
Non-profit-making clubs up and down the land have carried a heavy burden in the past few years. The negative effects on trading by the introduction of the smoking ban, the greater expansion of cheap alcohol in supermarkets and the perpetual increases in the cost of beer and beer duties, together with the disastrous effects of the bankers-induced recession, have all conspired to place many clubs in the greatest danger to their survival that they have ever experienced. Support for this amendment would demonstrate in a small but practical way our appreciation for the value and service that these institutions offer to their communities. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, my name is on this amendment. I fully support all the points raised by my noble friend Lord Bilston. If the Government feel unable to agree to this change today in the Bill, I hope that I could have some information and assurance that the matter will be raised through other channels. How soon could we revisit the issue if it cannot be done in this way?
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I will certainly be brief. I do not think anybody seriously believes that non-profit-making clubs are the cause of some of the problems sometimes associated with other clubs. They do much good work in the community and for charities, as has been said. They are not now always financially strong, as my noble friend Lord Bilston explained. We hope that the Government will be able to look sympathetically on the amendment.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, with even greater brevity, I just intervene to say that, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Bilston, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and the noble Lord on the opposition Front Bench, I want to appeal to the sympathy of my noble friends on the Front Bench. It sounds like a good worthy cause for people who have been having a bit of a struggle. I know a number of them in my own former constituency area, so I hope we shall get a sympathetic ear.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I add my support. Like my noble friend Lord Newton, I had many such clubs in my former constituency. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Bilston, moved the amendment very moderately and sensibly and made a completely unanswerable case. I hope that we have a very sympathetic response from my noble friend who will be replying to this brief debate and that, at the very least, he will be able to follow the injunction of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and give us some encouragement, because it really is a truly worthy cause.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, Amendment 35A would increase the number of temporary event notices that may be given in relation to single premises in any one calendar year from 12 to 15. I am well aware of the noble Lord’s tireless work for these centres of our communities and thank him for that. This proposal is very much in line with the direction in which we are travelling. We are legislating to allow for greater flexibility and a more relaxed and liberal system, particularly for small, voluntary and community groups that make use of the temporary events notices to carry out licensable activities. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bilston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for not only agreeing with us in this general direction of travel but also taking the time to discuss this with me.
Through the Bill, we are already taking substantial steps to relax some of the requirements of TENs. For example, we propose to increase the total number of days in any calendar year on which a single premises can be used to carry on licensable activities under a temporary event notice from 15 to 21 days. We are also relaxing the provisions to allow licensing authorities to accept late temporary event notices. Furthermore, we are also using the Bill to increase the maximum period for a single event that may be authorised by one temporary event notice from 96 hours or four days to 168 hours, or seven days, to help festivals and other forms of entertainment that run over several days. I hope that noble Lords will agree that these are positive moves in the same direction as their amendment.
TENs are supposed to be a light-touch measure, outside the norm of the licensing regime for one-off, exceptional or occasional events. Just to give some balance, we have also considered carefully the views of many residents who responded to our consultation and who complained about noise nuisance from temporary events. We ask noble Lords to agree with us that allowing for an average of one such event a month, or 12 a year, achieves the right balance. However, the Government are committed to reducing the overall burden of regulation across the piece and have been consulting the public on this wider work, including alcohol licensing via its red tape challenge. So for example the Government have announced that they will shortly be carrying out a public consultation, led by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, on the reform of regulated entertainment under the Licensing Act 2003. In the circumstances, I ask the noble Lord to accept that our direction of travel is very much in line with his own and to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Bilston
I thank the Minister for that reply, which is very positive. I naturally hoped that he might allow the amendment today, but on the basis of what he has said and the very helpful discussions that we had yesterday, I am very happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
Lord Clement-Jones
I will speak also to Amendments 305C, 306ZA and 306ZB. Amendments 305B and 305C are designed to extend the ability of licensing authorities to determine the extent of the geographical spread of the late-night levy area so that it need not apply to the whole local authority area. As we discussed in Committee when, I believe, the Minister expressed some sympathy, this is one of the weaknesses of the provision for a late-night levy. It is a very blunt instrument to deal with the whole of a local authority area.
Clause 127(4) currently prohibits the licensing authority from applying the levy as it is currently stated in only parts of its area. Removing that provision and inserting the words of the amendment into subsection (2) would allow licensing authorities to designate a particular town or city centre within its control as being liable for the late-night levy rather than being totally broad brush in its approach.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, I intervene extremely briefly. On the strength of my own experience in the two cities, where there is of course an enormous amount of late-night activity and in other parts of the constituency there is absolutely nothing happening at all, I would like my noble friend, to whom I was not very helpful on the last occasion, to know that on this occasion I am sympathetic to what he is saying.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I have Amendment 306ZZA in this group. On the issue of the division of the levy between the police and the local authority, at the previous stage I attempted to reverse the proportions, as provided by the Bill. This time I am suggesting a 50-50 split. I am sure that my noble friend will understand how completely reasonable that must be.
At that stage, my noble friend told me as reassurance that the levy had,
“been designed to raise money for the police, who bear the brunt of late night enforcement costs”.—[Official Report, 16/6/11; col. 943.]
I do not doubt the costs borne by the police, but to some extent they are already taken into account in the way that their funding operates. I am concerned that the costs to local authorities, particularly as regards environmental health and some of the organisation involved in dealing with late-night activity, are not acknowledged.
I have brought this back not only to change the proportion but because of a thought that occurred to me after the previous stage. If an authority is to receive little financial benefit from the levy, it may take a decision not to impose it at all. I wonder whether the Government have considered that risk, if I may put it that way.
Lord Rosser
I will be brief. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to what my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara said in Committee in respect of the amendments that the noble Lord has moved, in particular the support that we on these Benches gave for a more targeted application of the late-night levy. That continues to be our position.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, there continues to be concern about the levy’s geographic coverage emanating from a belief that the levy should be a targeted tool. We are confident that we have provided tools such as early morning alcohol restriction orders to allow licensing authorities to target specific areas with alcohol problems. Businesses profit from supplying alcohol in a safe, late-night environment, so they should contribute to the very substantial police costs incurred. If we gave a licensing authority the power to target the levy, fewer businesses would contribute.
My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones’s Amendment 305B and my noble friend Lady Hamwee’s Amendment 305C risk the levy failing in its objective of raising a meaningful contribution towards policing. To retain the focus on policing, I must also resist my noble friend Lady Hamwee’s Amendment 306ZZA, which would reduce the proportion of the levy money after administrative expenses are deducted that goes to the police.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones will also agree not to press his Amendment 306ZA, with my firm reassurance that we will make regulations on exemptions and reductions. He asked specifically about rural pubs and also jazz clubs. We are currently considering the categories ahead of the consultation. Let me also reassure my noble friend that we wish to use the levy to promote participation in best practice schemes, and we will explore that further in consultation.
As regards Amendment 306ZB, we still wish to retain elements of local discretion, so we cannot accept an amendment that constrains this element of localism. Authorities should be trusted to select the right categories for their area. Many schemes are actively encouraged by licensing authorities. They are best placed to grant exemptions or reductions to those schemes that they feel are effective. On that basis, I ask that the amendment is not pressed.
Lord Clement-Jones
I thank the Minister for that reply. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, for his support. It is interesting that even in a borough such as Westminster there are cold and hot spots. By analogy, therefore, that is true of most boroughs in the country. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his support on this matter.
I understand the rationale behind the measure—that it is essentially fundraising designed to defray the costs to the police—but the exemptions will be extremely important in these circumstances. If there is no geographical exemption, there must be a category exemption in many cases so that country pubs can be exempted and not have to pay. If this measure is going to get acceptance, it manifestly must be fairly applied. This is essentially a local tax designed to pay for policing in relation to those establishments that are open late at night. I welcome the Minister’s comments about the consultation, but I hope that he and his colleagues will be in no doubt about the central importance of the consultation, even more so in the case of the late-night levy than in the case of early morning alcohol restriction orders.
Finally, the question that the Minister did not quite address was: why is the regime different for early morning alcohol restriction orders? It seems that while local authorities will not have so much discretion over them, they will have discretion about the late-night levy. I assume the answer to be that each is designed to achieve a particular balance in the circumstances. I take from the Minister’s nods that that is indeed the essence of the matter. I also take it that as the restriction orders are more discretionary, you need less discretion about the imposition of exemptions, and that as the late-night levy is for the local authority, those exemptions will not necessarily be applied so rigorously in those circumstances. However, there is considerable concern about the imposition of the late-night levy and I very much hope that there will be strong guidance to local authorities to exempt in appropriate circumstances—we shall return to the word “appropriate” at the end of Part 2—where the merits of the case demand it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Fuel: Electricity Supply Licences
Lord Lucas
That this House regrets that the draft Modifications to the Standard Conditions of Electricity Supply Licences disappoint the legitimate expectations of businesses who placed reliance on Government announcements as to the availability and amount of subsidy, and favours the least efficient forms of solar electricity generation.
Relevant document: 34th Report from the Merits Committee
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I have no interest to declare in solar energy. Indeed, I am something of a sceptic and regard the subsidies we are discussing today as something of an unwelcome and unjustified imposition on the public. I am all in favour of the measures that the Government are taking to control the cost of these subsidies, but I regret—putting it gently—the way in which they have chosen to do that. I believe that they breach the trust that ought to exist between Governments and those who place faith in what they have said. The measure fails to take account of the opportunities for building new industries in this area, and it has been structured so as to be a much harsher imposition on consumers than it needs to be.
Before the election, we, the Conservative Party, were talking in terms of extending the limits of the feed-in tariff for solar to 10 megawatts—that is, if you are to believe Friends of the Earth. Personally, I do not often do so, but I suspect that the Government are more favourable towards them. However, on 1 February 2010, the Government said that adjustments would be made to the feed-in tariff,
“as evidence on actual deployment, costs and performance emerges … with the first review due to take place in 2013”,
subject to degression in the level of feed-in tariff from 31 March 2012. The meaning of that seems plain to me: anything that you get under way before 1 April 2012 will be at the stated tariff. Fine, that was said by a previous Government, but new Governments cannot just tear up what has been said before, which is what we appear to be doing.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, one of the great fallacies of this debate about the changes that the Government intend to make to the feed-in tariff scheme is how it has been characterised as being between the Government, who say that they recognise that the scheme needed to be changed, and those who argued that no change was necessary whatever the financial implications. I lay that to rest at the very beginning of this debate. One of the reasons for my Motion today is that we consider the Government's projections to be flawed in that no one expects or is asking for the scheme to be left exactly as it is. The Solar Trade Association, Friends of the Earth, Low Carbon Group and others are all calling for cuts to be made in line with falling costs and a faster degression rate, so that the level of tariffs reduces faster over time.
It has not been fully understood that feed-in tariffs are designed as a pump-primer for the industry, to get it going. They would not add significant capacity in the early years but are really a building block to get a much faster-growing industry, as we have for example seen in Germany. For the same reasons, feed-in tariffs should not be seen as a permanent subsidy. The speed, the scale and the way in which the changes have been made is hugely damaging to investor confidence across the renewables sector, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, also outlined.
The purpose of the tariffs when they were brought in by the previous Labour Government was to encourage solar as part of the energy mix that is needed in this country to help achieve energy security, to help meet our renewables targets and to open up green energy generation to businesses, communities and householders. The consultation that the Government undertook on their proposed changes could have been a real opportunity for them to work with the industry to address its concerns. However, the consultation was only six weeks long, whereas the Government code of practice states that consultations should normally last 12 weeks or longer. Furthermore, 81 per cent of respondents opposed the Government’s plans and made alternative suggestions, but not a single change was made.
The consultation divided the market as being above or below 50 kilowatts, thus not only making the large-scale solar farms to which the Minister will no doubt refer unviable, but also community schemes and business and industry projects. The scheme was originally designed to incentivise projects up to 5 megawatts. The Secretary of State, Chris Huhne, has expressed his view that we do not leave our energy future to the exclusive preserve of the big six energy companies. Given the recent price hikes, I am sure that many of your Lordships would agree with that assessment. However, is the Minister aware that capping the scheme at 50 kilowatts is exactly what the energy companies lobbied for in the first place?
On the purpose of the Government’s changes, when the Government announced their consultation it was clear that this was a financial decision. The Government saw that there was increased interest in large-scale solar farms, particularly at the rate at which the tariff was set and with the significant fall of around 30 per cent in capital costs. That had not been anticipated by the department’s modelling, as undertaken prior to their introduction. Therefore, the Government consulted on proposals to reduce tariffs for solar developments of more than 50 kilowatts by 38 per cent to 42 per cent; for projects of more than 150 kilowatts by 50 per cent; and for projects of more than 250 kilowatts or any stand-alone installation of any size by nearly 70 per cent. That makes those larger developments and stand-alone developments unviable, which was clearly the Government’s intention. The Government’s argument is that these costs would have been too high if the industry had carried on growing at the same rate and, for the money involved, it would not have had enough capacity to make the investment cost-effective.
I understand that the Government want to avoid oversubsidising solar power. Capital costs have fallen so that is not an unreasonable objective. It is one that the industry fully understands. However, it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us what other options were considered to address the issue. Did the noble Lord consider any other tariff rates that would have reduced the costs but not choked off investment? Given that the costs are met not by government tax and spend but by the consumer—we are mindful of the need to keep prices down for the consumer—what estimate has the Minister made of the costs to an individual household over the next 10 or 20 years? I do not mean an estimate of the costs as though there were no changes at all. Most of us agree that some change was required and any analysis must take that into account. I see him frowning at me at this point. It is quite a tall order, so I am happy for him to write to me about this. However, those answers may go some way towards understanding the Government’s approach to this issue.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, the only interest I declare is that I was a member of the campaign that persuaded the previous Government to adopt feed-in tariffs in the face of some reluctance in Whitehall. I think it was in November 2008 that my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath—a most enlightened Energy Minister—reacted positively to a Motion which had been tabled by no less a person than the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, then the Conservative spokesperson on DECC, to whose Motion was added no less a person’s name than my own.
The original amendment had no limit but led to the Government proposing the 5 megawatt limit, which dealt with the majority of schemes that we had in mind to benefit from that. The terrible thing is that that policy has worked. The decision, which was welcomed at the time by the parties which became the coalition, was also welcomed by and large by the industry. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said, it led to plans being brought forward, investment funds being found, schemes being established and many more schemes being proposed. However, the new Government decided that they would have a review just as the policy was getting off the ground. The review took a bit of time. They then got round to announcing the new rates. The initial rates were perhaps not entirely susceptible to rational justification but provoked the desired result. As noble Lords have said, investment has been stopped in its tracks by the 70 per cent cut in the feed-in tariff subsidy provided for schemes of between 50 kilowatts and 5 megawatts.
Other noble Lords will no doubt also have received representations from firms and organisations saying that this decision stopped well advanced plans in several parts of the country. Certainly, firms in Somerset, Cornwall, Yorkshire, the West Midlands and Scotland have approached me, and all say that plans which would otherwise have come forward have been stopped in their tracks. The whole point of this policy was to bring forward such investment. It was pump-priming in the sense that it drove down the price of solar energy. According to the Government’s own impact assessment, the price of solar energy came down by 30 per cent. In other words, as I say, the policy was working. That is rare enough in energy policy; to stop it after a few months because it is working seems to me bizarre in the extreme. The idea which is occasionally put about by the Government or other commentators that originally the policy was intended only to encourage domestic solar panels on housing, or small groups of housing, is absurd.
The reason why we wanted to move beyond 50 kilowatts was precisely because we were looking to semi-commercial or larger activities. For once, I cite myself, seconding the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. We were talking about single-site operators; we were talking about farmers; we were talking about all-district heating schemes; we were talking about individual large buildings, schools, university campuses, community projects and small industrial estates. Those were exactly the sites on both the public and community side and the commercial side which we were attempting to encourage to adopt solar energy by extending the limit to 5 megawatts. The idea that it has been a distortion that the benefit has gone to farmers and industrial operators is quite wrong.
One reason we proposed that was that most such schemes would involve single-site operators who would not be that interested in the ROCs market, that ROCs were an inadequate incentive for them and that feed-in tariffs would be a much better way of mobilising that market. So it proved, as it has in other countries. Two or three days ago, I had an e-mail from one of my friends, who has no particular interest in the field, who was driving through Germany, remarking on the farms that he was visiting and passing, many of which ran on solar energy, and the solar panels on public buildings, flats and so forth. Germany has made a major investment in solar energy and, as a result, there are about 100,000 jobs in Germany in the solar and related installation industries. It was working elsewhere; it was beginning to work here; but the Government stopped it in its tracks.
I must address one other issue which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Other noble Lords will have received a representation from Which?. I have often acted as consumer champion in this House, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, who proposed the policy. We have to counter that argument. It is true that the cost eventually falls on the consumer, but that is true of every proposition to try to change the energy mix. The cost of ROCs eventually falls on the consumer. The cost of CERTs eventually falls on the consumer. The cost of various other schemes has all fallen on the consumer. That is an argument not for changing one bit of the green energy incentive plan but for looking at it in its totality.
I would have understood if the Government said: “We are looking at this in the light of trying to get a more rational system whereby, instead of different forms of subsidy employing dramatically different implied prices of carbon, we get something more consistent”. I would have understood if this had been part of a policy to ensure that the burden on the consumer was more fairly distributed than under the present system, which is almost a poll tax on energy consumers. That is not what is being said. The Government are not even saying that they are looking at the feed-in tariff consistently across the range of applications. Instead, we have hit a particularly promising and successful policy before it has really got off the ground.
The Minister’s colleague, Greg Barker, has spoken movingly and convincingly about his commitment to decentralised energy. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, this is the ultimate in decentralised energy in that it is very local, does not require a huge amount of connections and can operate without a huge burden on the grid. I do not understand why the Government have done this—or perhaps I do. Within the Minister’s department—which, generally speaking, I think is one of the better Whitehall departments—there was resistance even when the previous Government were trying to change the position. It took a lot of overturning. I was very grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who was able to face out that opposition. More importantly, it faced opposition from the Treasury.
The Earl of Liverpool
My Lords, I rise briefly to register my strong support for the two Motions. I declare an interest as a director of a company that has already received planning permission to build a substantial solar farm in the south of England, but whose whole future has now been put in doubt because of the Government’s decision to reduce the feed-in tariff so drastically. I simply wish to say that I agree with everything that has been said so far today on this subject, and I am very keen to hear what my noble friend the Minister will have to say by way of, I hope, reassuring me, my noble friend Lord Lucas, and the House that he will get together with the industry and try to resolve this serious difficulty. It is basically a nascent industry that has been snuffed out at birth. Having said those few words, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Spicer
My Lords, I had not meant to intervene in this debate. In fact, I am breaking the habit of the past 25 years, since I was the Minister responsible for taking the Electricity Bill through Parliament. I also declare an interest as president of the Association of Electricity Producers.
I just want to enter two notes of caution about what has been said. Of course, renewables and solar are a good thing—nobody doubts that—but they are also expensive, as has been admitted by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. They also require, certainly when talking about wind power, heavy extra capacity. Therefore, on capacity grounds and on price grounds above all, whatever we say about renewables—I hope that we will say positive things—we have to be realistic. One thing that worries me about the present situation is that we set targets that turn out to be unrealistic. Oil power and carbon-related fuels will be necessary. We will have to have either carbon-free coal or oil-fired power stations to a very great extent in the future. We had better recognise that, otherwise we will be another £200 billion behind in investment.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, as I have said on other occasions, I am pleased about the way in which DECC has managed to negotiate very positively with the Treasury over its budget, even in the areas of private taxation that are reflected in private energy Bills, and how the overall programme for renewables has started to move ahead. I also sympathise in many ways with the Government’s priority to make sure that as many people as possible are involved in the renewables industry so that households that want to fit solar PV to their houses, or SMEs solar PV to their business premises, can do that. Both those things are positive.
Having said that, the difficulties caused to the industry by this major change in policy over a short period of time have been very great. I understand and agree with my noble friend Lord Lucas on this. As many Members of the House will know, I come from Cornwall. I represent an electoral division there that as we speak is constructing a 5 megawatt facility to make sure that it can throw the switch before midnight on 31 July. I do not know whether any electricity will flow then: presumably it will, in order to come in before the tariff changes. In Cornwall, about half a dozen sites will hit the grid before the deadline arrives.
It is clear that a very large number of investors wanted to come into this field. Some were opportunists—which is not necessarily a bad thing, because we are trying to work with the market—but there was a basis to enable a number of new renewable energy companies that genuinely held the values of decarbonising our economy to start, work and gain ground in order to be part of that decentralised electricity-generating system that so many of us in the House want to see. Those business starts and the growth of micro-businesses into medium-sized businesses can no longer happen. The amount of investment, for example to secure planning permissions, was very great.
I accept that not all the schemes should have gone ahead. Planning permissions were extremely easy to obtain because people did not object to them as they do to a number of other renewable technologies. However, now the momentum has stopped in its tracks. I very much regret that. The particular practical difficulty is that even where too many of the larger schemes would have been very onerous, there were a number of community schemes, too, that have come to a halt or will not be fulfilled.
Two days ago, as well as receiving the electrical market review, we saw the UK Renewable Energy Roadmap, which I very much welcome. On the whole it is an excellent document. However, perhaps it is illustrative that chapter 3, “Actions”, names the technologies of onshore wind, offshore wind, marine energy, biomass electricity, biomass heat, ground source heat pumps and air source heat pumps—I am very pleased to see those there—and renewable energy in transport, which we sometimes forget about but which is of equal importance.
Solar PV is nowhere in that list. The document includes a case study of solar PV and states:
“The Government believes that solar PV could potentially have a role to play in larger-scale UK renewables deployment in the future”.
