House of Commons
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
1. What estimate she has made of the change in the number of police officers during the comprehensive spending review period.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
13. What her policy is on the future size of the police officer work force.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, may I briefly update the House in relation to the appointment of the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner? The Mayor of London and I conducted interviews with the candidates this morning, and I expect to make a recommendation to the palace later today.
We have set a challenging but manageable funding settlement for the police service. It is a matter for the chief constable and the police authority in each force to determine the number of police officers that are deployed within the available resource.
Nick Smith
May I thank the Secretary of State for her response? Will she congratulate Gwent police authority, which was recently assessed by inspectors as performing well? Can she explain why more than £100 million will be spent on elected police commissioners, given that there is no guarantee that such performance will be sustained, let alone improved, with them? Would not the money be better spent on keeping more police on our streets?
Mrs May
If the hon. Gentleman is going to ask questions like that, he really should get his figures right, because of course, the figure to be spent on police and crime commissioners is not £100 million. I am happy to join him in congratulating Gwent police. I had a very good meeting the other day with the chief constable of Gwent police, who is the Association of Chief Police Officers lead on matters relating to domestic violence. He talked about some of the excellent work that Gwent police had done on that.
Rachel Reeves
With savage cuts to West Yorkshire police, including 750 fewer police officers and up to 1,500 fewer support staff, how does the Home Secretary think that tackling burglary in Leeds will be improved over the next few years?
Mrs May
In relation to policing, we are ensuring not only that police have the tools and powers that they need to deal with issues out on the street, but that they are freed up from a lot of the bureaucracy that was introduced by the previous Government, which kept too many police officers behind desks and not out on the streets.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend assure me that she will not be seduced by the argument that, inevitably, more police officers means more visibility? The fact remains that there are more police on patrol on Monday morning than on Friday night, and that only 12% of officers are available at any one time to be visible to the British public. Will she tell the House what she will do to ensure that we get visibility from existing police numbers?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and he is absolutely right. He has put particular focus on this issue over the years and has looked into it in some detail. It is not just a question of numbers, as it is often portrayed by Opposition Members; it is about how police officers are deployed. It is about getting them out on the streets at the time that they are most needed. As my hon. Friend has seen in the past, a lot of that is about reducing the bureaucracy that police officers deal with, reducing the targets, and letting them get out there on the streets.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Is the Home Secretary aware that, in Northamptonshire, the chief constable is transferring police officers from the back office to the front line, that the visibility of police on patrol will go up, and that crime is falling?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Indeed, I had a very good visit to Northampton recently and saw some of the excellent work being done by the police there. I heard directly from the chief constable what he is doing to ensure, as my hon. Friend says, that he cuts back-office work for police officers and gets them out on the streets, which results in the impact that the public want—they want to see people out on their streets.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary and the Mayor of London have agreed on their choices for the name of the next Metropolitan Police Commissioner?
When the CSR was agreed, there were no disorders in London, but the acting commissioner has said that the thin blue line was very thin during the recent disorders. If a case is made for additional resources as a result of the various inquiries that are being conducted, will the Home Secretary revisit those figures?
Mrs May
If I may say to the right hon. Gentleman, I expect to be having a further conversation with the Mayor after Home Office questions, but I hope to be sending a recommendation to the palace, and I firmly expect to do so, later today.
In relation to the funding figures for the Metropolitan police, the right hon. Gentleman will know full well that we are providing support to it, and indeed to other forces, as a result of the riots that took place recently. However, I am pleased to say that the previous Metropolitan Police Commissioner was able to increase visibility with police on the streets within the resources he had, by the simple and effective method of moving from police patrolling in pairs to single-patrol policing.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
It is intriguing to discover that the Home Secretary and the Mayor have not yet agreed on the next Metropolitan Police Commissioner.