That is a very iffy assessment of solar PV. I am very aware, as we have seen today and during part of this week, that the UK is not the best country in the world for solar PV. However, there is no doubt that the technology is potentially useful. The costs are expected to come down very significantly in future. The initial FIT rate was too high and provided too great a return, but it has come down so much that it has acted as a veto on the industry. As a result, the green jobs that all of us want to see have been postponed or might not happen as they might have done.
The document goes on to say that the Government encourage solar PV on a large scale as part of the ROCs regime. Will the Minister say whether there is a way forward there for large-scale PV? The renewable obligations review is due in the next few weeks. The Government have cut out the higher FIT rates. Could they over a temporary period fix a higher ROC rate for solar PV so that we could again encourage investment in this industry? When the costs come down we can reduce the ROC rate, as we would do with any other technology.
Will the Minister tell us how many ROC schemes there are on solar PV at the moment? I do not know whether there are many. I would be interested to know what the scale of demand is at the minute. I think there is a good future for solar PV in this country. We want to encourage it for jobs and growth, and I would like it to be a larger part of the jigsaw of the renewable road map for the future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)
My Lords, I welcome this debate. It is important that we discuss these issues and get clarity on them. I hope I am going to do that in response. I have received a very good letter from the chairman of the British Photovoltaic Association in conjunction with the director of the Combined Heat and Power Association, the chief executive of the Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Association and the chief executive of the building council for sustainable energy. They say a number of things, including: “Those highly dependent on the previous tariff of photovoltaic levels are now few in number in comparison with the sizeable and growing industry for other parts of the feed-in tariff”. They also give a word of warning and, “urge people not to reopen the Government’s decision at this stage. It would cause lasting, and we believe irreparable, damage. This would apply not just to solar PV but also to the vibrant and growing activity of small and medium-sized wind, aerobic digestion and microchip”. Finally, they say: “We would urge you to oppose any attempts to overturn the Government’s decision implementation on 1 August”. I think that sets out the stall of the industry that we have consulted and discussed things with.
The noble Baroness said that it was a very short consultation. Of course it was a short consultation because the industry wants certainty. In government, we unfortunately have to make choices. We are in a situation of rising electricity and energy prices, and we have to make choices in order to prevent that. These are the questions we asked ourselves when getting to the point of making this decision. Do we consider that at a time of rising bills we should encourage the spending of £7 billion on solar PV? Does this represent value for money? Does it have a real impact on our demand for electricity, given that it produces under 0.1 per cent of our electricity supply? Even if everything worked as planned, by 2020 it would be only as much as 0.3 per cent of our energy supply. Like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who is so sound on all these subjects—even though I do not think he is in complete agreement with me, for a change, on this one—we asked ourselves whether we are best suited as a country, given that we need electricity in winter when we have narrow daylight hours, and whether this is the most effective way of creating electricity. Therefore, is this a core activity for the Government?
We also looked at some of the schemes that were being offered. I am sure this does not apply to my noble friend Lord Liverpool, but schemes were offering a 21.4 per cent return on investment guaranteed by government-backed FITs and were being sold to people as the greatest investment opportunity for a long time. There are many examples of that. The Government are concerned that people could be taken advantage of.
Similarly, did we think the support that we gave the schemes was fair? If you were putting up onshore wind you would get one ROC, if you were putting up offshore wind you would get two ROCs, and this feed-in tariff is the equivalent of over five ROCs. Is that fair and reasonable for the rest of the industry?
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, criticised us for frivolous and unreliable decisions worthy of a third-world country. I emphasise that this is not retrospective. It does not apply to people who have installed this. I absolutely repudiate his suggestion that this is frivolous and unreliable. To suggest that we should push on with this regardless is frivolous and unreliable, which is why we have stopped it.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. I can assure him that I do not agree with what he is doing, which is why I tabled the Motion today. I asked him another specific question about what options were being considered other than the two all or nothing questions that he has spoken about today. He has not answered that or my other questions. If he cannot answer today, I would be very grateful if he could write to me.
Lord Marland
My Lords, I can answer that straightaway. Let me make it clear that we considered every option. A whole magnitude of options are put forward in reviews and consultations with industry, so of course we considered other options. However, the option that was actually put to us, largely by industry, suggested that the contribution of FITs was going to be even more expensive than it is now, and I am afraid that that was an option that we were not going to embark upon.
In closing, I see no real sense in the feed-in tariff at the level that it was. We have made the right and brave decision. It is a decision to support the consumer, which is obviously a priority for the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. It saves consumers from a vast increase in bills on a form of electricity generation that is not really going to impact on the importance and size of the problem ahead of us.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply, except that he did not actually reply to the last questions I asked him. I would very much appreciate the opportunity to come and see him to ask them again. They are: how are we going to deal with distributed generation in the energy market review, and what plans are we making for the day when solar becomes a competitive source?
Lord Marland
I can respond to that. I do not intend to respond to questions on the broad scope of electricity generation in this debate. If the noble Lord had attended the debate on our electricity market reform Statement, or if he wishes to read the paper that was published this week, he would see how we are attempting to deal with the supply and demand side. It is a very big subject that unfortunately I do not feel I can cover now.
Lord Lucas
I am not trying to tempt my noble friend to do so. I am merely trying to tempt him to spend some of his time subsequently discussing it with me. I agree that the EMR review is an interesting paper, and I have read it with great interest. However, I think it misses the point about solar.
I will argue with my noble friend about his use of the term “not retrospective”, and I suspect that my noble friend Lord Liverpool would too. If you put a lot of money into a project and the Government then produce a cut-off that makes it impossible to realise that project, while there may be a few lucky people in Cornwall, there are a lot of unlucky people elsewhere who are losing what for them is a lot of money, even if it is not for the Government. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Fuel: Electricity Supply Licences
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That this House regrets that the implementation of the draft Modifications to the Standard Conditions of Electricity Supply Licences will have a significant negative impact on the United Kingdom solar industry; further regrets that this could have a devastating impact on community energy schemes and has created uncertainty about the Government’s commitment to a green energy policy; and calls on the Government to reconsider their approach to the Feed-in Tariffs, to consider a gradual taper for any changes that it makes and to set out their future intentions for the solar industry and its role in contributing to the energy security of the United Kingdom through a mixed energy supply.
Relevant document: 34th Report from the Merits Committee.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:25 - Division on Amendment 306ZC - Ayes: 104 / Noes: 151 - Amendment 306ZC disagreed.
16:28 - Division on Amendment 306A - Ayes: 102 / Noes: 129 - Amendment 306A disagreed.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
306ZC: After Clause 142, insert the following new Clause—
“Youth rehabilitation orders: alcohol monitoring requirement
(1) In Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, after paragraph 24 insert—
“24A Alcohol monitoring requirement
(1) In this Part “alcohol monitoring requirement”, in relation to a youth rehabilitation order, means a requirement that during a period specified in the order, the offender must—
(a) not consume alcohol,
(b) for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is alcohol in the offender’s body, provide samples of such description as may be determined, at such times or in such circumstances as may (subject to the provisions of the order) be determined by the responsible officer or by the person specified as the person to whom the samples are to be provided, and
(c) pay such amount in respect of the costs of taking and analysing the sample as may be specified in the order.
(2) A court may not impose an alcohol monitoring requirement unless—
(a) it is satisfied that—
(i) the offender has a propensity to misuse alcohol and expresses willingness to comply with the alcohol monitoring requirement, or
(ii) the misuse by the offender of alcohol caused or contributed to the offence in question, and
(b) the court has been notified by the Secretary of State that arrangements for implementing the requirement are available in the local justice area proposed to be specified in the order.
(3) A youth rehabilitation order imposing an alcohol monitoring requirement must provide that the results of any tests carried out on any samples provided by the offender to the monitoring officer in pursuance of the requirement are to be communicated to the responsible officer.
(4) Where the offender has not attained the age of 17, the order must provide for the samples to be provided in the presence of an appropriate adult.
(5) The Secretary of State may from time to time give guidance about the exercise of the function of making determinations as to the provision of samples pursuant to sub-paragraph (1)(b).
(6) The Secretary of State make rules for all or any of the following purposes—
(a) regulating the provision of samples pursuant to an alcohol monitoring requirement, including hours of attendance, interval between samples and the keeping of attendance records;
(b) regulating the provision and carrying on of a facility for the testing of samples;
(c) determining the maximum and minimum fee that may be specified under sub-paragraph (1)(c), and the frequency of such payments;
(d) regulating the functions of the monitoring officer; and
(e) making such supplemental, incidental, consequential and transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient.
(7) In this paragraph—
“appropriate adult” means—
(a) the offender’s parent or guardian or, if the offender is in the care of a local authority or voluntary organisation, a person representing that authority or organisation;
(b) a social worker of the local authority; or
(c) if no person falling within paragraph (a) or (b) is available, any responsible person aged 18 or over who is not a police officer or a person employed by the police;
“monitoring officer” means any person, other than the responsible officer, specified in an alcohol monitoring requirement as the person to whom samples must be provided.”
(2) Schedule (Youth rehabilitation orders: alcohol monitoring requirement) makes further amendments to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.””
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, the amendments in this group have been improved since Committee to address all the Government’s criticisms. I thank the Minister for her interest in tackling the problems of alcohol in society and for discussing this scheme with me.
The amendments would allow magistrates an additional sentencing arm, that of an alcohol monitoring requirement, where offenders whose crime had been alcohol-fuelled could be referred to a compulsory alcohol sobriety scheme. Such schemes cannot happen, and therefore cannot be piloted and evaluated effectively, without primary legislation. This new sentencing power would allow courts to require an offender to abstain from alcohol and be regularly tested twice a day to demonstrate compliance as part of any sentence, with provision for how breaches should be dealt with. Alcohol recovery support would also be offered.
In Committee, the Government expressed concerns that I shall specifically address. First, they said that primary legislation was not necessary for there to be successful implementation of a pilot scheme in interested areas, such as parts of London. Primary legislation is essential. Without it, piloting such a scheme in a voluntary capacity would dilute its efficacy, not be cost effective and fail to tackle the recidivist alcohol offender. The main principles of the scheme—testing an offender regularly; making them pay for the tests, probably £1; and imposing sanctions if a test is breached—all require primary legislation.
Since Committee, the Government have proposed using a sobriety scheme in a penalty notice for disorder and conditional caution. Such a scheme might at first sight appear tougher than existing arrangements, could start immediately and might capture a few harmful drinkers into recovery, but it would not tackle the root problem. First, the offender would need to admit guilt, yet information from the police indicates that, where alcohol is involved, people often cannot remember their actions—that is the first spanner in the works.
Lord Soley
My Lords, I strongly support this group of amendments. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and fully support her in what she said. We know how serious alcohol abuse is. We have known that for many years. At the end of the day, the difference between now and previous years is availability—in price and outlets. Clearly, it is difficult for any Government to increase price or reduce outlets dramatically. If we are not going to do that, we have to find another way of dealing with that. This amendment has real possibilities.
One thing that we ought to focus on here is the young person’s side. Indeed, the only uncertainty I have about the noble Baroness’s amendment is that with young people as opposed to older people there may be some desirability in giving the court an option on whether to make it subject to the agreement of the young person or compulsory. You might want to consider it being compulsory for young people if the parents are doing a fairly good job in parenting but struggle to manage the alcohol abuse of a young person who may have a predisposition to alcohol abuse because of the known genetic aspect of alcohol addiction. It may then be beneficial to have a back-up for the family if they are working with the young person. There may be a case for leaving it to the court as to whether it should be with the agreement of the young person or not.
That becomes much more difficult with adults, who tend to deny the problem much more emphatically. A young person will often admit that they got into trouble because of drinking. They will know that they have a problem. How severe that becomes depends on the support system that they have around them in terms of family and friends. We need not worry too much about the US example. I am sure it is very good but these things change culturally. The principles underlying it are what should apply.
We know that young people go out and drink heavily and consistently, over a period of time; that is the big difference from years ago, because they have the money to do it and the outlets are there and it becomes an ongoing problem. That is the time when we need to intervene and to take some action to address it. When I see very young people—and sometimes the same person on several occasions during the course of a week or two—you know that that person is already getting into deep difficulties, and you would like to intervene at that stage. Having an ability to put them on this sort of regime would be very good.
Other systems of conditional treatment have been tested and tried over many years; it is applied on mental aspects and on other issues relating to probation orders and other orders of the court. So it should not be beyond our ability to devise something specifically on alcohol abuse in cases like this. I also like very much the idea of doing it as a pilot scheme, because I would be the first to acknowledge that over the decades we have tried many things, not just with alcoholics but with other groups. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, mentioned the drug groups. We have tried many things that we thought were good ideas but which have not turned out to work as we thought they would. So I do not mind if we do this on a piloted basis, setting it up for a certain period of time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is absolutely right—and we all know it in this House—that the alcohol abuse problem is profoundly serious. The number of cases of young people, and increasingly young women at a very young age, with cirrhosis of the liver, which is one of the defining symptoms of alcohol abuse, is deeply disturbing. It is this issue of availability. If we are not going to stand up and say that we will reduce the outlet or increase the price, frankly we have to find something else. I cannot think of anything that is more effective than what is being proposed to the House today.
I have sat through sittings on this police Bill with various degrees of enthusiasm, but I have very great enthusiasm for this proposal. The House would be missing a very great opportunity if it did not back this amendment and if the Government did not give it a really good run for its money. It is a good idea and it is very likely to work. There are no guarantees in this game—we have thought that too often before—but there is a very good chance that it would work. It would be a missed opportunity if we did not put it in the Bill and give it a run. We owe it particularly to the young people in this country.
In the comments that I have just made, I do not want to include the older group of people. Of the current young group, many of them will not be able to stop drinking on their own in years to come; they will not just stop. Having in a distant past dealt with many people with severe alcohol problems, I think it is in many respects harder to get a person off alcohol abuse than it is from quite a few of the drugs available. The damage that is done to society is enormous. So I ask the Government to be generous and adventurous on this and to grab it and run.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, I am very pleased to add my support to the excellent response that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has prepared to the points that arose in Committee. I was one of those who met Professor Keith Humphreys, who is the senior adviser to President Obama on drug and alcohol abuse, who gave us a very helpful presentation indeed on what they are doing in the States. They have made very good progress and are intending to roll out the programme over a much wider front, given the success that they have encountered.
On the point of different cultures, the one thing that those involved in drink and drug issues know is that they are widespread throughout countries in varying degrees. Some places have bigger problems than others, but those who have problems with drink and drugs have a common problem of approach. It behoves us that wherever we see people trying a new approach, if it is producing success and the kind of results that we have heard that this scheme is running, we should spend some time looking to see whether it can be applied in our home country.
The Americans are very progressive in many areas. They try schemes; yes, some of them fail, but they abandon those and move on. The problem I find from my experience of dealing with these issues in this country is that when we get an idea, we believe that it is going to work and research it very well indeed. We then start pouring a lot of money into it, which continues to go in regardless of what is happening with the scheme, yet we continue defending the status quo when others come to suggest trying to look for something a little different.
I hope that the Government will be prepared to think again on this and to be bold. The major issues which were troubling them have, I think, been answered by the noble Baroness in her response but I would underline the two points that I made previously. First, this will not work on a voluntary basis. It will work successfully on that basis in one or two areas, but then you will find that the probation officers move on and the police change. A different culture then occurs in the area where it has been successful, so it is not maintained and it disappears. This is all that we find happens when it is run purely voluntarily on an experimental basis. It needs instead to be in the Bill and to be a compulsory operation—again, on an experimental basis.
Secondly, there is a concern expressed that we might end up with more people going into jail at the end of the day. Well, some of those people will be going to jail in any event and will be costing the taxpayer an awful lot of money in the first instance. If this alternative runs, there is a chance that there will be significantly less cost to the taxpayer and to the public at large. I suggest to the Minister one way around this difficulty. Civil servants hate sunset clauses because they are seen as a mark of failure. We should be much more flexible in our approach to sunset clauses. If they are right that this will end up with more people going to jail—I do not believe that it will, and I think that most people around the House who attended these briefings do not think that—why do the Government not consider making these amendments subject to a sunset clause and bring that back at Third Reading? We can then find a way forward which would answer that problem.
I am sorry to think that my Front Bench is not going to give its full support to this venture. The Labour Party ought to be backing this. From a number of standpoints, it is a very helpful development indeed and even though our Front Bench may not be exalting my colleagues to join us in the Division Lobbies, I personally appeal very strongly indeed to the people on the Labour Benches to vote for this amendment, if we are pushed to a vote. However, I hope that is avoided and that we get a more positive response from the Minister than we have had before.
Lord Imbert
My Lords, I must declare an interest before I begin in that 50 years ago, when on night duty as a new constable on the streets of London, I found that the following morning, for weeks on end, one was standing in court with a defendant who was accused of a crime that turned out to be alcohol-related. As the Committee would expect, I have conferred with my former colleagues and, yesterday morning, I spoke to the territorial operations department of the Metropolitan Police to seek its view on this amendment. It is supportive, with one caveat: that this must be a magistrate’s decision. Police must not be expected to say, “This individual committed the crime because they were drunk”. That must be a decision of the magistrate but, with that one caveat, I know that my former colleagues support this amendment as indeed do I.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, who is a great deal more experienced in these matters than I am. I am also at one remove in following my namesake, who spoke earlier, and who alluded to the presentation which a number of us received on Monday morning. Reference has been made to the experience of the American professor from Stanford who gave a presentation to us about his White House experience. I would add the footnote that he also holds an honorary degree from King’s College London, so he is not without form on this side of the Atlantic.
Brevity is at a premium, so I shall not cover the ground that other speakers have covered. When the Minister spoke on the previous occasion in Committee, she indicated familiarity with the South Dakota experiment. I have a brief addition to make to that. Monday’s presentation emphasised the experience of the three states where the problem was most severe—North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana—and did so graphically with a parallel line high on the page representing North Dakota. A line at the bottom of the page indicated the average experience in the individual states in the US. A diagonal line from the top of the left-hand corner to the bottom right showed the way that South Dakota’s experience had so dramatically improved.
At the end of the presentation, I asked the professor what had been happening in the states that lay between the average figure at the bottom of the page and the experience in the Dakotas and Montana. He said that a series of them which fell in their own performance between the top and bottom lines had already also adopted the South Dakota experience, North Dakota and Montana having already done so. The most notable example of a state that had, as a result of the South Dakota experience, advanced to putting it on the statute book was California.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My name is attached to the amendment and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for tabling it. I, too, attended Monday’s seminar. Also present was the Deputy Mayor of London, who was most appreciative of the scheme in that it would add to the ammunition which the authorities have in dealing with drunkenness.
I do not think that any other speaker has yet said that the issue is not about anti-drinking but is about anti-drunkenness. That is what sobriety means in this instance. I am still a councillor in the London Borough of Barnet where there is a lot of drunkenness on the streets. Not all of it is youth drunkenness, but it is drunkenness. We have tried various ways of stopping it. For instance, in the ward of Cricklewood that I represent, there is an anti-street-drinking order. That helps the police to enforce measures against drunkenness. We tried to apply the order in another area of my ward. The local authority has not supported that but the police have done so.
Although that is not specifically to do with the amendment in front of us, I mention it because I believe that those who enforce the law, whether magistrates or the police, must have as many armaments as possible to use with caution to ensure that our streets are safe and pleasant for society to live in. Too often, in the urban environment in which I live many people—not all of them young—are drunk on the streets and throw down their beer cans and bottles. Perhaps with this amendment we can help in some way. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has done us a great service because whether or not the amendment is adopted, the Government have highlighted the fact that they are aware of the problem and have said that tests will be carried out. I thank the noble Baroness for bringing the matter before us.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I add a few words in welcoming the amendment and urging the Government to respond positively to it. When I was a magistrate, I would have loved the possibility of this rehabilitation order to monitor ongoing alcohol consumption. As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, suggested, it is one of a range of possibilities, but to have had this in one’s toolbox, as I gather the phrase is, would have been an enormous advantage.
As has been made clear, the amendment allows the magistrate this power only if alcohol caused or contributed to the offence—in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, I say that it is the magistrate who will take that decision—and if the offender has a propensity to misuse alcohol and is willing to comply with the requirement. As I argued in Committee, help with alcohol misuse should also be available but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has said, we must consider the victims in assessing this possibility.
Most of what we now call domestic abuse, but when I was growing up we used to call wife-battering, is alcohol-fuelled. Violence on the streets, whether against property or against people, would undoubtedly be less without the addition of drunkenness. When are we going to do what the ordinary decent people who walk around our streets want us to do, which is to reduce alcohol-related disruption that affects their lives? That is the question that we have to answer.
As the previous speaker said, this is not anti-alcohol. Indeed, I should declare an interest that last night I was at the parliamentary beer dinner. I was very grateful that we had not reached this amendment by then. I am not against the consumption of alcohol but I am very much against the consumption of excessive amounts of it that then damages the people concerned or, in the light of this amendment, damages the life and well-being of others.
This is an enabling measure and does not require the courts to impose it. It is an opportunity for someone with the propensity to misuse alcohol in a way that damages others to have a period of sobriety—with help available, I hope—thus improving their own family lives as well as the well-being of others. I urge support for this.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I live in the middle of one of our cities so I see the typical culture late on a Friday or Saturday night, or indeed on other nights, and the malign influence on it of the excessive consumption of alcohol. In recent years I have also sat on the streets of Paris or Rome at 10 pm and seen virtually no evidence of the abuse of alcohol. Those who think that this measure is a step too far need to reflect upon the experience of many of our city centres.
Sometimes it is necessary for the law to take a clear stance to change culture. Drinking and driving is a prime example of that, where the law has changed the culture of how people approach the consumption of alcohol and driving to a much more responsible one. This is quite apart from the health benefits, which will be important to the noble Baroness who has moved the amendment. There is a clear case for sending a strong signal, with this or something like it, that I hope will lead to a change of culture on our streets.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I support the principal objectives of this measure. I will not repeat everything that I said in Committee, but when I first heard about the new proposal—I was also at the briefing on Monday that has been referred to—I found that the most powerful and compelling thing about it was its simplicity. It is clear in its aim and simple in its practice, and it encourages responsibility. I know that the Minister feels strongly about alcohol-related crime and takes the issue seriously, so I will want to listen carefully to her response today. The only thing that I want to highlight is that, as with any new measure put in place to tackle the issue of alcohol-related crime, the aspects of simplicity and responsibility in this proposal should be taken account of.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, this has been a useful and good discussion, repeating to some extent what we discussed in Committee but taking the debate a step further. The interesting thing about how the amendment now looks is that it has picked up a lot of the points that were made when we discussed this the first time around and tried to come up with a fresh look at some of the issues causing concern. To a greater or lesser extent, those aims have been achieved for the amendment. We should therefore consider it carefully.
At the heart of all this is a feeling that has not yet got through to some of those responsible for drafting and supporting the Bill, which is that alcohol is a drug and falls to be considered alongside cigarettes and hard drugs, and is not to be treated as a distinctive social phenomenon that we tolerate but are not concerned about unless it gets to a certain level. This came up time and again in our earlier debates, and is at the heart of what has been said today.
We know from the experience of trying to deal with this over the years and across many countries, and the number of reports that have come out, that you cannot treat any of the problems that alcohol causes in isolation from the three main strands. You have to deal with price; you have to deal with availability, in terms of the times that it is available to be purchased and used; and you have to have treatment. You cannot satisfactorily come up with a policy in this area unless you deal with all three. I think that the debates have again shown that we have still not got the answer on price, although there are some measures going forward that we might want to consider in due course.
Availability is indeed the subject of much of the discussion of some sections of the Bill. One hopes, although it is a bit of an experiment in some cases, that questions of availability will be dealt with. We may have to come back to that in the future.
Treatment is the big black hole into which we seem to pour all our aspirations, but from which we do not receive any real solutions. I said in Committee that, looking at how society deals with alcohol—and drugs more generally—we are moving far too quickly to a penal approach. We do not think about the impact that other possible solutions might have. We do not seem to be bringing forward alternatives for consideration at a time when there are worrying consumption trends and concerns about the fact that our young people seem to be drinking stronger and stronger drinks and causing problems. Although I understood what the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, was saying about drunkenness, it plays to my concern about the effects of the pursuit, use and abuse of alcohol, which come before that rather sympathetic view of drunkenness: “He’s just drunk; sorry about that”. Actually, it is much worse than that because that leads on to violence, as we have heard, both in the home and outside. It leads on to car crashes, traffic incidents and other problems—and, of course, the impact on children, which we have heard about.
The figures cited initially by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, were astonishing. If that is the effect of these schemes, admittedly in different cultures and places, we are bonkers if we do not try to take account of those and get some schemes going on this. On whether this scheme is the one that we should get behind, we have our doubts. We are not necessarily going to support this in the Lobbies if it goes to a vote because we are strongly of the view that the Government’s role in this matter is to remove the barriers to those who would wish to undertake pilots in this area, but not necessarily to support this particular scheme in this particular location. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that. Governments should not stand in the way of those who have the interest, the capacity, the funding and the structure to introduce such a plan, and we wish them well with it, if they wish to go ahead with that. It seems completely wrong for the Government to be obstructing that at this time.
The consequence of our position—and this will probably be true of the government Front Bench—is that it seems to be only the Front Benches who are against the scheme. Speeches from all around the Chamber have been supportive of it. We were discussing that on the Front Bench before I stood; we seemed to think that we were probably in the wrong on this matter. I am afraid that I do not quite see the solution to it, but we will have a further discussion after I have sat down to see if I can persuade us to move gently towards any Lobby that might be opening up before us. We will certainly encourage people to move through that Lobby, even if we cannot do so ourselves. That may feel a little strange.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I am just trying to be honest. I shall also be honest about the Home Office. The problem here is less that this is a bad scheme, or that these schemes on the whole will not help, but that the idea that the Home Office should sponsor this is a bit silly. At heart this is a public health issue. The idea that the Home Office, which is the home of repression and locking people up—as I characterised it, although perhaps I overstated the case—should be responsible is a little like asking cats to be responsible for the welfare of the mice in their house. You cannot do it. I challenge the Minister, if the Home Office cannot get behind this, at least to remove the obstructions to this scheme getting off the ground. We would support that. The Home Office should give up responsibility for this area and pass it to the Department of Health.
Baroness Browning
The noble Lord poses many challenges to me. It might be appropriate for me to remind the House that responsibility for drug and alcohol abuse is within my ministerial brief at the Home Office. I am conscious that, in addressing this part of the Bill, I have already spoken—perhaps extensively—in Committee about my commitment. While I hear what the noble Lord says about the Department of Health, which is very important and takes the lead on alcohol, this is none the less a matter that will have to be addressed by joined-up government. As has been said by several people, not least the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who moved this amendment, we need to look at a holistic approach.
I put on record that the Ministers in both the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice would like to see a sobriety scheme. Since we met to discuss this scheme in Committee, there have been extensive discussions at ministerial and official level with Members of this House and the office of the deputy mayor. We have tried very hard to come to some accommodation to find a scheme that works. The principle of the scheme is not in dispute.
I shall outline to the House why I must reject the amendment of—I am tempted to say “my noble friend” because we have worked closely together on so many issues in the past—the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. She made her case very strongly. She will know that I have great respect for her expertise in this area and her dedication to resolving these problems, particularly that of crime resulting from alcohol. However, I must reject these amendments.
Perhaps it will be helpful if I first reiterate what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and others. Sobriety, in itself, will not always tackle alcohol-related offending. Many offenders will require clinical treatment and support to aid their recovery. I choose those words carefully. Mention has been made of treatment but it is the Government’s intention, on both drugs and alcohol—there is often a combination of the two—that we should move on from treatment into recovery, which has to be the end goal. A lot of valuable work has gone into treatment. Nobody in any way suggests that treatment programmes are not an essential part of the journey. However, the end of the journey must now focus, for both alcohol and drugs, on recovery; it must not just end with treatment. I have to say that it is rather unclear whether the purpose of the amendments before us is punitive or rehabilitative. I see nothing in the amendments that gives us a steer as to how we should view this.
Lord Soley
Surely the purpose of provisions such as these is preventive and educational, particularly for young people. I accept what the Minister is saying but treatment is rather a different ball game.
Baroness Browning
I accept what the noble Lord says on that and do not dispute it at all. I support the principle of a sobriety scheme that seeks to tackle the problems caused by alcohol-related offending—particularly by binge drinking, which can blight communities—but I must still resist these amendments. Contrary to what the noble Baroness has said, an effective and robust sobriety scheme can be implemented using existing powers. Piloting this approach will provide us with firmer evidence on which to consider the need for legislative changes such as those proposed. I believe that a scheme could be started almost immediately.
My noble friend raised a number of concerns about piloting a sobriety scheme using conditional cautions. I wish to take a moment to focus on those. A scheme based on conditional cautions which is already on the statute book is favoured by the Government. Indeed, there is already interest in some parts of the country in looking at a scheme based on conditional cautions. However, I understand that London supports the scheme put forward by the noble Baroness.
It has been suggested that conditional cautions would not allow repeat offenders to be targeted by a sobriety scheme. While serious and persistent offenders should obviously be prosecuted at court, conditional cautions can be considered where an offender has committed previous offences. For example, a pattern of alcohol-related offending which has previously resulted in an offender receiving a penalty notice for disorder, a simple caution or perhaps even being prosecuted for a low-level offence may well be appropriate for a sobriety condition as part of a conditional caution.
It has also been suggested that offenders are unlikely to consent to a sobriety condition, but I believe that many will consent when they are informed by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service that the alternative is to be prosecuted for their conduct and to face the prospect of the prosecution applying for a drinking banning order on conviction. In these circumstances I believe that very many offenders will consider that accepting a sobriety condition—which can include requirements to undergo testing, and to pay for those tests, and which has clear consequences for non-compliance—is by far the preferable option. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, talked about the educational aspect and the right reverend Prelate talked about a change of culture. As I hope I have already reassured the House, I am adamant that we will pursue a change of culture. I will not go into too much detail because I have probably said this two or three times now, but I find it unacceptable that we have a culture in this country whereby it is acceptable for people to be seriously drunk in public places either as individuals or collectively. That is a significant change of culture that many of us have witnessed in our lifetime. Using the toolkit—that is the terminology—I am looking for every opportunity to change that culture. I do not underestimate how long that will take as the problem has taken decades to present itself as we see it now, but I hope to impact on it as much as possible.
I note the changes that the noble Baroness has made to her amendments since they were previously discussed. I also note that she and the Deputy Mayor of London have received legal advice on the amendments. There were question marks over the differing legal advice that the Home Office and the Deputy Mayor of London had received, particularly around matters to do with offenders’ convention rights. Although I agree that a sobriety scheme as the noble Baroness envisages it could be compatible with an offender’s convention rights, I believe that any primary legislation in this area would require careful consideration about when such a scheme would be proportionate and what safeguards might be needed to ensure that a court does not impose an alcohol monitoring requirement that risks breaching an individual’s human rights. This is a difficult area and one which the results of piloting conditional cautions would help to illuminate, as well as providing us with evidence of the scheme’s effectiveness.
I have touched on the issue of treatment leading to recovery, which is the Government’s aim. As has been mentioned, extremely serious criminal consequences can arise from alcohol abuse. It is important to distinguish between what we might euphemistically describe as binge drinking and those very serious crimes, in which I of course include domestic violence, where the way forward may well be a conviction. Whether it is associated with a conviction or not, it will require a most extensive package to address what are often the complex needs of the offender.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
Are the Government contemplating putting into legislation the package that the noble Baroness is talking about, or will it be run on a voluntary basis? If it is the latter, why is it not attached to what is before us now?
Baroness Browning
The sobriety scheme based on conditional cautions has all the legislative power that it needs now. I do not need to put it into this statute; there is sufficient statute to run it now. If we were to move on later to something as described by the noble Baroness, we would, as I indicated, need to pick up the results of those pilots in future legislation.
If we take forward these pilots on the basis that I have outlined to the House, it will allow us to test locally some of the more challenging elements of such a scheme, including its funding, proportionality, enforcement and impact on reoffending. Although I recognise the problem that the amendments seek to tackle and am sympathetic to their objectives, I hope that the noble Baroness will understand why I am unable to support their adoption. However, I give my full support to testing the principles of the scheme that she proposes and hope to begin a number of pilot schemes before too long.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I thank the Minister for her reply. I must preface my remarks by thanking her for her sincere commitment to tackling the alcohol abuse that we see in this country. None of us who have spoken today are anti-alcohol per se; it is the problem of the outcomes of harms.
I am a clinician, and if I am to evaluate any scheme of any sort, I compare one scheme with another scheme. The conditional caution scheme that the Minister outlined will require police constables to decide whether it is an alcohol-fuelled offence and whether to offer the scheme. That is the problem and is why, as my noble friend Lord Imbert outlined, the matter should be left with the magistrates. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, a magistrate herself, pointed out that it does not change the status quo; it does not stop something happening but simply provides an additional arm. If there is to be a sincere comparison of the different schemes in different parts of the country, I say hooray to that—let us do proper pilots and monitor them properly.
A sunset clause was suggested in the debate but the Minister did not mention it in her reply. She has seen the amount of support around the House today for including a scheme so that it can be piloted. These are people who have committed an offence who will be sentenced anyway; they will be either incarcerated or fined, probably in addition to losing their driving licence and other things. However, if there is a massive fine it will harm the children in the family much more than the offender because of all the things they will not be able to do when the money suddenly goes out of the household. With the proposed scheme the offender will pay directly—financially and, more importantly, with their time and commitment. Recovery is crucial. As I pointed out, recovery would be attached to this. It would be offered to people and they would be supported. We have evidence—I know it is from the US, which is why I am suggesting that the scheme should be piloted here—that long-term recovery is improved when people are put through a court-directed alcohol-monitoring scheme.
Before making a final decision, will the Minister say whether, in the light of today’s debate, she will consider coming back at Third Reading with a sunset clause? That would allow us to do a proper scientific study in the areas which want to use the scheme as outlined in the amendments, which requires primary legislation, in addition to the schemes which use police cautions as the Minister outlined. I need to know her response on inserting a sunset clause before we really decide where we are going.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I am sorry that I did not pick up on the point about the sunset clause. I am not able to offer the noble Baroness a change in my view on such a clause. The amendments need substantial work to make them workable from a technical and legal point of view.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that. I have taken extensive legal advice on this. I have files of costings advice in my office. Report stage is not the appropriate time to go through this. However, we have a chance to do something different and imaginative that might provide us with a fantastic tool to help people into long-term recovery. If we close the door on it now, so be it: but I want to keep the door open. Therefore, I feel obliged to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Marlesford
“Parliament Square committee
(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall by regulations establish a committee with responsibility for managing the controlled area of Parliament Square.
(2) The committee’s members shall be representatives of—
(a) all of the bodies which own or have responsibility for the controlled area of Parliament Square, and(b) the metropolitan police force.(3) The committee shall co-ordinate the work of its members in order to ensure that the controlled area of Parliament Square is kept clear of litter, detritus or other debris.
(4) The Committee shall report annually to both Houses of Parliament.”
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, we now move to the Parliament Square elements of this Bill. In moving Amendment 306A and speaking to Amendment 306B, which are very much interlinked, I am trying to save the Government from themselves. We are all agreed on the need for something to be done about Parliament Square and I think we are agreed on what should be done. Parliament Square is an appropriate place to have protests but at the moment it is completely out of control as a result of the encampments. In recent weeks and months, the encampments have grown greatly. A few months ago there were only eight tents; now there are over 30. In fact, a lot of Parliament Square has been taken over not so much by protesters but by rough sleepers. Obviously something has to be done. I am not producing the final word on this but I am producing what I believe to be a much more sensible and workable solution than the one in the Government’s own Bill.
We are all agreed on the need to end encampments, but I am seeking to remove Clause 147 and to replace it, in Amendment 306B, with my own clause. First, we have to look at Clause 145, which I am not in any way interfering with. It sets out provisions making the encampments illegal and sets out very clearly and in great detail how the tents and sleeping equipment should be classified. It says,
“‘sleeping equipment’ means any sleeping bag, mattress or other similar item designed, or adapted, (solely or mainly) for the purpose of facilitating sleeping in a place”.
That is a perfectly sensible and very wide definition, and of course cardboard boxes could be added because people sometimes adapt them to sleep in. But in a moment we will come to what I do not like in the Bill and noble Lords will see why it is rather inappropriate, not as a definition, but because of Clause 147.
Clause 147 spells out the terms and conditions for the seizure by the police of all the items listed in Clause 145. One of the problems of Parliament Square is that it has always been the responsibility of lots of different bodies: the Greater London Authority, Westminster City Council, the Metropolitan Police, and to some extent the Highways Agency. We want one committee—I do not mind terribly how it is organised—with representatives from all the bodies so that together they can run the thing in a sensible manner. That is set out in Amendment 306A.
Amendment 306B has been tabled because I really do not think that Clause 147 is an appropriate way of doing this. The police are to be asked to seize all these things. Clause 147(4) authorises the police to,
“use reasonable force … in exercising a power of seizure”.
Normally the word “seizure” is used for drugs, weapons, documents relating to serious organised crime and so forth. Are the police really to be used to seize blankets? Is there not a better way? And then what are the police to do with the things they seize? It is all laid out in Clause 147, which I wish to replace. Clause 147(5) states:
“An item seized under this section must be returned to the person from whom it was seized … no later than the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the item was seized”.
Does that make sense? Clause 147(6) goes on to state:
“If it is not possible to return an item under subsection (5) because the name or address of the person from whom it was seized is not known … the item may be returned to any other person appearing to have rights in the property who has come forward to claim it, or … if there is no such person, the item may be disposed of or destroyed at any time after the end of the period of 90 days beginning with the day on which the item was seized”.
We are aware of a shortage of police. Are they really to be given the role of maintaining tents, sleeping bags, mattresses and cardboard boxes until the appropriate time and seeking, no doubt diligently, to find out who they originally belonged to and returning them to their rightful owners? I am all in favour of the laws and rights of property, but this is a rather expensive way of doing it. Is it surprising that Councillor Colin Barrow, the leader of Westminster City Council, wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours explaining why the proposals in the Bill simply will not work?
I fear that the Home Office is displaying a deep angst about this matter. I can see why that has been generated because when we had the democracy village on the green bit of Parliament Square, it took almost £1 million in legal fees to remove it. It was a tremendous performance. However, once the courts had ruled, it was eventually removed with remarkably little aggravation because in general people obey the law, provided that the law is in place.
We come now to my proposal, which is much simpler. The proposed committee will run Parliament Square, helping to decide what is appropriate in terms of demonstrations and all that, and of course we all start from the presumption that demonstrations are a good thing. The committee will have the power to authorise the removal of the items set out by the Government, but that will not be done by the police. Subsection (3) of my proposed clause simply states:
“The committee shall ensure that between midnight and 6am every night any items listed in subsection (2) are removed”.
I do not intend for this material to be removed by the police, but probably by Westminster City Council’s refuse removal people. That is a simple, unprovocative and unconfrontational method, and in general, people do not confront those who are kind enough to remove rubbish. Although I admit that it may be necessary in the first few days for the police to be present, I believe that it will quite quickly settle down given how quickly the democracy village came to an end. If people wish to bring their tents, they will have 18 hours out of 24 in which they can have them, but, on the whole, you have a tent because you want to sleep in it. If it is going to be removed at midnight and you then have six hours without it, the chances are that you will make your sleeping arrangements in a different manner.
My proposal is moderate and limited; it genuinely seeks to help the Government to achieve what we all want and what they have tried to achieve not quite so elegantly in their Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell-Savours
This is the third time that I have risen on these issues in the past month. Perhaps I may repeat a couple of sentences from the letter of the Conservative leader of Westminster City Council, so that those in the House who do not know what he said in it are quite clear in their minds when they are drawn into the Division Lobby. He states:
“The council has concerns over the current wording of the bill. Our chief concern is that protesters would simply move to other parts of the square, requiring further prolonged and costly legal action. Fundamentally, we do not believe that the bill as it currently stands would deliver a solution to the problem once and for all, and we are concerned that it will be a further example of poor legislation in this sensitive area”.
If that is the view of the local authority, which has responsibilities in this area, we should go back to a blank piece of paper or adopt the Marlesford amendment.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, I can contribute to this debate with unaccustomed brevity, because I agree with both the contributions that have already been made. I hope that an additional reason for us all to be brief is that our noble friends on the government Front Bench have already read a great deal of the contributions that have been made, not least on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill of my noble friend Lord Marlesford but also on 10 June, when I, too, had the opportunity to put before your Lordships' House a Bill to try to deal with this particular point.
We must have a positive contribution to finding the solution to this problem. It is just not good enough to remove what is there. We need to move on; we need to move into a more positive situation where the square again becomes a genuine public space in the centre of our parliamentary democracy, with the abbey, the Supreme Court, the Treasury and Parliament all around. Our fellow citizens have a right to expect a proper, well planned solution for the future of Parliament Square.
In the debate on 10 June, I said:
“Our overall objective must surely be that the heart of our parliamentary democracy should be seen as such, with clear guidelines on what should be permitted and even encouraged to enhance this role, without recourse to unwieldy, excessive and unworkable regulation”.—[Official Report, 10/6/11; col. 518.]
I share the view of my noble friend that we must not impose on the police another set of defective regulations which are virtually unworkable. It is improper for us as legislators to impose a responsibility on them in that respect.
I am sure that my noble friends have also seen that there is real public interest in this issue, as was evidenced by an article in the Evening Standard yesterday—although that was a classic case of picking a good day to bury good news. Even so, there is real concern among all those who visit London, whether it be fellow citizens of the United Kingdom or people from abroad, about the unfortunate mess that is currently at the heart of our democracy.
I hope that the Government will give a positive response to my noble friend’s new clause and amendment, because, without it, I fear this situation will continue to be outrageously ridiculous.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I said at its Second Reading that I commend the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for its simplicity, its clarity and, above all, its good sense. As the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has said, Parliament Square is not an item on its own; it is part of a whole. If you see something looking like that, it reflects on the whole, and it reflects on all of us that, for years, the Houses between them have proved completely incapable of solving something apparently simple. Therefore, the public will ask, “What hope have they got of solving anything more complicated?”. This House and the surrounds of Parliament are cleaned and prepared every day for the following day. The beauty of the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is that it enables the whole area, including the square, to be cleaned and prepared for every day and does not allow it to be traduced for purposes for which it is neither designed nor suitable.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Marlesford has said. I took part in the Second Reading of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and briefly intervened on my noble friend Lord Marlesford, but I have been speaking on this issue for many years. I raised it first in the other place when the squalid encampment first appeared in Parliament Square. All noble Lords, I am sure, believe in freedom of speech and freedom for peaceful demonstration, but that is not what we are discussing; we are discussing the defacement of a world heritage site that is the centre of our parliamentary democracy. It should not be beyond the wit of the Government to come up with a solution but, sadly, the last time a Government tried—a Government from another party—they failed. They produced draconian regulations and the squalid encampment remained.