The previous question was about the comprehensive spending review. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary estimated that 16,000 officers would be cut as a result of the CSR. Since then, the police have faced substantial additional costs of £125 million from policing the August riots. The Home Secretary has said that she is supporting the Met police and other forces, but the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice said in his letter that this will be only
“where forces are not in a position to cover the costs of recent events themselves”.
That leaves the police with no clarity at a time when their budgets are already being cut. Will she therefore now guarantee that no police force will have to cut any officers or services to pay for policing the riots, and will she stand by the Prime Minister’s commitment to pay this extra money to the police?
Mrs May
It is absolutely clear—and has been made clear to police forces affected by the riots—that police forces should put in claims to the Home Office and that we will look at them. We will be looking at claims for operational costs and riot damage costs. On the right hon. Lady’s first statement, however, I do not think that she should try to transpose on to this Government the sort of disputes that took place within the previous Government. As I understand, from reading the recent book by the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), she even disputed the extent of the deficit—as she and other Labour Members appear still to do.
Yvette Cooper
I am afraid that the Home Secretary did not answer the question. She said that the Home Office is “looking” at the claims. That provides no certainty for the police or clarity for police budgets. Police officers are having to make decisions right now about making people redundant. The truth is that she is happy to find extra resources for elected police chiefs, but she will not find the extra money for the police. She is spending more than £100 million on elected police chiefs that no one wants when she could spend the same money on the costs of policing the riots or on 3,000 extra constables in Olympics year. Does she think that the public would prefer the money to be spent on elected police chiefs or on constables who will cut crime?
Mrs May
I think that the public want a Government who actually look after taxpayers’ money, which is exactly what we will do. The police forces know that there is a process by which they can put in claims to the Home Office. Those claims will be properly considered, and as we have made clear, the Home Office will be making funds available in relation to the matters that the right hon. Lady has raised.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
2. Whether she has considered bringing forward amendments to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill to ensure that proposed police panels are representative of the geographical area they will serve.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
The Government have set out plans to ensure that police and crime panels are representative of the places they serve. We tabled an amendment to the Bill in another place, allowing many panels to co-opt further members. This will enable local authorities to address geographical imbalances.
George Eustice
I thank the Minister for that response and welcome the amendment, which is obviously a step in the right direction. However, he will be aware of the particular concerns of people in Cornwall that they might not get a fair geographic representation. What additional reassurance can he give that the Home Secretary will ensure that Cornwall is fairly represented on Devon and Cornwall police panel, and will he agree to meet a delegation from Cornwall council to discuss this issue?
Nick Herbert
I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns—they have been put to me by other hon. Friends. The amendment that we moved in the other place will allow for the nomination of an additional five members to the panel. Approval for that will lie with the Secretary of State, although there must be regard to geographical balance. I hope and believe therefore that we can reassure the people of Cornwall that they will be properly represented on these panels.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
The Minister will agree on what lies at the heart and success of British policing—it should be by consent, local and rooted in the community. That is why I welcome what he has just said. Will he also agree, however, that it is vital that our senior police officers have spent a year or two on the beat in the local community? Will he hit on the head these ludicrous press reports that the Government are thinking of bringing in an elite group of officers—super-duper graduates, Bullingdon club boys—to be slotted in straight away to run our police services? Policing should be local, and every chief constable should have served on the beat.
Nick Herbert
That is a travesty of the Government’s position. We have asked Tom Winsor to consider these matters. The right hon. Gentleman should pay more attention to the views of the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall, which he expressed in an article in The Times today, co-written by me. He points out that the police have not made sufficient progress on diversity and that one way to address that might be to consider additional points of entry. We also point out that operational experience would be necessary.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
3. What recent progress she has made in tackling bogus colleges.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Since May 2010, the UK Border Agency has revoked the sponsor licence of 69 institutions. Our recent reforms of the student route include the introduction of new oversight provisions and a requirement for all sponsors to become highly trusted.