I fear that my noble friend Lord Marlesford is only too correct in pointing to the deficiencies in the Bill as it is currently before your Lordships’ House: placing the duties of lost property custodians upon the Metropolitan Police is not the best way of using its all-too-depleted manpower. When my noble friend the Minister replies, I hope she will acknowledge the unworkability—and, indeed, the absurdity—of the proposals to which my noble friend has alluded. I hope she will accept the amendments of my noble friend Lord Marlesford. If she feels for technical reasons that she cannot do that, I hope she will agree to come back at Third Reading with a government amendment, having discussed the matter with the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford, Lord Tyler and others, and come up with a solution that we can all accept.
I have absolutely no desire to go into the Lobby against my noble friend the Minister, but unless she can either accept the amendment or promise to come back on Third Reading, after consultation with my noble friend Lord Marlesford and others, with a sensible and workable solution, the House will have no alternative but to express its concern in the only way that it can.
Lord Dear
My Lords, I spent a great part of my working life protecting the freedom of speech, which is one of the most important things that anyone can do in a democracy. I also vigorously resisted the thought police. I now find that I have to consider the blanket police, the cardboard box police, the sleeping bag police, and a vision of shaking people out of sleeping bags in the middle of the night and wondering whether you log them as lost or found property.
I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. It is very much in the public interest that we should do something—if not what the noble Lord suggests then something closely akin to it. As has already been alluded to, we are in the cradle of democracy. I find it difficult to walk into your Lordships’ House—as do many noble Lords—because of the mass of tourists who are here at the moment. Tourists flock from all parts of the world to look at us and the buildings around us, and they have to step over 20, 30 or more tents and placards. This is not only repugnant but quite unacceptable.
We should not overcomplicate matters, as the Government’s Bill suggests at the moment. I am a great believer in keeping things simple. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is a solution which goes a long way towards the simplicity we are looking for and we should support it. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, I hope the Minister will take this away and come back at Third Reading with something workable which is closely akin to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford.
Lord Morgan
My Lords, I will speak briefly. I certainly support the amendment. It is extremely clear, giving a clear chain of command to deal with these matters.
My complaint is not that these demonstrations are visually offensive. People who demonstrate against the established order are not likely to be immaculate in their appearance or even, with all respect, in their conception. My problem is that these demonstrations offend the right to demonstrate. It is a very precious venue for demonstrations to occur. The imperishable rights of free speech, for which people have given their lives over the centuries in this country, should be preserved. The problem is that these demonstrations take root. They took root in the most obvious, physical way by people sleeping there. That not merely causes offence, which I understand, but obstructs and cheapens the right to demonstrate.
I am all in favour of large numbers of demonstrations taking place in Parliament Square. There are lots of things in our country to demonstrate about and lots of evils to complain about. We should cherish the right to protest but I am against monopoly. This is a self-centred, self-indulgent form of monopoly that is harmful to the rights of free speech. For that reason particularly, I support the excellent amendment.
Lord Desai
My Lords, I have spoken every time that Parliament Square has come up in your Lordships’ House. I rise once again, as sort of the sole defender of the unlimited right of people to demonstrate, despite all the ugliness that they might display. What I like about the proposed new clause in the noble Lord’s Amendment 306B is subsection (1), which asserts that the committee will,
“facilitate lawful, authorised demonstrations in the controlled area of Parliament Square”.
As I have said before in your Lordships’ House, one reason why people stay overnight is that they are not quite sure that they will be allowed to come the next morning to demonstrate. Once a committee has been established and lays down the rules under which people can lawfully demonstrate—that is, between 6 am and midnight—that situation will be clarified. Then the rest of Amendment 306B will ensure what everyone else wants—tidiness in Parliament Square. I have never been a great fan of tidiness. I have seen far too many tidy parliamentary squares in various eastern European and other regimes. I much prefer untidiness. It is characteristic of democracy.
Lord Cormack
The noble Lord has tidied himself in a way that has impressed every Member of this House.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I hope that what I am about to say does not damage the reputation of the noble Lord, Lord Desai. I, too, have argued throughout for the repeal of the SOCPA provisions and for not putting anything else in their place. I have said several times that aesthetic considerations—in other words, tidying up the square—should not be given more weight than considerations based on democracy.
I have a question for the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, in his response to the debate. His amendments call for a committee consisting of representatives of the various bodies. The Metropolitan Police force is mentioned and clearly Westminster City Council and the Greater London Authority would be other candidates. I do not know if there are any more. In putting these amendments forward, what response has he had from those organisations—I assume he has consulted them at some stage during all of this—to the proposals that he now puts forward for a committee that will have some powers and obviously functions?
Lord Judd
My Lords, like others I find this amendment very helpful and sensible. I make only one observation. I think perhaps that some of the language being used in support of the amendment could be interpreted in a way that is not intended. We must not inadvertently move into a culture in which we see demonstrations as a sort of tokenism, whereby people have their ration of time for demonstrating. From time to time, there will be issues on which people feel so deeply and profoundly that they will want to continue their vigil through the night and perhaps through several days. I hope that in accepting and endorsing this amendment we will not in any way associate ourselves with a view that people can have their ration of time, and that is it. But we cannot have this physical obstruction and complete spoiling of one of the richest heritages in the country.
Lord Hylton
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I say that it may be foreseen that there may be occasions on which people wish to have an all-night vigil, but that does not mean to say that they have a right to bring tents and to sleep in them.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, I was approached only last night by my noble friend Lord Marlesford to ask what my views were and whether I would vote for him. I cautiously—because caution is my watchword—promised that I would come and listen to him. That is why I am here and, indeed, on my feet. I have not been approached by Westminster City Council, but all politics are local and I once represented that council in the other place, and am therefore sympathetic to it.
I have one personal footnote to make to this debate, a prior example to the body that my noble friend seeks to establish—the Paving Commission in Regent’s Park, which was set up during the period of Nash to look after good order in Regent’s Park. I realise that the Government might say that that is not an exact analogy, but the fact remains that the Royal Parks are another of the places in this great city where free speech is demonstrated, Hyde Park being a particular of that. The Paving Commission consisted entirely of those with a local interest, under an early-19th century statute, with two exceptions—the bailiff of the Royal Parks, who is a civil servant at the assistant secretary level; and a Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, which effectively means a senior government whip in the House of Commons.
I served as a commissioner for a couple of years and made a small contribution to the work of the Paving Commission by saying that it was all very well for the debates that we had in our regular monthly meetings for those who actually lived in the park, because they recognised absolutely everything that was being talked about. The bailiff of the Royal Parks to some degree and myself to a larger degree, because much of Regent’s Park lay outside my constituency, were not so familiar. I made the suggestion to the head of the commission that we should have a picnic every year and that the whole commission should make a tour of the whole park. I am glad to say that that suggestion was adopted and ever since nobody has ever been able to work out why they had never done it before. The scheme has worked extremely well for 200 years. It is a little difficult to apply modern parking regulations to legislation that was set up in the early part of the 19th century, but imagination has been deployed.
Therefore, having said to my noble friend last night that I would certainly listen to him, it would be churlish of me not to say that I would not listen to my noble friend the Minister. But I have to say on the basis of the debate that we have had so far that I am minded to vote with my noble friend and with Westminster City Council.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster
My Lords, I sympathise with the objectives and purposes of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, in tabling these amendments and with those who have spoken in favour of it. There are two points on the practicability of the scheme that I would like to query, which both relate to this Parliament Square committee. First, would the authorities of the Palace of Westminster be represented on it? That is just a query; I do not know what is intended. Secondly, it seems that this committee would be in almost permanent session. I wonder if that is really practicable and I would welcome comments on that before I make up my mind on how to respond in a Division.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, we have had a number of opportunities to discuss the issues that have been raised this afternoon. Indeed, there will be more because while we are still waiting for Committee stages on both Private Members’ Bills to come through, we have the debate today and one more opportunity on this Bill to try and resolve this. The issue itself is not difficult to encapsulate. As many people have suggested, we need some imaginative thinking about the relationship between Parliament, the abbey, the church, the public buildings and the public spaces around them that goes across the various dimensions that have been mentioned in this debate—security, access, traffic, tourism, history, heritage and, of course, the absolute requirement to ensure that demonstrations can take place.
The good thing about the amendment—indeed, it was in the Bill that we discussed last week—is that there is a laser-like focus on the two issues that we have been focusing on today. They are that we want to have a clear space within which the buildings that I mentioned can exist and the activities that we have been talking about can happen, but we also want to encourage demonstration—a very important aspect of this amendment. That far, we agree with everybody who has spoken that that is what we are trying to do but, as has been said already, the problem is that we do not seem able to solve it.
It seems to me and to our side that, as again has been mentioned, we have to be a bit careful that we do not rush into action here. That may seem odd given the number of years we have been working on it but I detect a sense of—what shall we call it?—tentism springing up. We should not do that without thinking very carefully what we are doing. As was said earlier, there are many different ways of demonstrating and it just seems to happen that tents seem to be the vogue at the moment. What that has to do with modern life, I have no idea.
It is also rather sad, in some senses, that the extraordinary contribution to public life which Brian Haw made before his untimely death has been swept away as something that we are against, even though it is in some ways a peculiarly British way of trying to express a view by a sort of silent protest in the face of all possible opposition. With the whole establishment and everybody against it, he continued to make his point. It may not have been to everybody's liking or as effective as he might have wanted it to be but it was there, it was different and it was distinctive. We should worry if we were to squeeze it out by a rush to some form of arrangement.
We also have to be a bit careful about what is happening here. I have never been of the view that a committee is the answer to the problem that we have, and I am a bit surprised to hear other people saying it. Committees do not really solve many things. We had a rather strange intervention last week from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who said that the military would have recommended a committee in this situation. I thought that was a contradiction in terms. The other thing that we have to be careful about is that the evening round of the vehicles under Westminster City Council's jurisdiction will be picking up the tents and other materials, if the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is to be believed. That is really a form of theft, is it not? Again, we should be careful before Parliament legislates in that way. There are people who own those things and we cannot act completely without the rights involved in that.
Noble Lords will detect from what I say that I am sympathetic to what is proposed and would like to support it. The problem is that the amendment in its present form has not been subject to sufficient scrutiny. We had a little of that during Second Reading; in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised a number of points which he felt would improve that Bill. An important way to take forward the aims and objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is to have the Committee stage at the right time, to try to go through that Bill and improve it. Unfortunately, the timing would not fit with the present Bill. I do not know how we resolve that but I will come back to it in a minute.
However, it seems to me that there are ways in which the elements that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is putting forward do fit with the intentions of the Government. It would be sensible to try and bolt together the two impulses so that at Third Reading, before the Bill leaves this House, the Minister can bring forward proposals. I note that when she responded to the debate last week, she said of discussions and meetings that:
“Those are ongoing and I do not rule out the possibility of bringing forward further measures before the Bill completes its passage through this House. I do not think I can give more detail at the moment”.
She always says that, doesn’t she? It is a bit irritating, and I hope that this time we can get down to it. She went on,
“but it is certainly a matter under consideration and the talks are ongoing”.—[Official Report, 1/7/11; col. 2014.]
Well, more time has passed and presumably talks have taken place. Now let us hear where they are, as the time as come for us to try to resolve this, at least in the first stage.
We on this side would like to support the intention behind the Bill. In summary, we think that provision would be better incorporated within this Bill and taken forward as one piece of legislation. However, it will need—
Lord Morgan
The noble Lord constantly says, “We on this side believe”. I do not recognise his views as at all representative of me. I have been a member of the Labour Party since 1955 and I see no relation between my long-held opinions and what are supposed to be the views of our Front Bench. I think that our Front Bench should cover itself with a fig leaf of modesty.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I was trying to cover myself with a fig leaf of invisibility—and I will do that now.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his amendment. Indeed, it was just two weeks ago that we had a more extensive debate on his Private Member’s Bill on this subject. The Government are committed to restoring rights to non-violent protest. They are also committed to ensuring that everyone can enjoy public spaces and do not consider it acceptable for people to camp on Parliament Square. Therefore, we are taking a new approach to the square. Instead of trying to deal with the problem of encampment by criminalising and targeting protests and protestors, what we have brought forward seeks to prevent the disruptive activities that have caused concern—namely, erecting tents and staying overnight with sleeping equipment. We hope that we have done this in a targeted, proportionate and enforceable way that applies to all, not just to protestors.
I stress that the Government wholly appreciate my noble friend’s intentions behind his amendments. We are in complete agreement with the need for a Parliament Square, clear of tents, that can be enjoyed by all. That of course includes those who wish to come to make their views known and to protest. We believe that that should also open up the possibility for those who may want to demonstrate in a peaceful way through all-night vigils—something that is precluded at the moment.
We wholly agree that we need the different enforcement agencies to work closely together to achieve this. We also agree that the square should be a thriving space that accommodates protests by all groups, not just a few. However, I am afraid that my noble friend’s amendments will not achieve that. They risk leading to a significant escalation in confrontation and disorder, which our proposals are crafted to avoid. I cannot see how my noble friend’s proposals will result in anything other than nightly stand-offs between police and council workers on the one side and on the other groups that will disregard the views of the committee that he proposes to put in place.
This is not just government hysteria or hyperbole; this is based on the experience recorded by the courts of wilful disregard for the law by groups such as Democracy Village and a determination by the present encampment to challenge both legally and confrontationally on the ground any attempt to move them or their equipment. Furthermore, even assuming that they could be moved, the net effect for those who use Parliament Square will be no different. After a nightly battle, the tents and other structures would simply be re-erected at 6 am the next day. The square would be clear only when no one was around to witness it. As I understand my noble friend’s amendments, he suggests—and he repeated it in his opening remarks—that council refuse collectors should simply sweep the square at midnight and clear it of detritus. I would like to put it to my noble friend that there may be people attached to that detritus, and there would almost certainly be people inside the tents.
The Government had originally proposed that the powers to use reasonable force in enforcing our provisions should be available to authorised and trained officers of Westminster Council and the GLA. There was widespread Cross-Bench concern in the House at those enforcement powers. The Government listened and have removed those powers from the Bill. My noble friend’s amendments envisage refuse collectors seizing tents and other structures. We do not think that that is appropriate, proportionate or desirable. If that were indeed their responsibility, it would certainly contribute to the nightly scuffles and punch-ups that I have alluded to.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I understand that the ministry has met the council leader, but in his letter he says that the Government’s proposal will not work. He says that it will not fulfil the objectives set by the Government. I cannot imagine what has happened in the conversation with committees and officers of the council meeting to come to that conclusion. What happens if the Bill is enacted as the noble Baroness would want and it turns out as time passes that Westminster City Council is right and the Government are wrong?
Baroness Browning
My Lords, as I have indicated, no one says that this is an easy matter. We have sought to reform the legislation by giving more opportunity for peaceful protest on the square while seeking to remove the problem of the encampments. I have discussed Westminster City Council’s concerns with it, but it is quite clear that it will fully co-operate as partners in this legislation. We continue to discuss that with it. While I understand that Westminster City Council would perhaps have liked us to go further and extend the area that we are considering, given the proportionality concerns raised in this House and another place we have sought to get the balance right. I am assured, and I have no reason to doubt, that Westminster City Council will play its part with other partners such as the parks authorities and the GLA in endeavouring to make this legislation work. If in three or four years’ time noble Lords come back and say, “Well, that didn’t work”, I will be disappointed. However, this is the best way forward: trying to address the problem while maintaining the space outside the House for democratic protest.
Lord Kilclooney
It is great that the Minister met the leader of the city council. Can she now say whether he has changed his position of opposition to what was happening?
Baroness Browning
I think I am correct in saying that when he wrote that letter he was probably extremely concerned and wanted to have more dialogue with my department. That dialogue has taken place and will be ongoing. We will certainly take seriously any concerns of Westminster City Council and any other enforcement agency that will be required to participate in this new legislation, and will continue to work with them. I have in front of me the words that I have expressed about the council. The House will be unsurprised to learn that those words have been agreed with it. I am not saying this off the top of my head. There is a constructive dialogue, and we will seek between us to overcome any concerns that it might have.
Lord Cormack
As it is quite clear that there is real concern in all parts of the House, and, from what my noble friend has just said, continuing concern in Westminster City Council, can she not adopt my suggestion of a little while ago and have further discussions between now and Third Reading with a view to seeing whether these proposals, which many of us feel are deficient, can be improved? This is a real chance to deal with an eyesore that has been here for far too long. We do not want, in three or four years’ time—or even three or four months’ time—to have to say that it is not working.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I hope I have explained very clearly why the amendments before the House would not address the problem that we are seeking to address. My noble friend asked me to look at this further. We have already made concessions on this legislation to get the balance right, particularly as expressed in this House and another place, and to ensure that it was not overprescriptive for those who want to exercise their democratic right to protest outside this Building. I am not in a position to bring this back at a later stage of the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will examine carefully my concerns about a committee as outlined in the amendments.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I respectfully draw the noble Lord’s attention to the rules on Report.
Lord De Mauley
I am sorry but that is not what I am referring to. I am referring to the rule about not speaking more than once to an amendment.
Lord Judd
I thought it was possible to seek clarification from a Minister during their wind-up speech. The point on which I seek clarification is whether it would be wise, at some point, to meet those who organise vigils to suggest to them that counterproductivity in campaigning does not help their cause.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I never pretended that this was the last word. I am disappointed that the Government feel that their Bill is the last word. I am delighted to hear that the Minister will discuss these matters in more detail with Westminster City Council. I find it a little strange that the letter from which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, quoted was written as recently as 21 June. After all, the Government have had this Bill in gestation for many months. If I had been on Westminster City Council, I, too, would have been a little miffed if I appeared to have been ignored.
To answer the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, and others, the committee will certainly be all-embracing. Whoever should be on it will be on it. It will not have to sit all the time; it will have a, presumably very small, permanent staff—perhaps someone seconded from the Met, someone from Westminster City Council and someone from here who will keep a watching brief for us. I was surprised when the Minister said that she did not know whether the committee would report to her. My amendment says:
“The Committee shall report annually to both Houses of Parliament”.
I do not say that that is necessarily the right idea, but for her to say that I have made no provision for reporting is simply not true. It is in the amendment. My worry is that the Home Office just does not like ideas from outside. It does not even read them; it just rejects them, which is disappointing. Given the Minister’s answer, and to encourage the Government to think a little more, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Hamwee
“(2) But an order under subsection (1)(b) may not prohibit a person from entering the controlled area of Parliament Square nor restrict a person’s right lawfully to demonstrate there.”
Baroness Hamwee
We remain in Parliament Square, as it were. Noble Lords will be glad to know that we have now got as far as page 100 in the Bill. Instead of giving the court the power to impose a sanction on an open-ended basis following the conviction of anyone who has committed an offence under the prohibited activities in the controlled area of Parliament Square, the amendment would limit that power and provide that no order may,
“prohibit a person from entering the controlled area of Parliament Square nor restrict a person’s right lawfully to demonstrate there”.
This is a simple proposition, I hope, that was suggested to me by the organisation Justice. It is right that Parliament Square is a public place which, as we have seen, will be well controlled, or better controlled than I would like. As noble Lords are all saying, it is a place where properly organised demonstrations and expressions of opinion are entirely appropriate. It is hard to imagine why it will be necessary to prohibit entry to the square altogether. These provisions will be targeted at demonstrators and it is important to the democratic process, again as noble Lords say, that provisions aimed at preventing setting up camps, in particular, do not have the by-product of silencing protests altogether. Rather than this blanket prohibition the court should properly look at dealing with offences on an offence-by-offence basis, not making an order, which is equivalent to an injunction, for the future. It is almost more akin to convenience than a proper criminal sanction. That is what underlies my amendment.
While I am speaking, I wonder whether I can have a word about two of the government amendments in this group, Amendments 307ZA and 309ZE. The Minister will explain the application of this very old legislation—the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926. I assume that this is a device to extend certain controls relating to seizure to other areas near to Parliament. What will be given by these provisions are powers to yet another class of official—we have park constables in this legislation. Are we giving powers to unwarranted officers to make seizures? How will that regime fit in with the arrangements to be made for Parliament Square? The legislation refers to a park trading offence, and as I read the existing legislation, that will require some regulation. Perhaps that can be clarified. My concern is that we should not be adding to the confusion by a different regime. As regards Amendment 306C, I beg to move.
Lord Dubs
I should like to speak to Amendment 307 standing in my name. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and we spent quite a lot of time considering this Bill. I hope that the Minister will not mind if I go public on a private conversation she and I had some little while ago. I buttonholed the Minister in the Corridor and said that I had an amendment that I was sure she would see to be so sensible that she would give it her support. She looked at me and said, “Yes, that’s what they all say”. I still believe that this is a very helpful amendment.