David Morris
In addition to the Government’s new reforms of the student route, what enforcement action have the Government taken to tackle abuse in the student visa system?
Mrs May
The UK Border Agency has been active in relation to the new rules that have been introduced and is looking at a number of colleges. In addition to the licences of 69 colleges and education providers being revoked, the total number whose licences have been suspended—of which that 69 forms part—is 145. We take very seriously the need to monitor the obligations that we have set out.
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Has net migration increased or decreased over the last 12 months?
Mr Speaker
Order. I gently remind the Home Secretary that her answer should be pertinent in the context of tackling bogus colleges.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Government must, of course, tackle bogus colleges, but also minimise the impact of their plans on private organisations such as the Organisation for Tourism and Hospitality Management, which is based in my constituency. It cannot now provide work experience to students—often they are from the US—even though it has a good record of students returning at the end of their studies.
Mrs May
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising a specific case, which we will look at. We are very careful in the rules that we introduce. My hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration and I spend a lot of time listening to individual colleges and to representative bodies of colleges and education providers to ensure that we get it right. We want to ensure that people get a proper education when they are here. That is what our rules are focused on, but I would be happy to look at the case that my right hon. Friend has raised.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
4. What recent assessment she has made of the potential effects on English language teaching centres of changes to the Tier 4 (General) Student visa accreditation scheme.
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
As part of our fundamental reforms to the student visa regime, we are tightening the system of educational oversight for institutions that bring international students to the UK. Colleges must have a satisfactory review by the end of 2012 in order to sponsor new students from overseas. That will have an impact on colleges that do not meet the high standards set by the inspection bodies.
Chi Onwurah
I recently visited International House in my constituency, where students from around the world acquire an understanding not only of the English language but of Newcastle’s rich cultural heritage. However, the school faces a sharp drop in applications because of the changes, and in addition a 1,500% increase in the cost of accreditation. In these difficult times, should the Minister not be supporting legitimate schools and not trying to drive them underground?
Damian Green
Let me deal directly with the hon. Lady’s question about accreditation. The previous system failed. It was not rigorous enough, so we are moving to more rigorous inspections, carried out by bodies that have previously inspected the sector, including the Independent Schools Inspectorate. It is vital that we get the inspection of colleges right; otherwise, respectable institutions that deserve to be able to carry on get muddled up with the bogus colleges to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has referred, and that does nobody any good—neither the respectable colleges nor genuine students seeking to come here. I hope that the hon. Lady would welcome the fact that we have introduced a better and more rigorous inspection system.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
5. What steps she is taking to prevent abuse of the family migration route into the UK.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
7. What steps she is taking to prevent abuse of the family migration route into the UK.
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
The Government launched a consultation on family migration on 13 July. This sets out proposals for tackling abuse of the family route, including sham and forced marriages. It also contains proposals to promote integration and reduce burdens on the taxpayer.
Jason McCartney
Does the Minister agree that family migration must be based on a real and continuing relationship and not on a marriage of convenience or a forced marriage?
Damian Green
That is an important point, because sham marriages not only undermine our immigration system; they damage the institution of marriage. Forced marriage is, if anything, even worse. It represents a breach of human rights, and it is a form of violence against the victim. That is why we are proposing in our consultation to define more clearly what constitutes a genuine and continuing marriage for the purposes of the immigration rules, to help to identify sham and forced marriages. We are also exploring the case for making sham a lawful impediment to marriage in England and Wales.
Graham Evans
Does the Minister agree that British citizens who cannot support their foreign partners should not expect the British taxpayer to do it for them?
Damian Green
My hon. Friend makes another good point. Part of our consultation involves ensuring that those who arrive here to get married come into a family that has sufficient means to support them. One of the problems that we inherited was the fact that the institution of marriage was being exploited to circumvent the immigration rules. In tightening up on this, we are not only restoring confidence in the immigration system but helping to bolster the institution of marriage. Both of those are extremely worthwhile efforts.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
But is it not right that husbands and wives should be able to live together? Will the Minister assure me that spouses applying in countries with very few English language testing centres will not be kept apart from their spouses in this country simply because they cannot prove their competence in English? That is illustrated by the case of the wife of a constituent of mine who has been applying in Brazil for months to prove that she can speak sufficiently good English to join him here.