When we give powers to the police there should be codes of guidance under which the police would operate. There are many precedents for having such codes: I will come to them in a moment. The Bill contains complexities that the police will find it hard to work around. Reference has already been made to structures, sleeping equipment and authorisation for amplification such as loudspeakers. These will be difficult decisions for the police to make—all the more so because I think I am right in saying that one has to get authorisation 21 days in advance for using loudspeakers, but only six days in advance for holding a demo. One has to apply much earlier for the right to use loudspeakers than for the right to demonstrate at all. This is confusing, and it will be difficult for the police to implement.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I will ask the Minister for clarification on government Amendment 307ZA. My honourable friend Lady Hamwee referred to this a moment ago. The amendment has appeared for the first time in the Marshalled List on Report. It amends the Royal Parks (Trading) Act 2000. That was an eminently sensible Act. It targeted the renegade burger vans that were invading Hyde Park and gave the police powers to seize the vans and the various paraphernalia. I do not think that anyone has disputed the legislation or the way in which it works. If I read the amendment correctly—I may not have, which is why I seek clarification—it will allow seizure powers to be applied in any instance where a by-law in any Royal Park appears to be violated. That is a huge broadening of powers. As many noble Lords will know, many by-laws affect the Royal Parks. As far as I know, there is no problem that requires a fix—so in a sense this is a solution finding a problem, which itself raises issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, put the point exceedingly well that the issue of democratic protest applies not just to Parliament Square. Many Royal Parks also have a tradition of allowing legal, peaceful demonstration and protest. The fact that there is public access at all to Richmond Park comes from public protest, which has a very long history. I am concerned that in an attempt to tidy up loose ends and provide a more sweeping basis for various powers, we are about to put in a piece of legislation that is not required because there is no problem to solve, and that puts across a problematic message that demonstration needs to be in some way curtailed. I seek reassurance and an explanation of why this appears in the Bill, what its purpose and intent are, and what the legal effect of it will be.
Lord Newton of Braintree
I had not intended to speak in this debate and I ought to confess that—how can I best describe it?—I copped out on the previous debate as I found my noble friend Lord Marlesford and all the other speeches very persuasive until I heard my noble friend from the Front Bench who I thought made some significant points that undermined the possible practicality of that amendment.
This amendment is also designed to modify the Government’s proposals. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that it seems to me that we have quite an awkward situation here. Almost no one believes that what the Government have in the Bill will work. Everyone believes that something needs to be done. I was persuaded that my noble friend Lord Marlesford’s amendment was not quite the ticket, so I landed up in the position I have described. Equally, I do not find myself very attracted by the proposition, which my noble friend on the Front Bench implied in her speech, that it might take four years to find out. Well, if it had not worked in four years, she would be disappointed.
The fact is that we are going to know quite soon following the passage of this Bill, if that is what happens, whether it has been effective in achieving the objective we all want, which is a situation in Parliament Square that is consistent with the buildings around it and its world status. I do not seek to persuade my noble friend to concede to the amendment or to put her in a very difficult position, but I would like her to acknowledge that in this debate points have been made by noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that need some further consideration. I would welcome an assurance that if what is in the Bill does not work, the Government will continue discussions with a view to coming forward with some other proposition that has a better chance of working in pretty short order.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, who, in an earlier debate, suggested that, as far as this part of the Bill relating to Parliament Square is concerned, I said I would reflect and bring things back. That is why government amendments are in this group. I am keeping my word and seeking to make some changes.
Clause 148 empowers the court to make any appropriate order which has the purpose of preventing the defendant engaging in prohibited activities in the controlled area. We want to retain some flexibility for the court to deal with a determined individual who has persistently failed to comply with direction by barring him from the controlled area when it is proportionate and necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is seeking to make guidance statutory. The Government are committed to providing the necessary guidance and support but consider that there is nothing to be gained by making the guidance statutory, which could risk interfering in operational capabilities. I will explain why. Statutory guidance is frequently more restricted and concise, lacking the practical examples and case studies that are often present in non-statutory guidance. This means that statutory guidance can end up being less helpful than non-statutory guidance. If action is challenged, the courts will have a look at any type of government-approved guidance, statutory or non-statutory, in considering the lawfulness of the action. The practical impact of making guidance statutory would be limited but the usefulness of the guidance could be reduced. That is probably because we can all envisage a series of scenarios that might apply in this instance. It would be very difficult to capture them all in statutory guidance. In this case, it is believed that non-statutory guidance would be more helpful if these cases were ever tested in the court. However, the noble Lord’s amendment provides a helpful template for the areas and issues which our non-statutory guidance will cover. I thank him for that.
I now turn to the government amendments. As I stated in Committee, we want to ensure that the area in which the new regime applies is as small as possible so that it targets the problem of the unique situation of Parliament Square without extending any further than necessary. We recognise the concerns of some that the controlled area is too small and that the effect of these measures could be to displace disruptive activities to footways beyond the controlled area. That is why we have been working with Westminster City Council and the GLA to ensure that relevant by-laws are strengthened to deal with disruptive activity in the wider area.
In consultation with the House authorities, it has become clear that additional provision is needed for other areas around Parliament Square not covered by Westminster City Council or Greater London Authority by-laws but which are covered by Royal Parks regulations; for example, the lawn area around the statue of George V, and Victoria Tower Gardens. Therefore, these amendments make provision for a power of seizure to be attached to Royal Parks regulations to support the position we have taken for effective enforcement of GLA and Westminster City Council by-laws. These amendments have the support of the House authorities and are in line with the proportionate and targeted approach we are taking in the Bill to deal with disruption in and around the square.
Lord Cormack
I was at odds with my noble friend in the previous debate. I would like to thank her—on behalf, I am sure, of many Members in all parts of this House—for what she has just said about the area around the statue of George V and the other areas.
Baroness Browning
I am glad to have reassured my noble friend. I will pick up on a couple of points raised in the debate. My noble friend Lady Hamwee talked about powers for parks regulations. These powers will be exercised by the Metropolitan Police as it has a distinct Royal Parks operational command unit.
My noble friend Lady Kramer also asked about other parks that might be affected by these amendments. The amendments are an enabling power only. They enable DCMS, when making Royal Parks regulations, to apply a power of seizure to any, all or some of the Royal Parks regulations. This comes back to the fact that these reforms are very much focused on the power of seizure. In turn, the Royal Parks regulations apply to a specified list of parks which include Hyde Park, Victoria Tower Gardens, Hampton Court Gardens and Richmond Park, to name but a few. It would be open to DCMS to apply a power of seizure to any, all or some of the parks in that list. I hope that is helpful to my noble friend but if she has any particular concerns about the read-across of this to any park she is interested in, I would be very happy to discuss it with her or let her have fuller information in writing.
These amendments are a targeted approach synonymous with what we have set out to achieve in this Bill to deal with disruption in and around the square. Before I move them, I will just touch on the fact that my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree said that in an earlier debate I had mentioned “four years”. I just said that off the top of my head. Perhaps I should stick to the official brief. I always get into trouble when I go off-piste. I could easily have said six months, a year, 18 months, whatever.
What I was really trying to convey to the House is that we believe that we have a proportionate and sensible proposal to go forward to deal with this long-standing problem. I am not going to be daft enough to say, “Problem solved, my Lords”, and have everyone come back to me in two or four years. We think this is our best effort. It has the support of those who are going to enforce it and they will work together to make it happen. We are hopeful that our endeavours will resolve this problem, but it is not realistic to expect me to say what the timescale will be. My noble friend has known me long enough, and indeed I remember the time when he was a Minister and I was on the Back Benches asking him awkward questions. He knows that we will do our best, and I do not think we can be expected to do more.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the Minister has argued for giving the court more flexibility than I think is appropriate in the circumstances. It amounts in effect to precluding a demonstrator in advance. But clearly I am not going to be able to persuade her.
On the government amendments, I should say that I am left with a considerable feeling of unease. I asked who would exercise the powers and the Minister has explained that it would be the Royal Parks Police, so we have yet another player in the mix. But that troubles me much less than what I suspected might be the case, which is that these new provisions could extend powers to any of the Royal Parks. I have to say to my noble friend that it is a great pity—actually, it is quite troubling—that these provisions are being brought before the House under the heading, as it were, of Parliament Square when we have been talking about the environs of Parliament. We are being asked at this stage to agree changes to legislation which clearly could be far more wide-reaching geographically than most noble Lords would have assumed. I wonder whether I can invite my noble friend, either at this stage or through some device at Third Reading, to give assurances that the Government will not use these provisions more extensively than the environs of Parliament. As I say, I think that that is what noble Lords were expecting. I do not know whether she is in a position to respond, but we do have more stages to come.
Baroness Browning
We are on the last day of Report and I cannot commit at this stage to bring this back formally at Third Reading. However, I am happy to engage in discussions with my noble friend on the points she has raised.
Baroness Hamwee
I am grateful to the Minister and I certainly will want to take up that offer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Guidance issued under this Part
(1) The Secretary of State shall issue guidance on—
(a) prohibited activities under section 145;(b) directions under section 145(1);(c) seizure and retention of property under section 147;(d) authorisations for the operation of amplified noise equipment under section 149.(2) Guidance issued under subsection (1)(a) shall include—
(a) further details defining the terms—(i) “structure that is designed, or adapted, (solely or mainly) for the purpose of facilitating sleeping or staying in a place for any period”,(ii) “sleeping equipment”,(iii) “the purpose of sleeping or staying in that area”, and(iv) “the purpose of sleeping overnight”;(b) guidance about the treatment of amplified noise equipment used by disabled persons for the purposes of communication.(3) Guidance issued under subsection (1)(b) shall include provision about—
(a) the circumstances in which a direction under section 145(1) may be made;(b) the form of any direction given under section 145(1), in particular—(i) the circumstances when a direction or the variation of a direction must be in writing;(ii) the arrangements for the identification of a constable or authorised officer making a direction or variation of a direction;(iii) the appropriate duration of any direction or variation of a direction; and(iv) the requirements for notice and communication of a direction or a variation of a direction to the person or persons subject to such a direction.(4) Guidance issued under subsection (1)(c) shall include provision about the circumstances in which the powers under section 147(1) shall be exercised, in particular—
(a) the identification and notification of the owner of any relevant prohibited item; and(b) the use of force by constables under section 147(4).(5) Guidance issued under subsection (1)(d) shall include provision about—
(a) the criteria for withholding authorisation; (b) any exemptions from authorisation for equipment used by disabled persons for the purposes of communication;(c) the conditions which may be imposed by the responsible authority in connection with any authorisation;(d) the target timetables for processing applications for authorisation (including fast-track procedures for priority authorisation);(e) the form and manner of—(i) the application for authorisation,(ii) the notice of authorisation, and(iii) the notice of variation of any authorisation;(f) the maximum fee to be paid for determining any application.(6) Before issuing guidance under this section the Secretary of State must—
(a) publish a draft of the proposed guidance; and(b) conduct a public consultation on the draft guidance.(7) In preparing draft guidance, the Secretary of State must, in particular, consult—
(a) the metropolitan police force;(b) the Greater London Authority;(c) Westminster City Council; and(d) the Director of Public Prosecutions.(8) Guidance issued under this section must be made by statutory instrument and is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
Baroness Browning
“(A1) In section 2 of the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926 (power to make regulations), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) may include provision applying (with any necessary modifications) sections 4 to 6 of the Royal Parks (Trading) Act 2000 (seizure, retention, disposal and forfeiture of property) in relation to offences under that subsection that are not park trading offences for the purposes of that Act.””
Baroness Meacher
Baroness Meacher
I rise to move Amendment 307ZB and to speak to Amendments 307ZC and 307ZE, which together seek to provide some flexibility for the Government in deciding how best to regulate the use and supply of so-called legal highs. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, has asked me to inform the House that he had requested the Public Bill Office to add his name to these amendments, and the absence of his name from the Marshalled List is purely an administrative error. These amendments are similar, although not identical, to those tabled in Committee. They now refer to the medicines Acts, consumer protection and advertising standards legislation, all of which provide legislative frameworks within which it would be possible for legal highs to be controlled.
As the Minister knows, I am not seeking to tie the hands of the Government—quite the opposite. A great deal of work needs to be done, and indeed is being done, to explore the best ways to control these substances. What I am seeking is flexibility in this legislation so that when the analysis of the various legislative frameworks and their potential application in this field has been completed, the controls could be put in place without waiting for further legislation. We all know how long that can take.
I am anxious that the Government avoid a repeat of the mistakes of the past. In Committee, I set out briefly the appalling consequences of the war on drugs, which has been pursued by this country and across the world for 50 years. From the Global Commission on Drug Policy report, we know that a rapidly growing number of highly respected world leaders and opinion formers now recognise that we need to end the criminalisation of young people and focus on evidence-based, health-oriented policies. The amendments are consistent with the growing policy consensus across the globe.
On the thrust of my amendments, we know that some of the substances referred to as legal highs are potentially very dangerous to the health of young people. We also suspect that other substances may be less dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol. It would be most unhelpful if these substances were to be dealt with in the same way. It would be particularly unhelpful if they were dealt with under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which, as your Lordships know, criminalises users as well as suppliers. As the Bill stands, that is the assumption, albeit that under the temporary ban in the initial stages users will not be targeted. The assumption is that, if these substances are brought under the Misuse of Drugs Act, users will inevitably be targeted over time, as they are under that Act in respect of other drugs.
I welcome the Government’s focus on treatment of problem drug use. This focus makes it clear that the Government accept that it is a health problem—certainly, drug abuse is. On this assumption, the priority for us all in developing drugs policy is to try to ensure that young people avoid the substances and the associated health problems if at all possible. This means having clear messages about the relative risk of different substances and the provision of health treatment as well as social support for all those who need it.
I welcomed the Minister’s comments on the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, where she talked about the importance of a rounded and holistic approach to drug addiction. The Minister referred to different departments being brought together to provide that support. As the Minister knows, I have drawn attention to the Swiss model, which, instead of trying to get a whole lot of different departments to work together, which we know is extraordinarily difficult, brings all those services under a single umbrella, providing an extraordinarily effective service—health and social support, benefits and the rest of it—so that they achieve a two-thirds success rate over 18 months.
As important as all that is the separation of the markets for these legal highs between the markets for the really dangerous substances and those for substances which are much less dangerous. That is the fundamental point of my amendment. If there is a single market and a single set of traffickers, young and vulnerable people move inevitably from one drug to another.
On giving clear messages about the relative risks of different drugs, we know that the classification system of the Misuse of Drugs Act does not work. When cannabis was moved from class B to class C and back again from class C to class B, the trends in the use of cannabis did not change very much—the fact is, young people do not really understand the classification system. By contrast, the tobacco controls have been really rather effective over time. Tobacco and alcohol are just two substances controlled outside the Misuse of Drugs Act. There is no reason why substances should be controlled under that legislation. Solvents are controlled through the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act; medicines legislation has been used in a number of countries for controlling methadrone—for example, in the Netherlands and Finland—and for controlling Spice in Austria.
The controls referred to in my amendments could allow the authorities to direct users towards relatively less harmful substances as substitutes for the much more harmful ones. They also provide an opportunity to introduce controls that are not feasible under the Misuse of Drugs Act, including age restrictions, controls on marketing and packaging and requirements that substances are sold with information on dosage levels and adverse effects. All of that would be extraordinarily helpful for vulnerable young people. Sale could be limited to a relatively small number of establishments, unlike the liberal policy we have for alcohol and tobacco.
Controls are not by any means the whole story; we want prevention, too. The best preventive measures include sensitive support in school, or in other venues where young people congregate, for children who are readily identified as underperforming, alienated and unhappy. These are the children at risk of being enticed into the taking of synthetic drugs and who, once enticed, will be vulnerable to a dependence on those drugs. If they fall into the drug addiction trap, the most destructive response to these vulnerable young children is to criminalise them. As they say, you can recover from drug addiction but you can never recover from a criminal conviction. With a criminal conviction, the child’s life is in pieces; family, friends, education and hope of employment are all in tatters. It is for these reasons that I implore the Minister to do all that she can to ensure that the regulation of legal highs is undertaken in such a way as to avoid criminalising children and young people if at all possible.
If we are now too late to take this action within the Bill, I would be greatly encouraged if the Minister could give the House her assurance that she will be asking her officials to begin work without delay on the necessary legislation to achieve these objectives. I beg to move.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on having brought back these amendments on Report. I hope the Minister will be able to give a sympathetic and positive response.
I was impressed by what the Minister said in a previous debate today—there was a great deal of personal conviction behind what she said—and her insistence on the importance of not only treatment but of cure. If that applies as a governing principle in the sphere of alcohol abuse and the much more serious social consequences that that has, why not have the same approach at the centre of the Government’s policy on drugs?
If we are to get the response to drugs right—the noble Baroness was right to emphasise this—two principles are absolutely essential. First, any action which is taken should be based not on emotion, instinct or control concern but on evidence-based outcomes of thorough research. Any moves or legislative arrangements that are not properly researched can do far more harm than good. That is the first point.
The second, absolutely crucial, point is the one made by the noble Baroness about criminalisation. One certain way to make it more difficult to rescue the young from drug addiction is this excessive tendency towards their criminalisation. We have to realise that it is not a soft approach but a hard-headed one. Very often drug addiction is a symptom of victimisation: the drug takers are often victims themselves in one way or another. I am greatly impressed by the increasing amount of research which is now being undertaken which suggests that the most important factor in leading young people and others into drug abuse is the environment, social conditions and so on of which they find themselves a part.
The Minister rightly referred to culture and about wanting to change it. I have a tremendous sense of awe at the responsibilities faced by the Home Office in so many spheres. Many good and dedicated people work in the Home Office but it would be right to adopt a cultural approach there which puts rehabilitation and not only control at the top of the agenda. I am afraid that the proposals in the Bill before us do not make it absolutely clear that the rehabilitation argument, and the resistance to taking action which drives people further into the problem, should prevail.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for ensuring that we keep an open mind and consider all options available to best respond to the threat of new psychoactive substances—sometimes referred to as legal highs—which are specifically designed to get around existing legislation.
As I explained in Committee, the temporary class drug orders will constitute a UK legislative response that is appropriate to the immediate threat that a new drug poses while its nature is still in question. As the noble Baroness is aware, some of these new substances present harms equivalent to those from class A and class B drug use. In these circumstances, the appropriate response is to disrupt the supply chain and protect the public as a priority while giving the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs time to consider evidence of a drug and its harms. The proposals before the House will help us achieve that aim. Of course, our response to both the general issue and individual new substances must be both preventive and proportionate.
These amendments seek to ensure that the Government amend and consider alternative legislation to tackle the threat of new psychoactive substances, alongside control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. We are keen to see all existing legislation used to curb the availability of these substances, though not as a substitute regime for harmful drugs whose proper place is under control under the 1971 Act. The UK needs a legislative response that is appropriate to the immediate threat that a new drug poses when there is evidence that its harms are commensurate with class A or class B drug use. Temporary class drug orders will provide a preventive and proportionate response to the threat posed by disrupting the supply chain and protecting the public as a priority while giving the ACMD time to assess the drug and its harms.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, the noble Baroness will of course be aware that in bringing in these temporary orders while a substance is evaluated, we are not in any way criminalising the user. I also draw noble Lords’ attention to Section 1(2) of the 1971 Act by which the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs already has the remit to provide,
“advice on measures (whether or not involving alteration of law) which in the opinion of the Council ought to be taken for preventing the misuse of such drugs”.
We will not prejudge the advice that the ACMD is preparing, including its thematic advice on new psychoactive substances.
On government Amendments 307C and 307D, the Government have always been committed to proper scrutiny of our drugs laws. We accept the recommendation of this House’s Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the affirmative procedure is preferred while still enabling us to take swift action against the threat of a new psychoactive substance throughout the year. The advice sometimes comes forward very quickly and there are periods when the House is in long Recess through the summer. The amendments take account of the concerns of the House’s committee but at the same time ensure that we are not tardy with the harms that we are notified of by the ACMD. To remain in force, a temporary class drug order will need to have been approved in both Houses within 40 sitting days.
I am sorry that I cannot accept the noble Baroness’s amendments. I would be very concerned that we would potentially deal with psychoactive substances which would ultimately fall within the class A or class B category. Notwithstanding that, it is up to the ACMD to offer the Government alternative advice as to other routes if it felt that was appropriate. On that basis, I ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Meacher
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I am not at all clear how she envisages the less dangerous substances should be regulated. I am not at all clear that this can be done under current legislation other than through the Misuse of Drugs Act. That is the concern reflected in these amendments. I believe that there is no alternative as the Bill stands, so I wonder whether the Minister could respond to that point.
Baroness Browning
I am very happy to write to the noble Baroness. As I explained, the ACMD in making its recommendations to the Government is able to indicate any routes that it thinks that the Government should take. I am very happy to explore that with her. We are awaiting a report from the ACMD on these new psychoactive substances, and it may well be that that will inform the Government better as to the range of options available to us.
Baroness Meacher
I thank the Minister for that response. My understanding is that in fact there will be a need for further legislation and it is my concern that the Government do all they can to take steps to prepare for that so that there is no gap or delay before these substances can be appropriately controlled through regulatory mechanisms other than the Misuse of Drugs Act. But with that point made, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Browning
(a) is subject to subsection (10), and(b) ”
“(10) An order under this section—
(a) must be laid before Parliament after being made, and(b) ceases to have effect at the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the order is made unless before the end of that period the order is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(11) In calculating that period of 40 days no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than 4 days.
(12) Subsection (10)(b)—
(a) is without prejudice to anything previously done or to the power of the Secretary of State to make a new order under this section;(b) does not apply to an order that only revokes a previous order under this section.”
Lord Ramsbotham
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I must apologise to the House for not being able to be in the Chamber when I could have moved this amendment in Committee. The Explanatory Notes state that the purpose of the two subsections in the clause is to amend Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 by removing the requirement on the Secretary of State to appoint to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs at least one person with wide and recent experience in each of six specified activities—medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, pharmacy, the pharmaceutical industry and chemistry—and persons with wide and recent experience of social problems connected with drugs.
I have to admit that to me the proposal to remove this requirement defies common sense and logic. It is hard to think of any better summary of the expertise that should be co-opted on to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs so that it is available to the Secretary of State and Ministers responsible for dealing with a major social problem. That is the immediate and narrow reason for moving my amendment, but there is a wider reason concerning the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 itself, legislation that is now 40 years old and regarded by many who work in the field as being outdated and in need of urgent repair. Much of what I shall say now complements the amendments moved by my noble friend Lady Meacher.
The Act was introduced to replace a more liberal legal framework and to reflect United Nations treaties such as the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 and the developing US-led war on drugs. The debate on drugs laws has moved on since then, and questions have been raised as to the efficacy of the approach of the war on drugs, so it seems timely to revisit a law that was made in a very different climate.
The 1971 Act established the drug classification system as a basis on which to set levels of offence and punishment for possessing, supplying and using premises in relation to controlled drugs. The advisory council was established to provide scientific evidence of the harm done by each substance to enable Ministers to classify it on a scale of harm. However, the scientific basis of drugs classification has since been challenged and the fact that alcohol and tobacco, which score high on the level of harm that they do to people and society, are not included on the list of controlled drugs has been cited as evidence that social and political considerations influence policy-makers as much as scientific evidence. The proliferation of internet sales has also raised questions about the Government's ability to classify all drugs and the value of doing so when they can easily be adapted.
Criminalising the possession and use of drugs does not bring down crime or offending rates. On the contrary, it feeds them. Drug and alcohol dependency is a health problem, not a crime. Other than taking punitive action against dealers, drug-related crime is better dealt with by supporting recovery and tackling the interconnected problems that have contributed to drug misuse. Treating drugs as a health matter rather than a crime helps to reduce a range of harm to individuals, families and communities. That is at the heart of proposals in the Rehabilitation Revolution—the subject of the Ministry of Justice’s Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. Drug misuse is closely associated with mental health problems and is often a response to other problems in a person's life, for which they cannot be held responsible, such as childhood neglect. To reflect this, there are clauses in the Department of Health’s Health and Social Care Bill and the Department for Work and Pensions’ Welfare Reform Bill on the treatment of misusers.
I mention all these to draw attention to the fact that the misuse of drugs is currently part of four separate Bills tabled by four separate ministries, all based on an out of date Act. It seems to have become a custom that, instead of producing single-issue Bills—such as the admirable one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, which we have just debated—ministries now table multi-issue monsters that dabble with a number of issues, rather than tackling one in detail. I submit to the Minister that, acknowledging that the reform of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is essentially Home Office business, reform might be better done by tabling one Bill to revive that Act rather than via a variety of clauses in a variety of Bills tabled by a variety of ministries.
I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to accept my amendment in the spirit in which it is meant—not least in the interests of retaining the best advice, which will be essential in any reform process—and give the House an undertaking that urgent consideration will be given to both the reform of the 1971 Act and membership of the advisory council. I beg to move.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, the noble Lord will know that reform of the Misuse of Drugs Act is not in the Bill as a proposal, and I am not really in a position to be able to respond to him on his amendment today. Clearly, however, if there was a need to reform the Act itself, the Government would always be receptive to hearing the views that are being put forward on that, so while I have noted what he said about overall reform of the Act we would naturally need to have advice from wider quarters as well. I hope he will accept that I have heard and noted what he has said on that.
As for this amendment and its aim to retain the existing statutory nature of specified areas of expertise in the ACMD’s membership under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the Government take a view that placing one area of expertise on a greater footing than others brings into question the need for the latter. Our proposals therefore place all ACMD members on an equal footing. We want to make the best use of our independent experts, the ACMD, in this challenging area of government policy. The scientific community was consulted about our proposal, which will give the ACMD's membership the flexibility to adapt to the modern challenges of the drug landscape. We have the full support of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, with which we have developed a broader non-statutory list of expertise from which the ACMD’s membership will be predominantly drawn. This list is contained in the draft working protocol that was laid in the House Library on 1 April. It includes all six groups of expertise that are currently statutory.
The working protocol also sets out the future involvement of the ACMD in recruiting new members and the process by which we will secure the relevant expertise that is needed. It may be interest the House to know that we have received broad support for the change and our intent is to have non-statutory lists of expertise from the Academy of Medical Sciences, the British Academy, the British Society of Criminology, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the British Pharmacological Society and the Royal Society of Medicine, and the Science and Technology Committees of both Houses were also consulted. The committee of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, welcomed the added flexibility to the ACMD’s membership.
The Government and the ACMD are prepared to be held to account on the terms of the protocol, so a final version will be laid in the Libraries of both Houses. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has had an opportunity to study that protocol and its proposals, but I hope that he will have taken reassurance from the wide scientific body that has supported the Government in these measures. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ramsbotham
I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. Of course I accept what she says about the 1971 Act, and I admit that it would probably have been more appropriate to have raised the matter in Committee, if I had been able, rather than to leave it until this late stage. However, I am much reassured by the welcome she has given to possible suggestions about the renewal of the Act because I know that a number of people would like to put this forward. It is rather difficult at the moment to decide who should do so, as so many different aspects are being raised in different Bills. Perhaps this is something that we could discuss and then decide how it might be done
On the membership of the advisory council, I was not aware of the protocol and I have not seen it. However, I am much reassured that it exists and I am encouraged by the support for it, which the Minister described. I look forward to seeing it, and in that spirit I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
“(4AA) The Director of Public Prosecutions shall give consent if—
(a) the evidence establishes a realistic prospect of conviction and the prosecution would be in the public interest, or (b) the evidence raises a reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed and that the suspect committed it, and the Director of Public Prosecutions is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a continuing investigation will provide further evidence, within a reasonable period of time, so that all the evidence taken together is capable of establishing a realistic prospect of conviction.(4AB) In the case of consent granted under subsection (4AA)(b), the Director of Public Prosecutions shall keep that case under review, so that if evidence establishing a realistic prospect of conviction is not available within a reasonable period, the Director of Public Prosecutions shall take over and discontinue the case.”
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I beg leave to move this amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Macdonald, who like so many of us was here until late last night but is unavoidably abroad today.
Clause 155 is of importance as it ousts a long-held and apparently unfettered right of the private citizen to seek an arrest warrant, particularly in relation to offences of universal jurisdiction. For our part, we agree with the thrust of the change that has been made. As the prosecution of offences of universal jurisdiction—for example, war crimes—has always required law officer consent before a plea is entered in the court, why not require the Director of Public Prosecutions to consent on the same test before the process may be commenced at all? The alternative is the possibility that a case may proceed in the absence of any likelihood of law officer consent being forthcoming. It is a hopeless case. In that case, the prosecution will inevitably and quickly collapse when the consent of the law officers is withheld. It will have been nonsense from the start. That is most undesirable in such cases, which may have sensitive international connotations.
It seems to me that to require the prior consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, as the clause does, merely creates an additional safeguard at no markedly adverse cost to justice. It has to be recognised that the proposal represents an inroad into the right of the citizen, unrestricted and unfettered, to seek arrest warrants, so it is particularly important, if this is an inroad, that the tests that the Director of Public Prosecutions will apply in considering the grant or the withholding of consent are crystal clear to the public, who to an extent are losing a right of unfettered access to the court. The purpose of the amendment is to achieve that clarity by putting those tests into the Bill.
What are the tests set out in the amendment? They are the tests that are used by Crown prosecutors in considering whether to charge individuals with criminal offences. This is appropriate because in a private prosecution the issuing of a warrant is analogous to the charging process in a conventional state prosecution. It is the actual issuing of the warrant that sets the ball rolling and puts the defendant under the jurisdiction of the court.
The full code test requires the prosecutor to consider whether the evidence before him raises a realistic prospect of conviction—in other words, that a reasonable tribunal would be more likely than not to convict upon that evidence. If the answer to that question is yes, there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and the prosecution would be in the public interest, a charge must follow.
The second test that is set out in the amendment is known as the threshold test. That is to be used in circumstances in which a prosecutor has enough material to suspect an individual of an offence and a real expectation that material satisfying the full code test will become available within a reasonable period. Noble Lords who were in Committee will recall that the former Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, suggested that the public interest test should come in at that stage. In fact, that is not the case in ordinary prosecutions in this country.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Keir Starmer, has said in evidence to the Public Bill Committee that he believes these tests, which are normally used in this country for granting consent to the issue of a warrant where universal jurisdiction offences are alleged, to be the appropriate tests. There was some issue in Committee about what he had actually said on this topic in the evidence that he gave to the Public Bill Committee. I quote a paragraph from that evidence:
“Quite rightly, a number of groups and individuals have said to us, ‘We may have practically everything. We just need to change the nature of the evidence and it won’t take long. You surely wouldn’t refuse us consent on that basis?’ So we have an exception that allows us to apply the threshold test—is there enough for reasonable suspicion and do we anticipate that, within a reasonable period, the evidential gap, as it were, could be plugged? There would then be sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. That prompts the question, what is a reasonable period? It seems to us that it is probably best measured in the period between the application for arrest and the likely time that the Attorney-General will consider consent, because that is the existing window. That is the only period that can sensibly be used for that purpose”.—[Official Report, Commons, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill Committee, 20/1/11; col. 125.]
In Committee, my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew asked whether my noble friend Lord Macdonald had consulted Mr Starmer before he put down this amendment. The answer is yes, he had. Since the proceedings in Committee, my noble friend Lord Macdonald has spoken further to Mr Starmer about the matter and has received an indication from the Director of Public Prosecutions that he may convey to the House that the position he expressed in his evidence remains his position. Those are the tests, as set out in the amendment, that he would apply in considering consent to any application for a warrant in a case of universal jurisdiction.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
Will my noble friend be kind enough to confirm that the Director of Public Prosecutions has not indicated his assent to this amendment?
Lord Thomas of Gresford
If my learned noble friend will control himself for a moment, I shall come to that question in due course. Mr Starmer has indicated that he would wish to apply a public interest filter to both the tests that are set out in the amendment. Unlike an ordinary prosecution, Mr Starmer would wish to consider the public interest question on the threshold test as well as the full code test. His view is, of course, accepted.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I am sorry but that is not good enough. Will my noble friend now answer my question? He has left hanging in the air the possibility that the Director of Public Prosecutions has indicated his agreement to this amendment. Is that true or untrue? I believe that it is untrue. The implication should not be left hanging in the air. Perhaps my noble friend will bear in mind that I am exercising more self-control than his last few sentences possibly justify.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I must admit, my noble friend has always been known for his self-control. We have known each other for 30 or 40 years. The simple answer to his question is that, as I explained a moment ago, the Director of Public Prosecutions wishes to include in the guidance that he proposes to give the public interest test, at the first part, in considering the threshold test. He has said that binding guidance to that effect—
Lord Soley
I do not understand that. I want to know—it is important—whether the answer is yes or no.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
The answer is no; it is obvious. That is why I do not propose to press this amendment to a Division. It is as simple as that. That is what I was about to say. The Director of Public Prosecutions has indicated that his views will find their way into the Code for Crown Prosecutors once the legislation has been passed. We are content with that. Failure by Crown prosecutors to follow the code renders their decision-making susceptible to potential challenge by judicial review. I repeat, to make myself completely clear: I do not propose to press this matter to a Division. However, I am interested in the Minister’s response on this important, and clearly slightly divisive, question. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick
If nobody else wishes to speak on this matter, I certainly will. I was very pleased to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that he and the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, agree with the thrust of Clause 155. As he stated, it is absurd to allow for an arrest warrant to be issued without the consent of the DPP when a private prosecution cannot proceed without the express consent of the Attorney-General. I oppose Amendment 308A. Its purport would be to include in the legislation criteria that would tell the director how to exercise his discretion in giving consent to the issue of an arrest warrant. As we have just heard as a result of the cross-examination techniques of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, it is clear—as I understand the noble Lord, Lord Thomas—that the Director of Public Prosecutions does not wish to see his discretion confined in the legislation.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, I say for the sake of completeness that I concur with the submissions just made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and particularly endorse his sentiments about the importance that where offences of this nature are identified, they should be prosecuted with vigour and rigour and that those who have committed such heinous offences should most certainly be brought to book.
I was somewhat perplexed by the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, and supported by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for this reason. I agree with the legal analysis of the flaws identified so cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I was surprised to find those flaws in an amendment drafted by lawyers of the eminence of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald and the noble Lord. The errant drafting of the amendment has given us a cogent reason why the matter should be left to the current Attorney-General and Director of Public Prosecutions.
For completeness, I have confidence in the current Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, to discharge his duty with commendable precision. I have equal confidence in the current Attorney-General and Solicitor-General that they, like their predecessors before me, will discharge their duty with distinction and propriety. I have every confidence that each of them, irrespective of political complexion, can be safely entrusted to discharge the heavy burden of exercising their discretion in those cases and that no further amendments should be made to inhibit them from doing that which must be right in cases of this severity. I am glad that the consensus now appears to be that the gap which was so carefully identified by the Director of Public Prosecutions in his evidence should be closed.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, I rise rather hesitantly, because I feel intimidated in talking in this debate, which seems to be populated by QCs. I am neither a QC nor a lawyer. I rise to give a more layman's viewpoint on behalf of those, like me, who are not adept in the intricacies of the law.
No one on any side of this debate is trying to stop universal jurisdiction for the prosecution of suspected war criminals. That must be stated clearly. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, the amendment is unnecessary and, I would say, even unhelpful. As many noble Lords will know, the usual course at the moment is that the police investigate and pass a file to the Crown Prosecution Service if they believe that such an offence has occurred, if there is a realistic chance of conviction and, as noble Lords have said, if it is in the public interest.
I read Hansard carefully after the previous debate—that is why I was inhibited by the cabal of QCs who were speaking—and I particularly noted the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, whom I know cannot be here today but who has intimated that he is against the amendment left on the Marshalled List. He said in Committee that,
“there are two elements in the code for Crown prosecutors. One is the test as to the adequacy of the evidence and the second is the public interest. Both have to be satisfied before a prosecution takes place”.—[Official Report, 16/6/11; cols. 1008-9.]
For non-lawyers, it is perhaps useful to say so.
Comment has been made about the current Director of Public Prosecutions, who is universally admired. Those who have inquired of Mr Starmer have been given reassurance that, if extra resources are needed to pursue prosecutions, they will be there. If people who are at the moment going to the magistrates’ court to seek a private prosecution, in advance of the alleged criminal coming to this country, were to give that evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service, the CPS would investigate the case before that person then comes to this country. That seems to me pretty good.
I particularly disagree with the amendment—and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, touched on this—because the DPP does not need to be told, as it says in the amendment, that he “shall give consent”. I hope noble Lords have confidence, as I have, in the Directors of Public Prosecutions, both past and present, so to do. I am slightly dismayed that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, was unable to be with us in Committee and, for obvious reasons, cannot be here today. He was also a Director of Public Prosecutions and it is very important to know what he would say.
It is worth mentioning the difference with a private prosecution, via an arrest warrant in a magistrates’ court, where a much lower prima facie case needs to be made. The magistrate is shown the alleged evidence but that court does not have the facilities to investigate that case in more than a superficial manner. The arrest warrant could then be issued if the paperwork looks good—it is only paperwork. The alleged criminal is not informed. No basic defence can be submitted and, if that person comes to this country, under that arrest warrant he could be put in jail for a couple of nights while the DPP decides whether to prosecute. Many people believe that in the many cases that come forward, for one reason or another, they would not have involved a prosecution. The tests used by the magistrate amount to,
“little more than asking whether the papers disclose an arguable case”—
I take that comment from legal advice given in an article that has just recently been written.
This has not been mentioned by other speakers but I would go on to the practicalities. Can it be right that people who have served in their countries—whichever country—as, say, a Defence Minister, Foreign Minister or a member of the armed forces and who are no longer such, and who come to this country, should be liable for arrest at the magistrates’ court rather than be under the consideration of the DPP?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord but I remind him that we are on Report and this is becoming rather more of a Second Reading speech than a speech on Report, which should be narrowly connected to the amendment under discussion.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
Thank you. I am happy to bring it back to the amendment. The amendment supposes that it is right to instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions what he or she should do. I believe that DPPs past and present are able so to do without the amendment.
Baroness Tonge
My Lords, this debate reminds me of those cycle races in velodromes where everyone waits for the first rider to break from the pack and start racing. I hope that not too many people will catch me up, but I expect they will. I am sure that a noble Lord sitting behind me will catch me up.
I will briefly run through once again the current right of a private citizen to initiate a private prosecution by applying to a senior district judge to issue an arrest warrant for such criminals as war criminals. We are not talking about ordinary crimes, but about very big war crimes committed against international law. This ancient, common right has belonged to the people of England and Wales for many years. It is a valuable safeguard against political interference by the Government. This is why I have objected so strongly to the proposed change in Clause 155, which could delay an arrest, allowing the suspect to escape, and could introduce political interference from the Attorney-General who might influence a decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, almost indicated this by linking the whole chain of command to the Attorney-General. I am no lawyer, but I thought that the Attorney-General was a Minister of our Government—an officer of the Government. The noble and learned Baroness was almost admitting that political interference could occur.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, I am very happy to assist the noble Baroness. The Attorney-General has three roles, as many noble Lords may know. The first is to advise to Her Majesty the Queen, the Government and Parliament. The second—the Attorney of the day must do this independently—is to supervise and superintend all the prosecutorial authorities in this country. The third is to be the guardian of the public interest and the rule of law. The second and third roles are exercised entirely independently from the ministerial role. The Attorney of the day can be relied on to remain a stalwart guardian of the public interest and, if necessary, to challenge acts of Government and Parliament. Any Attorney worth their salt should do that without fear or favour.
Baroness Tonge
I thank the noble and learned Baroness for that explanation. I found it a little reassuring, although in the past I as an innocent layman felt that this did not always happen. The fear remains that there may be political interference if this ancient common right is taken away.
I must progress. As I have already said, this right has not been abused in the past. There have been only 10 applications in 10 years, only two of which have been successful. The only reason that I heard the Government give in Committee for introducing the change was that it might be abused in the future.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Should the noble Baroness not be asking whether the Attorney-General might ever in any circumstances have in mind a political position taken by the Government in determining his or her decision?
Baroness Tonge
I do not want at this stage to get into a debate on the Attorney-General. It would be to intrude into areas where I am not expert. There was a very famous case in the recent past where the Attorney-General was alleged to have been influenced by the Government. However, this is not why I want to speak tonight.
The clause worries me because of the debate around it. We must accept that there is a debate.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
I wonder whether the noble Baroness would reconsider what she has just said. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, is not in his place. It would be a courtesy, if such an assertion is made, to ensure that he is present to respond to it.
Baroness Tonge
I apologise to the House, and I agree with the noble and learned Baroness. In fact, I did not make an assertion; I said that there were incidents in the past where, allegedly, that had occurred.
When we look at this issue, we begin to think—certainly, the people who lobby me in great numbers think—that the real reason for the change in the law was the incident relating to Tzipi Livni. The Foreign Secretary, for whom I have high regard, argued that in the case of Tzipi Livni, the law had been abused when an arrest warrant was issued against her. He stated that:
“She is an Israeli politician of great importance, and a strong advocate of the peace process”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/3/11; col. 1130.]
That may be, but he did not criticise the evidence against her contained in the arrest warrant which had been obtained by a private citizen.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I am grateful to my noble friend for allowing me to interrupt, and I am extremely surprised that we have not heard my noble friend on the Front Bench intervening in the way in which he intervened on my noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill a few minutes ago. What my noble friend is saying is out of order, inappropriate and not related to the amendment. She is having a rant at Mrs Livni.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I was considering rising on precisely that point. This is Report, and we are intended to stick very closely to the amendment. This speech is ranging very widely, much more widely than is normal on Report.
Baroness Tonge
Nevertheless, my Lords, this is an extremely important issue that shows the general public how our Government conduct themselves. It is important that these things should be said and put on record. I am not going to be silenced on the grounds that this is Report. Many other people have talked at length on other subjects.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I am very sorry, but we are on Report, and there are rules of the House. I understand the passion with which the noble Baroness is speaking, but the rules on Report are rather tight, and there are other occasions on which one can make these points. I think the sympathy of the House is limited in this respect. We need to address the amendment, and that briefly.
Baroness Tonge
My Lords, this puts me in some difficulty because I wanted to contrast the way we had altered our law at the request of a foreign Government, which is how it is perceived, and how we plan—
Baroness Tonge
I am not going to give way again. I must finish. We must contrast this action with what has happened in the past couple of weeks where Raed Salah, a Palestinian—
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, I have only a few words to add. I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Tonge has chosen to disobey the normal rules of the House and has stormed out in a way which is not appropriate to noble Lords and noble Baronesses in this House. It is something that I, as a member of her party, feel very strongly about, and I hope that none of my noble friends would normally behave in that way. It is quite shocking.
I would say, and I was about to say in her presence, that she has completely misunderstood the role of the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions. I was involved in some negotiations during the previous Government as a person who was keen to extend the cover of the universal jurisdiction. It was made clear to me as part of the package—there were other Members of your Lordships' House of all and no parties involved—that an absolute requirement to make acceptable the broadening of the universal jurisdiction was a provision of this kind.
The basic reason is that we have only one standard of prosecution in this country. It is a good standard, it is set out in the current version of the Code for Crown Prosecutors, and it is completely politically independent. There was a discussion as to whether the provision in Clause 155 should be applied to the Attorney-General—the noble and learned Baroness at the time—or the Director of Public Prosecutions. It was decided, precisely to emphasise the principle of political independence, that the Director of Public Prosecutions should be the person named.
Having said that, I absolutely agree with every word the noble and learned Baroness has said about the role of the Attorney-General. Indeed, I was fortunate enough to receive an e-mail that winged its way from sunnier climes, where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, is busily engaged in unavoidable other activities. I was very flattered to receive the e-mail. In it he said that he supports this clause and is opposed to the amendment, as he said with great eloquence in Committee.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
No, I am not going to give way because I think we have spent—all right, I will give way to the noble Lord because I like him.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I tried to take a very neutral position when I originally moved my amendment. However, it should be made absolutely clear whether the Attorney-General could ever be influenced by a political position taken by a Government in any decision that he or she might take, in any circumstances.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
The noble Lord knows how much I admire him, so if I say that is a really silly question I do so in a spirit of generosity. The answer is that we in this Parliament—and the noble Lord has been in this Parliament a lot longer than I have—have to make certain assumptions. Those assumptions include what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, the former Attorney-General, said to the House a few moments ago. The sanction for people—and Governments —who behave in that way is that they will lose the confidence of Parliament. The question that the noble Lord puts is so hypothetical as to be absurd, in my experience and, I believe, in his political life too.
I do not want to delay the House too long. All I really wanted to say about the amendment is that in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, achieved a superb deconstruction of the amendment, and he has done it again today. I do not really want to add anything to what he said, together with the support that he received from the noble and learned Baroness, and indeed the very cogent summary that we received from a non-lawyer, my noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill—thank God we have non-lawyers who are prepared to speak in these debates. I close by simply saying that this clause from the coalition Government, which I and my noble friends usually support, has been introduced in a continuous thread from what was agreed by the previous Government. It brings a single high standard of prosecution to this country and one that can be changed, as it has been in new versions of the Code for Crown Prosecutors test.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, I start by agreeing with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, that it is important that we have an efficient system of prosecution available in this country to deal with cases, when the evidence is available, that relate not only to war crimes but also to many of the other offences listed in this clause in respect of which the United Kingdom has sought to assert universal jurisdiction. My noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill made it clear that nothing in this clause seeks to end universal jurisdiction, nor indeed does it end the right of private prosecution for universal jurisdiction cases. Although such grave offences may well seem better suited to prosecution by the state, we think it right that citizens should be able to prosecute them.
Clause 155 allows anyone to apply to a court to initiate a private prosecution for universal jurisdiction offences by using arrest warrants where appropriate. It prevents a warrant being issued in cases where there is no realistic prospect of a viable prosecution taking place. As these are cases where issuing a warrant would achieve nothing, that is surely right. That point was made by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford in moving his amendment. Indeed, with a singular exception, no one has dissented from the reform and from the purpose of Clause 155, which introduces the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Through this amendment, what we are looking at is the question of whether the criteria applied and approach taken by the DPP in giving consent is something which should be on the face of the Bill. It is certainly the Government’s view, which I think is shared by most noble Lords who contributed to the debate, that it should not.
Those of us who have read the clear and cogent evidence given by the DPP to the Public Bill Committee in the other place will have seen clearly how, if Parliament passes this provision, he intends to exercise the duty of whether or not to give consent. He has also made it clear that he proposes to apply the same code tests to the evidential and public interest tests that are used for prosecutions generally, and he has further indicated, as has been mentioned in this debate, that where necessary he would apply the lesser standard of the threshold test. He indicated to the Public Bill Committee that he intends to publish guidelines so that everyone will know how he would deal with decisions on whether or not to give consent.
I, too, want to endorse the comments of noble Lords that we can have confidence that the DPP will exercise his discretion properly. He has a track record which gives us full confidence that he will do that. I share the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, that that is a good reason not to inhibit that discretion by putting things into statute. These tests are of general application and it is not clear why they should be set in stone by this amendment. Indeed, in Committee my noble friend Lord Carlile said that the amendment attempts,
“to fix in statutory stone something that is much more evolutionary—and needs to be”.—[Official Report, 16/6/11; col. 1011.]
We would not wish to stop that evolution, particularly given the commitment to transparency on the part of the DPP.
A further point was noted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, in Committee and has been highlighted today, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It relates to the public interest dimension of the threshold test, which is not mentioned in the amendment. I rather thought that my noble friend Lord Thomas was suggesting that it was not necessarily part of the threshold test. However, paragraph 5.12 of the Code for Crown Prosecutors states:
“If both parts of the Threshold Test are satisfied, prosecutors must apply the public interest stage of the Full Code Test based on the information available at that time”.
If we put something in statute, there is a danger of actually missing something out that is in the test as it applies at the moment. Perhaps that underlines why it is not desirable to have this in legislation.
My noble friend has indicated that he is not going to press his amendment, and I think that will meet with the general support of the House. I encourage him to confirm that.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, a great deal of heat has been engendered in the course of the debate and I do not propose to add to it, although certain things were said about deconstructing this amendment with which I do not agree. However, I can take them up at a different time. Let me make it clear that there have been discussions between my noble friend Lord Macdonald and Mr Keir Starmer and they have come to a conclusion that is acceptable to both; namely, that the test should be published in guidance. No doubt it will be applied appropriately and in accordance with the traditions of this country, which are that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General should act in the public interest and not for the purposes of any political party. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Browning
“(d) an order under paragraph 16 of Schedule 15 which contains provision amending an Act (whether or not it also contains other provision).”
Baroness Browning
“(3A) Section 100 and Schedule 15 apply to England and Wales and Scotland.”
“(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to the amendment made to section 2 of the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926 by section 152(A1) above (which accordingly extends to England and Wales only).”
Lord Rosser
“Expiration of and report on Chapters 1 to 6 of Part 1
(1) Except so far as otherwise provided under this section, Chapters 1 to 6 of Part 1 expire at the end of the period of 4 years beginning with the day on which section 1 of that Part comes into force.
(2) Before the expiry of Chapters 1 to 6 of Part 1, the Secretary of State must—
(a) organise an independent review of the policing governance arrangements introduced by those Chapters.(b) publish a report on the policing governance arrangements introduced by those Chapters, and(c) lay a copy of the report in Parliament.(3) The report required under subsection (2) must, in particular—
(a) set out the objectives intended to be achieved by the policing governance arrangements in Chapters 1 to 6 of Part 1;(b) assess the extent to which those objectives have been achieved, and(c) assess whether those objectives remain appropriate and, if so, the extent to which they could be achieved with different arrangements.(4) The Secretary of State may, by order, revive Chapters 1 to 6 of Part 1 if a draft of such an order is laid before and approved by an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
(5) An order made by the Minister under this section is to be made by statutory instrument.
(6) A draft order laid before Parliament under subsection (4) must be accompanied by a copy of the report required under subsection (2).”
Lord Rosser
The Bill represents a major change for policing in England and Wales. Concerns have been expressed about the lack of effective checks and balances on commissioners and their unchallenged powers. Concerns have been expressed about the impact of the strategic policing requirements and the proposed national crime agency on the new arrangements. Concerns have been expressed about the impact of the relationship between the PCCs and chief constables on the latter’s operational responsibility. Concerns have been expressed about the impact of the new policing structure on relationships and working arrangements with other bodies, including local authorities. Concerns have also been expressed about the impact of the proposed new arrangements on levels of crime and the impact of the politicisation of the police, which, frankly, this Bill introduces.
The Government agree that their proposals represent a major change. Amendment 311 calls for an independent review of the policing governance arrangements and for a report to be prepared, laid before Parliament and approved by Parliament. The report must set out the objectives intended to be achieved by the new policing governance arrangements, the extent to which those objectives have been achieved, and whether they remain.
It does not seem unreasonable to call in the amendment for an assessment to be made of the impact of the new governance arrangements, what their objectives are and whether they are being achieved within the period of four years provided for in it if the provisions of the Bill are to remain in force. I hope that the Government will agree to the amendment and its provisions for an independent review of what they themselves accept is a major change for policing in England and Wales.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I do not agree with the amendment, for the following reasons. Noble Lords will be well aware of my concerns about the Bill, so I say this with a certain force. This legislation seems no different from other legislation that is contentious. It will be on the statute book in some form or other and able to be reviewed, renewed or repealed by a later Government—indeed, by the same Government, who may have second thoughts about it. I hope that it will be reviewed, but as part of a programme of post-legislative scrutiny, which it is high time Parliament had in place. Even without that post-legislative scrutiny, we have from time to time been reminded by the Leader of the House that there is an arrangement—it seems to me to be fairly loose, but I am assured that it exists—for substantial new legislation to be reviewed by government, which I do not think is the same as Parliament, after it has been in force for three years. Of course, if we had more time, I might tease the noble Lord about why he feels that it is necessary to provide for someone else to do something in four years.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, Amendment 311 would mean that the police and crime commissioner provisions of the Bill cease to have effect after four years unless, following an independent review and report, the House approves an order by the Secretary of State for the arrangements to continue.
Many noble Lords have spoken in the course of these debates of the risk of disruption to the police service, and I have set out as we have gone along how that will be minimised. However, it would be extremely disruptive to the police service if, a few months before the second set of elections, the elected PCC is removed and the unelected police authority is re-established.
I hear what my noble friend Lady Hamwee says about review. I fully support the principle that legislation is reviewed. I say this having served in another place for nearly 20 years. We get very excited about legislation when we are legislating and after a year or two we forget about it. Then things transpire and we think that perhaps we should have looked at it. As a principle that is a very good thing. However, I am unable to accept Amendment 311 as it would be extremely disruptive. I ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing it.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, the key phrase in the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—I think I have written it down correctly—was: “I hope that it will be reviewed … as part of post-legislative scrutiny”.
Baroness Hamwee
I said:
“as part of a programme of post-legislative scrutiny”.
Lord Rosser
I think the noble Baroness is being somewhat optimistic if she believes that is necessarily going to happen.
The amendment provides for an affirmative decision by Parliament on the report that would be produced. The Minister said that it would be extremely disruptive for the police. Of course, it would also be extremely disruptive for the biggest system change in policing for years to continue if did not work or operate properly as Parliament intended. If it is working properly, no doubt the report would be received and the affirmative resolutions would be carried. If it is not working, surely it is only appropriate that it should be challenged and processes put in place to try to put it right.
However, I do not intend to pursue this matter to a vote. I have expressed my views on the response that I have received from the noble Baroness and the reason why I think the amendment is justified. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Sovereign Grant Bill
Localism Bill
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lucas
My Lords, according to the programme we are supposed to conclude the Committee stage of this Bill on Wednesday after one further day’s debate. That does not seem to be a realistic prospect. I would like to make good progress with the Bill and the House has the flexibility to do better than that and to give itself some additional time. We could hoof the Education Bill out of the Moses Room on Monday. We could perhaps use the Moses Room on Tuesday or put the Finance Bill into the Moses Room and use the Chamber on Tuesday. We could sit on Thursday. There seem to be a number of options available to enable us to complete the Committee stage of the Bill before we rise. I very much hope that the Government will be able to tell us which of them they propose to use. One way or another, we are not going to complete it unless we do something.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said. We might wish to be where we are now but none of us would wish to be where we are with the Bill, if I can make that distinction. We are where we are. We on these Benches remain committed to completing the Committee stage of the Bill as soon as possible. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, there are a number of options available to enable us to do that before the Recess. We are willing to stay as late as may be on Wednesday evening and if necessary to come back on Thursday or take what other measures can achieve that. It is not for us to determine the progress of other Bills or where they may be taken but we and your Lordships’ House can urge the Government and the usual channels to co-operate with each other to ensure that we achieve the objective that we all share: to complete the Committee stage of the Bill as soon as possible before the Recess.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, I, too, support the statement of my noble friend Lord Lucas. It is quite appalling that we have made such little progress. My next amendment is Amendment 149. Today is the eighth day that I have come here believing that we have reached Amendment 149. Instead, as I have said to people, I find 50 other amendments piled in before it. I have counted them while I waited through proceedings on the police Bill, and 125 amendments are piled in before me today. Of those, only three groups have simple numbers, and come from before the first day of the Committee. They are original amendments. Others go as far as Amendment 152ZZA. That seems the most far-reaching number that I have found for any of the other amendments. It is unbelievable how many Zs and things can come up in this. This is a terribly important Bill and the rate of progress has been dreadful. It is very important that we deal with this before the Recess because there is so much work to be done before Report. The Minister and those who have moved amendments will need to do a lot a work before we get to Report. We must finish this before we rise. If we have to sit on Thursday, I am only too happy to do so, or I will sit all night on Wednesday. For the Bill to just drift on in the way that it has is a disgrace to the House.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we all share the desire for the Bill to make as speedy a passage through your Lordships’ House as possible. It is not up to us or indeed to the Ministers who support the Bill to arrange these things but for the usual channels. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in raising the issue talked about being able to reschedule Tuesday and other days in the week. The noble Lord perhaps ought to be mindful that some of us, not just one of us, have commitments under the Welfare Reform Bill as well, which has its Second Reading. We understand that that is a very important Bill for the Government.
I am very clear that we need to do the job properly in scrutinising this Bill. In so far as it might be alleged that there has been delay, it cannot be laid at our door. I do not believe that the noble Lord did that. We still have a lot to get through: most of the planning stuff, some very important housing stuff and issues around London. Frankly, even if we sat right through the night on Wednesday, I do not see that we would conclude by having one more day, particularly as we must have the Third Reading of the Bill that we just sat through. I do not think it is practical.
I really am opposed to sitting through the night when we are discussing a Bill that has a lot of intricacies in it; a lot of it is complex and technical, and we need to deal with it when we have minds that are still relatively fresh. I do not personally see that it would be a great disaster if we picked this up and concluded it when we are back in September. The key thing is that we should have the time to scrutinise the Bill properly and have the time and opportunity to do it when we are at least not all falling asleep on the Benches.
Lord True
I have taken some part in this Bill and, on the basis of having spent 13 rather misspent years in the usual channels, I heard what my noble friend Lord Lucas and others have said about potentially sitting on another day. As other noble Lords have said, I would be very willing to do that to make progress on the Bill. I did not hear the noble Lord opposite express similar willingness.
One thing that I looked up, which might be helpful to these discussions, is what has happened in previous years. This is in fact the earliest date on which the House would rise in July since and including 1996, apart from 2003. If one looks at three separate years after the party opposite formed a Government, in 1998 we were asked to sit until 31 July and noble Lords on this side co-operated; in 2002 we were asked to sit until 30 July and noble Lords on this side co-operated; and in 2006 we were asked to sit until 25 July and noble Lords on this side co-operated. I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask noble Lords opposite to show the same willingness as noble Lords on this side have to allow the usual channels some flexibility in considering not only sitting late but perhaps allowing an extra day to complete this important Bill.
Lord Best
Perhaps a word could be said from the Cross Benches, too. I have quite a lot of the amendments that might detain us further on. Although we must all accommodate whatever the usual channels decide, it is quite late notice for next Thursday suddenly to be removed from our diaries when we had every reason to expect to be on Recess at that time and had other plans. I, for one, would be letting down an awful lot of other people, which I may have to do if we have to sit next Thursday. If it is of any help—and I am sure that we all have our different preferences—I would be quite prepared to go into all hours of the night on Wednesday night and will try to remain fresh, if that is required of me.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contribution. It is not easy, because we had no idea of the exact time when the earlier Bill would conclude today. There were great expectations that there would be a serious amount of time to discuss localism today, but noble Lords in regulating themselves felt that it was important to consider the previous Bill. Those who have been observant will have seen that various noble Lords have been talking off the Floor of the House, as others have been talking on the Floor. If we could make a start on the Localism Bill now, even though there are only 22 minutes before seven o’clock, we could do one or two amendments. That would be sensible.
The usual channels can channel away a little longer and, I hope, make a statement before we conclude tonight. We do have it in our diaries to come here on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. The prospect has been put—
Lord Bassam of Brighton
It might be for the convenience of the House if we invite the government Chief Whip to make her statement now, because I think it would help us to draw proceedings to a close. I, as ever, wish to be helpful.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, my deputy and I are joined at the hip, like twins. In this occasion, the Gemini were slightly apart, and I had the advantage of being able to have a further conversation with the opposition Chief Whip as well as briefly with the Leader of the Opposition and their spokesman on these matters. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is spokesman not only on this Bill but also on the Welfare Reform Bill, which as he has just this moment said is very important. We have perhaps found a new way forward, which needs further examination but would provide for the inclusion of the Localism Bill next week. It would also meet some of the concerns expressed around the House that, having started the Welfare Reform Bill Second Reading, we would do the Committee stage as soon as we got back in September.
The discussions now afoot would mean that we would do whatever we may within about the 20 minutes or so remaining tonight on the first amendment on the Localism Bill. However, we would expect to continue discussions. The proposal is around the idea that Monday would go ahead as anticipated, with the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill followed by the Finance Bill, but on Tuesday it may well be that instead of the Welfare Reform Bill Second Reading, we could then have a full day on the Localism Bill and on Wednesday, as already scheduled, start the day on the police Bill Third Reading but then move into the Localism Bill, with a fair expectation of being able to conclude that business.
People say that the House of Lords stays the same over centuries, but things can happen in seconds here by agreement. That is one of the interesting things of this place, where there is self-regulation. I know that there is continuing good will on these matters. I think that this is the time when Chief Whips sit down and invite the Convenor and others to come to a meeting to discuss what the impact might be on their Benches.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, as ever, my door is open for discussions and if there is some small progress this evening and we can carry on discussing next week’s business, that would be very helpful.
Localism Bill
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Byford
“Registration of land
In section 15 of the Commons Act 2006 (registration of greens), after subsection (10) insert—
“(11) Regulations may provide for amendments to be made to the criteria by which a new town or village green can be determined in order to restrict the scope for such applications.””
Baroness Byford
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests, particularly my membership of the CLA. We come to the section of the Bill which causes it and others concern. As I see it, if an area of land is designated as a town or village green, any development on it is prohibited notwithstanding any grant of planning permission. As a result of the changes made by the Commons Act 2006 and a series of court cases, it is now far easier to probe that a particular area is a town or village green than was previously the case. It is of course important that bona fide applications should succeed but, all too often, spurious applications are being made with the aim of overturning the effect of planning permission being granted. I believe that the Minister and his team have been in discussions with the CLA, so I will not go into further detail on that.
However, I have also been contacted by Sue Chalkley from the Hastoe Housing Association, which has raised the issue of vexatious use of the towns and village greens registration system to delay or block legitimate development. It is concerned that such misuse is causing increasing delays and costs to developers. The risk of having land blighted by a TVG application is a considerable deterrent to landowners. In rural communities, this problem is more acute and may well jeopardise the provision of much needed affordable rural housing.
I give but one example: in Marsh Gibbon in Bucks, eight affordable houses were planned, with six for rent and two for shared ownership. A half-acre site was chosen by the parish council and the planners. The field had been farmed for over 200 years, most recently for strip-grazing dairy cattle. Full planning permission was granted in February 2008. The parish councillor and the landowner were adamant that the field was not a village green. A TVG application was made on the whole of the 15-acre field. In June 2010, the inspector’s decision came. The TVG application was unsuccessful, but one should be aware that there was a delay of two and a half years at a cost of £80,000 to Hastoe Housing Association.
We need those village developments, as indeed we need developments elsewhere, and I am very concerned that the Bill will not help in that way. In answering a Question on 23 May, my honourable friend Richard Benyon indicated that from 2005 to September 2009, 650 applications were made, 99 were granted and 551 were rejected. I understand that it costs nothing to put in a TVG application, but the costs incurred to the registration authority can be significant. There is a problem and I beg to move.
The Earl of Lytton
I support the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. I, too, am a member of the Country Landowners’ Association and a landowner. Briefly, we need to ensure that there is an authentic local view at work here. We need a reasonable level of general support to be established and demonstrated, and we need a coherent and reasoned justification for things to be included as “commons”. We do not need national agendas, narrow sectoral bases of arguments, frivolous or vexatious grounds, or to give succour to a no-development ethos. As the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, this is currently capable of being a free bet. That cannot be allowed to continue. There are clearly well-documented instances of abuse of process and therefore I support her in the amendment.
Lord Lucas
My amendment seeks to remedy this difficulty by allowing neighbourhood plans to rule out the creation of village greens that the neighbourhood plan does not recognise.
Lord Best
My Amendment 170CK, which comes later in the Bill, is not quite as imaginative as the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. It is a more pedestrian way of dealing with the matter by amending the Commons Act 2006, which is essential. At nominal cost to the applicant, frivolous and vexatious applications can add so much cost and delay to a scheme as to deter the developer or housing association from proceeding. I have personal experience of this, being familiar with a development in York. We were attempting to create a significant new mixed-tenure community of some 540 homes and, despite the council being fully in support of that, havoc was wreaked by a village green application to incorporate the whole of a 53-acre site. It was made on the basis that a local resident had been walking their dog on the site for the past 20 years, thereby meeting the criteria of lawful sport or pastimes. Since the tolerant owner had taken no legal action against them, the case could be made that this large site could possibly be England’s largest village green. Although the proposition was in due course thrown out, it involved my charity in considerable frustration, the potential loss of public and private funding, considerable expense and delay of more than a year. A less tenacious developer might well have given up, depriving the city of York of what will be a huge asset for generations to come.
Perhaps I may quote from one landowner in Norfolk, whose perspective has been sent as an illustration by the Hastoe Housing Association. They state:
“I believe that affordable homes are vital in sustaining rural communities. As a result, when Hastoe with the backing of the parish council approached me about selling them some land, I agreed. Many people retiring from the south-east have moved to this area of Norfolk, raising prices beyond the local people’s means and threatening the future of the [village] school … Unfortunately, this decision to help has resulted in me becoming involved in an extraordinary process that will last several years and cost me many thousands of pounds. What is so frustrating is I have detailed crop records for the past 20 years and an acknowledgement from those claiming the arable field as a village green, that they never walk on it when it is in crop. On top of that, those making the claim have taken more than two years putting in their village green application, are funded by somebody whose main home is not in the village and have refused to reveal themselves to the rest of the village. However, it appears that the law is so badly drafted and open to so much interpretation, that the County Council admits that it is extremely unlikely to throw out the claim until it has gone to Public Inquiry as they do not want to run the risk of having to pay for any legal challenge to their initial decision”.
Naturally, this example of big society action by the landowner means that he and no doubt dozens of others are unlikely to part with any land until this overindulgent legislation is reined in.
My amendment looks at the nitty-gritty of the situation and proposes ways in which the law could be amended. I will briefly outline what it says. Amendment 170CK would stop retrospective application for town and village green status after planning consent has been granted, which is currently possible. It would prevent efforts to overwhelm the authority with excessive paperwork, allow authorities to reject vexatious or frivolous applications and allow the recouping of costs in such cases. It would make deregistration possible where a review showed that the village green status had, some time later, become obsolete. I hope that the amendment commends itself to your Lordships and the Minister.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I remind the House of the interest that I declared at the beginning of the Committee stage. I am vice-president of the Open Spaces Society, which is the expert voluntary organisation on village and town greens and spends a lot of its time advising people who wish to register greens. It strongly advises people not to do so purely to resist development and not to proceed if the evidence appears to be poor. Not everyone takes that advice, unfortunately.
The amendments attempt to tackle this perceived problem—it is indeed a problem in some areas—by amending this legislation and thereby amending the Commons Act 2006. I suggest that this is probably the wrong time and the wrong legislation to do that. Town and village green legislation, as noble Lords who took part in the discussions of the Commons Act in 2006 will know, is extremely complex and somewhat difficult. Section 15 of that Act laid down a new system for the registration of greens, but that was based upon much older commons legislation, going back to the past, describing what is and is not a green.
I have some questions. Is there an identified problem? Yes. Is it hugely widespread? No, but it is serious where people are abusing the system. Some instances of that have been identified here today and I could provide some more. Does it need sorting out? Yes. Does it need new primary legislation and is this the right Bill to do it? No. As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has identified, what is required is an overhaul of the Commons Registration (England) Regulations 2008, which result in a system of greens registration that, in my view and that of the Open Spaces Society, is overly bureaucratic, takes far too long and can be far too costly.
I was involved on the other side, as it were, in an application for a green in Lancashire where Lancashire County Council wanted to build a new secondary school, which I was in support of, and a group of people tried to suggest that the land on which it was being built was a green. I met them, advised them and told them that it was not, but fortunately Lancashire County Council, perhaps because it was a project of its own that was potentially being blocked, was very expeditious in sorting it out. Quite correctly, it rejected the application.
We have a 10-point programme that would greatly improve the green registration system. It could be done simply by secondary legislation by amending the 2008 regulations. I am not suggesting that that is the whole answer and I am not going to tell your Lordships today what all the 10 points are, but we are happy to discuss this with Ministers. They will be Defra Ministers, though, as this is not a CLG matter. Defra is already looking into the problem; it has commissioned research, it is having discussions and it is considering its responses. I hope that on that basis we can let the department get on with it.
There is an understanding on all sides that this is urgent. It is important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and not destroy the system of registration of town and village greens, which is a very useful process, but to stop people abusing it.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we should thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Lucas, for identifying and raising this issue this evening. Clearly, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, we must cherish and support the legislation which enables the identification, reclamation and maintenance of town and village greens. However, there is clearly a problem here. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asks: is there a problem? Yes. Does it need sorting out? Yes, it does.
I am not sure that we necessarily have the way forward encapsulated within the amendments before us. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has made some interesting suggestions and I will be interested in the Minister’s response. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, offers the prospect of being able to identify and establish a town or village green only through a neighbourhood plan. That seems potentially too restrictive: if you do not have a neighbourhood plan in place, what happens? They will not necessarily be universal.
I side with those who say that a misuse of this legislation is taking place. I accept that it may not be widespread, but it does need sorting out. I look to the Minister to see what solutions he offers.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to respond to these amendments and the balanced way in which the arguments have been presented to the Committee. Of course, I speak for Her Majesty’s Government and not one particular department.
I know that the system for registering new town or village greens is a matter of rising significance to those of us interested in development sites, as well as to local authorities in their role as commons registration authorities. As I shall explain, it is also a matter of considerable interest to this Government.
We recognise the value of the town or village green registration system in safeguarding traditional open spaces in local communities. Government surveys show an increasing trend in applications during the past decade, although not all of these applications are granted. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, suggested that problems were not widespread, although he agreed that they could be serious. Around 200 applications are made every year to register land in England as greens. The volume of applications, the character of application sites, the controversy which such applications often attract, the cost of the determination process on parties affected and the impact of a successful registration on the landowner are all matters of serious and increasing concern. We are well aware of the difficulties that some registration applications can cause where an application is made in response to advance plans for the development of a site. However, we also appreciate the importance that local communities can place on an open space as well as new development. We understand that there must be confidence that the relevant decision-making processes are working coherently in the interests of the community as a whole and not just in those of a minority.
The natural environment White Paper announced that we will consult on proposals for a new green areas designation that will give local people an opportunity to protect green spaces which have significant importance to their local communities. We are considering what changes to the greens registration system are required in connection with the new designation as a response to the Penfold review, which recommended changes to the registration system to ease non-planning impediments to development.
Amendment 148ZZBB in the name of my noble friend Lady Byford would give the Government powers to achieve a sharper focus in the criteria for registering greens. I have some sympathy with the purpose of the amendment, which could help to address some of the cases where applications have been used as a last resort only to delay development, such as my noble friend has described to us. The noble Lord, Lord Best, asked a question about rural housing. We share the concerns of my noble friend Lady Byford and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the green registration applications can have an unfortunate deterrent effect on the provision of land for rural affordable housing. We are actively looking at whether amendments to the registration criteria are needed. We shall want to hold discussions with those with an interest in our proposals before concluding on the nature of any legislative changes. Legislative changes may be necessary. My noble friend Lord Greaves is right: the registration of a green is indeed a matter of fact. The criteria against which registrations are considered are set in law. There is no discretion. Local communities have no say in whether registering land as a green is desirable or not.
Baroness Byford
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his, I think, encouraging and detailed response. There are clearly difficulties. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Greaves accepted that 551 rejected schemes means a great trial for each of those individuals who had to go through the process. They are very costly and a great deterrent to landowners opening up some of their land to future development, particularly for affordable rural housing, as we hope they will. However, I am grateful to the noble Earl and particularly pleased that there will be ongoing discussions. I hope we may have some news later in the summer, perhaps before the Bill is passed. With those few comments, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
“(b) providing that which CIL provided initially under paragraph (a) on an ongoing basis.”
Lord Jenkin of Roding
In moving this amendment, I wish to discuss the other two with which it is grouped. I tabled these amendments before we had the debate last Tuesday in which we discussed the application of the community infrastructure levy. Anxieties had already been aroused with regard to the original purpose of the levy being altered. My noble friend Lord Attlee spelt out that purpose very correctly. It is meant to support infrastructure development and be paid by the developer of a facility such as housing or industry. My noble friend Lord Greaves had moved an amendment which would widen the permitted use of the levy receipts beyond infrastructure matters that support the development of the area. My noble friend Lord Attlee said:
“We want to reflect on whether continuing to limit spending solely to providing infrastructure restricts local authorities’ ability to support and enable development of the area”.—[Official Report, 12/7/11; col. 707.]
He went on to say:
“We want to reflect on the amendments proposed by my noble friends Lord Greaves and Lord Tope to allow the spending of the levy on matters other than infrastructure”.—[Official Report, 12/7/11; cols. 709.]
These words have aroused considerable anxiety. I have a copy of a letter written yesterday by the Institution of Civil Engineers to the Secretary of State. The letter was copied to my right honourable friend Greg Clark and my noble friend Lord Attlee. The institution’s chairman wrote:
“I am writing to highlight concerns regarding the Government’s undertaking to reflect on allowing the use of the Community Infrastructure Levy on matters other than infrastructure. The Levy was specifically conceived and justified to provide for new and upgraded infrastructure—a point reinforced by the Government many times”.
Indeed, they did so most recently last Tuesday through my noble friend Lord Attlee.
The purpose of these three amendments is to try to get clarification on three specific issues. First, Amendment 148ZZBBBA seeks to ensure that the application of CIL is confined to the provision and maintenance of an infrastructure project which is in an approved charging schedule, on the ground that that fulfils the original purpose of the introduction of the CIL. The institution believes—I accept the case that was made on Tuesday and is in the Bill—that this should include what is called in the Bill “ongoing expenditure”, which I understand to mean the maintenance of an approved infrastructure project financed by CIL. I hope that my noble friend can give me a very clear undertaking that there is no question of this levy being used simply to fill a revenue hole in a local authority’s budget. It has to be confined to the provision and maintenance of an infrastructure project.
My second point has been touched on but I would like to be given a much needed assurance. There are plenty of examples of where developers have agreed to make a contribution under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. If a developer has made such an agreement—sometimes it can last for a number of years—he should not be charged the CIL in addition. I hope that my noble friend can give me a clear undertaking on that. It was briefly discussed, and if we had not risen when we did on Tuesday, I would have intervened, because I was expecting to move the amendment on Tuesday night. I said, “Let’s wait until I am speaking”.
My third point concerns the suggestion of compensating communities by allowing CIL receipts to be passed to other persons. I do not quarrel with that—although I know that some object—but it must be spent on infrastructure projects. It must not be allowed to be a financial recompense paid to a community because it has development in its area. I hope that my noble friend can give me a clear assurance on that.
My final point is that the area must not be too tightly defined. There is anxiety that that may be the effect of the Bill. For instance, if the money has to be spent in the area, how will that fund a bypass which may be necessary as a result of the development, or flood defences, which may have to happen well outside the area but are clearly for its benefit?
I have asked a number of questions, and I do not think that I need to go on longer. Those are seen as serious issues by those concerned with re-establishing our infrastructure in this country. I took part in the original debate on the CIL when the 2008 Bill was going through the House. Indeed, I tried to ensure that both Houses would be able to approve the delegated legislation under it. I carried that in this House, but it was turned down by the then Leader of the House in another place. I have a considerable interest in making sure that we get this right. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I am very pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, on this group of amendments. He has articulated very well the problems which the CIL could cause developers. It is particularly important for bigger projects, which might be taken through a hybrid Bill process, through the IPC or the Transport and Works Act, where the decisions are effectively made by Ministers. Ministers will approve—or not—a deal which ends up as a Section 106 agreement. The worry is that, completely separately, the local authority might want to put a CIL charge on the project. One must think of the effect on business confidence when considering ports, airports, logistics centres, railways, roads, power stations or anything else of that size, and of the figures involved.
The people who run Gatwick Airport have told us that they are committed under a Section 106 agreement to contribute about £1 million annually to public transport via a levy on their car park revenues. If they had also been required to pay a CIL to the local authority—probably retrospectively, because it may well have happened after the Section 106 agreement was signed—they would not know what liability they would be stung for, frankly. To give two bigger examples, Hutchison Ports had a Section 106 agreement to extend the ports at both Felixstowe and Bathside Bay. It was committed under the agreement to spend about £100 million on upgrading the railway line to Leeds. We can question why it should be Leeds, but that is what was agreed. I think that the London Gateway port project, downstream on the Thames, had to contribute a similar amount for road improvements between there and the M25. If, having signed up to all that, they are suddenly stung for a CIL, it will put off developers from going ahead with these projects. It is after all the Government’s wish to develop new projects—I return again to the Secretary of State for Transport’s plan to build a high-speed railway line to Birmingham and beyond. You can imagine that people in villages along the route who do not like the plan, having had their referendum to vote against it, will then try to sting the promoters, whoever they may be, for a CIL. It could get quite interesting. It will put off business and I hope that when the Minister responds he can strengthen the assurance that was given in another place that a CIL will not be levied on projects for which a Section 106 agreement has been entered into and agreed.
Lord Greaves
There is a great deal of sense in that. Some of the difficulty is the muddle between Section 106 agreements and the community infrastructure levy, but it is the clear intention—it was the clear intention of the previous Government and I assume that that has not changed—to phase out Section 106 and replace it with CIL. The difficulty with that is that it brings levies and what they might be used for down to a quite small-scale local level. Large infrastructure projects are one thing, and I agree with many of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about that, but there are big projects, small projects and projects in-between. The amount of CIL that would be levied on many local development projects is quite small. Unless it can be seen as a replacement for Section 106 for the kind of things that Section 106 is spent on, and perhaps some further flexibility, a great deal will be lost. It is difficult to find ways of spending those relatively small amounts of money on things that might be classified as infrastructure.
One large-scale thing that Section 106 has been important in subsidising and helping to develop is affordable housing. We have had a debate about that and the Government have said that they are looking seriously at allowing CIL to be used for affordable housing. Affordable housing is not really infrastructure, apart from for the people living in a particular house. It is development that needs infrastructure around it. Classic cases of Section 106 funding include subsidising local bus services, whether it is a service to a new supermarket or a new estate. It is not infrastructure. Lots of local amenity areas, playgrounds, and so on, have been paid for out of Section 106. Are they infrastructure? A common-sense use of the word would suggest that they are not. Unless the levies can be used from local developments on this kind of thing, local authorities will find it much more difficult to provide them. Often new housing is developed by converting a mill into flats and then improving some of the areas around, which are pretty run down, by turning them into nice amenity areas and playgrounds, which is very important and linked to the development.
We have a new supermarket, which released £390,000 under Section 106 to spend on the local town centre. A lot of the spending on that town centre could not be described as infrastructure. It is about improving the appearance, relaying flags and grassed areas, improving shop fronts, and so on, which is all very important in helping the town centre compete with the new supermarket and hold its own, but is it infrastructure? My right honourable friend Simon Hughes suggested that double glazing might be an appropriate use of CIL from local projects. That is not infrastructure, but it is the kind of area in which we hope for some flexibility. I am not sure that we are that far apart. Clearly if a project is big enough to pay for a bypass, that is certainly infrastructure. However, we need flexibility.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, we support the thrust of these amendments. Certainly I agree that CIL must not be used to fill revenue holes in the budgets of local authorities. A specific assurance on that from the Minister would be entirely appropriate.
When we debated this last week, our concern was about the interaction of CIL, Section 106 and affordable housing. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, the Minister indicated possible flexibility in future after consultation. We welcome that. We also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that if part of CIL is to be paid to a neighbourhood forum, for example, it must be linked to infrastructure. We would prefer the decision to be made by the local authority rather than dictated according to an arrangement of the Secretary of State.
The definition of infrastructure for these purposes in paragraph 12 of the CLG book, Community Infrastructure Levy: an Overview, published in May this year, states, surprisingly:
“The Planning Act 2008 provides a wide definition of the infrastructure which can be funded by the levy, including transport, flood defences, schools, hospitals, and other health and social care facilities. This definition allows the levy to be used to fund a very broad range of facilities such as play areas, parks and green spaces, cultural and sports facilities, district heating schemes and police stations and other community safety facilities. This gives local communities flexibility to choose what infrastructure they need to deliver their development plan”.
There is already quite wide discretion in the rules.
I particularly support the point about potential double charging when a development has already entered into Section 106 obligations, some of which may be very long-term. Like my noble friend Lord Berkeley, we had discussions with Gatwick. However, this is not just an airport or a Gatwick issue.
I am not sure how best to resolve this issue. Part of the solution may relate to how and at what point CIL is charged. I understand that what triggers it is the commencement of development that has been the subject of some form of planning permission. Therefore, in a situation in which Section 106 obligations are already in place from prior development, I do not see how under the rules that could trigger a new CIL charge. However, any new development might, so Section 106 and CIL could still be paid at the same time. The potential for double charging is an issue, and I look forward to the Minister's response on that. However, the thrust of this is exactly right and we support it.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, Amendment 148ZZBBBA, moved by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, seeks to limit spending on the ongoing costs of providing infrastructure to those items that were originally funded by the levy. New developments may create additional demands on existing infrastructure as well as demands for new infrastructure. The amendment would prevent local authorities from using levy receipts to address the intensification of demand on existing infrastructure, despite the fact that this could be exactly what is needed to support a new development.
My noble friend’s Amendment 148ZZC seeks an exemption from the levy for any development that makes a contribution to existing infrastructure through Section 106 planning obligations. This is not appropriate as the two instruments are concerned with different aspects of development. Through the levy, most new development would contribute towards the cost of meeting the cumulative demands that development of an area places on infrastructure. Conversely, planning obligations are concerned only with the site-specific matters necessary to make a particular development acceptable in planning terms.
Local infrastructure may or may not be part of the planning obligation. Where it is any part of a planning obligation, it must satisfy the statutory tests that ensure that they are necessary to make the development acceptable, are directly related to the development and are fairly related in scale and kind. We do not believe that it is appropriate to exempt development that is subject to a planning obligation from making a contribution to the more general infrastructure demands that it places on the area. In addition, the existing legislation already prevents developers being charged twice for the same item of infrastructure through both instruments. That answers the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I will check to make sure that it also answers the concern of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. I am not absolutely certain that it does, but I will check, and I am sure we will return to this at a later stage.
Lord Berkeley
The port down the Thames—London Gateway—committed probably £100 million to upgrade the junctions on the roads and the motorway leading to the M25 to cope with additional traffic reported to be coming from its development. I understood the Minister to say that that is exactly what the CIL might be required to do. I see that as double taxation.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I think that I will come to a point later in my speech that should deal with the noble Lord’s concerns.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin also proposes Amendment 148ZZD, the effect of which would be that where regulations require the charging authority to pass funds to another body, it would retain ultimate control over how those resources are used by confining spending to matters it determines appropriate.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
It is a question not of control but of what the funds can be spent on. That is what I am asking. If it is going to pass the resources to somebody else, it is with the purpose of giving the somebody else the opportunity to spend them. What I have argued is that it must be infrastructure, whether initial or ongoing. Will my noble friend not accept that?
Earl Attlee
I am grateful to my noble friend. I hope that when I have finished my speech, he will be a little bit more satisfied.
We intend to use the powers of Clause 100 to require charging authorities to allocate a meaningful proportion of any revenue generated from development in an area to the parish or community council for that area. The local council will be free to determine how those funds are used to address the demands that the new development will place on its infrastructure. This amendment seeks to take control away from those local councils and the communities that are being asked to accept the new development and will significantly reduce the incentive effect of these changes.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin asked whether CIL can be passed to others on condition that it is spent on infrastructure. Where CIL is passed to another body, it must be spent on infrastructure to support the development of that area. I think I have repeated that answer.
Lord Greaves
Will my noble friend confirm that passing those resources to other bodies will occur only in the case of parish and town councils, and community councils in Wales, and that they will not be passed to neighbourhood forums or any other organisations?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, that is a slightly technical question for me, but I will write to the noble Lord on it, unless inspiration comes quickly.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked whether such resource will be used to meet local government shortfalls. We have clearly set out that the purpose of the levy is, and must continue to be, to support development. I can assure noble Lords that the money cannot be substituted for general local government spending.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin asked the Government to consider greater flexibility in the use of CIL. We will consider whether allowing spending on infrastructure and other matters could improve the levy’s ability to support development. We agree that infrastructure is vital to supporting new growth and development but we do not accept that it is necessarily all that is needed. We will reflect on that and return to it at a later stage.
Lord Berkeley
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, suggested that Section 106 might be being phased out. Is that correct?
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I have listened to my noble friend with great care. I shall clearly want to read very carefully what he has said. I realise that we asked him a number of questions for which he perhaps did not have the original briefing. I do not think that what he has said today will provide any comfort to the bodies that have been very concerned about the provisions in the Bill.
The provision in Section 216 of the original 2008 Act uses the word “includes”, but this has always been taken to mean, “This is what it is”. The purpose of the clause of the Bill is to extend it: that is, the regulation is taken and the powers are there for ongoing expenditure—we have accepted that. However, the question is: can it be extended to something that is not infrastructure? I contend that the original intention of the Act was perfectly clear and that the answer to that has to be no. My noble friend Lord Greaves thinks that it ought to be spent on things like double glazing. I totally disagree. This is not infrastructure in any conceivable sense of the word, and therefore he put forward an amendment to say that it should be used for other forms of development. My noble friend replied to that on Monday by saying that he was going to look at it and reflect on it.
The people who are really concerned with getting on with building infrastructure, and I quoted from the Institute of Civil Engineers, are really very concerned about this, because this is not what was said when the Bill was introduced in 2008. We have to be very careful. We are talking about very large sums of money. I was very grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. He made the point that some of these projects are very large. The ICE estimates that the CIL income by 2016 will be around £1 billion a year, so we are not talking about peanuts, we are talking about very large sums indeed. We have to get it right. My noble friends have said that they will consider this and, I hope, be able to meet with some of those who are genuinely concerned before we have to deal with it on Report. What is perfectly clear is that this is not a satisfactory state of affairs at the moment. I will certainly want to return to it, but in the mean time I hope that we can have a meeting to which I can bring along some of the advisers who have been helping me with this, and that we can talk to the departmental officials. It really has to be dealt with so that the position is clear. As I say, we are talking about large sums of investment money. If you are going to have investment, there has to be certainty so that people know where they stand. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, it may be helpful if I make the point that it is very much the Government’s hope and expectation to publish the forthcoming business early tomorrow. It will set out the programme for next week and, indeed, for the two weeks in September. It has not been possible to be absolutely certain about this because at least one of the participants, particularly as far as September is concerned, has been taking part in the debate, and a little more consultation has to take place. However, it is expected that the forthcoming business can be produced by tomorrow.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Does that mean that we will be taking the Localism Bill next Tuesday?
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I believe that that is exactly what will be in the document on our forthcoming business, but there will be other features too. However, as noble Lords heard earlier, it is the hope and expectation that the Localism Bill will be the major business next Tuesday and, indeed, on Wednesday.