Damian Green
If the hon. Lady wishes to write to me about that individual case, I will take a look at it. We have established a network of testing stations around the world so that people are able to take the test. I hope that she will support the concept that, if people come to settle here, they should be able to speak English at a basic level so that they can integrate into British life. If they cannot do that, they can end up leading separate lives, which can cause many problems, especially in our inner cities.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
Does the Minister share my concern that refugee family reunion has been classified as immigration for the purposes of legal aid? Given that refugees are in exile and to be reunited with their families, they have no option other than to use the legal system here, will he make representations to the Ministry of Justice on this important point?
Damian Green
The hon. Lady makes an important point. I assume that she is talking about refugees who have already been all the way through the system. Obviously, while people are applying for asylum or for refugee status, our checks have to be more robust than they have been in the past so that we can be absolutely sure that those who benefit from refugee status are those who need Britain’s protection, which we have always traditionally given and are happy to give. I will look into the details of the case that she has raised.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
6. What estimate her Department has made of the potential for savings to the public purse through back-office efficiencies within police forces.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will take this question together with question 10 on the Order Paper.
Mr Speaker
Order. If I am mistaken, I shall be happy to acknowledge it, but I thought that the Minister wished to group this question with questions 9 and 18.
Nick Herbert
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am happy to group it with question 18 as well, if that is acceptable. [Hon. Members: “And 9, not 10.”] I said 10, then I realised that it has been moved to 9 because of a withdrawal. I apologise.
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
9. What assessment she has made of the scope for increasing efficiency within police forces.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
18. What assessment she has made of the scope for increasing efficiency within police forces.
Nick Herbert
The Government are clear that police should be focusing on police work and not paperwork. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary’s report has shown how forces could save £1.15 billion, and there is scope for even greater savings.
Stephen Barclay
Cambridgeshire police currently have one inspector for every three sergeants, and one chief inspector or more senior grade officer for every inspector. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the chief constable’s streamlining of senior officer grades in order to recruit an extra 50 officers in addition to the existing head count? Will he place a copy of the relevant information in the Library to allow us to benchmark the number of officers at each grade in each force?
Nick Herbert
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is important that these kinds of overheads are reduced so as to protect the front line. I note that HMIC’s recent report also congratulated the chief constable and the authority on committing to a strategic alliance with the Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire constabularies. That is exactly the kind of partnership that can help to drive savings and protect front-line services.
Nick Herbert
I agree with my hon. and learned Friend about the importance of the office of constable and the independence that it preserves. He will know that the Winsor report, whose recommendations are currently being discussed, also recognised the importance of the office of constable.
Tony Baldry
For most of our constituents, efficiency is associated with visibility. Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to commend Sergeant Adrian Thomas and PC Paul Froggatt who last week ran a mile and a half and, without regard to their own safety, jumped into the Banbury canal to rescue a 71-year-old lady who had slipped into it? With that sort of visibility evident within the Thames valley, it must be possible to have it in every other part of the country.
Nick Herbert
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the police officers for their acts of bravery. I am sure the whole House would agree that many such acts of bravery on the part of our police officers and our police community support officers are going on every day. We see that reflected each year in the police bravery awards. I believe that many of us are humbled by the selflessness and heroism of our police officers.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Given that the previous Labour Government planned efficiencies of about £1.3 billion—including on back-office staff, on procurement, on mergers such as the one between Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, on overtime and on officer deployment—will the Minister be clear about where the extra £1 billion he proposes is going to come from, if not from officer numbers, like the 200 losing their jobs in north Wales?
Nick Herbert
First, I note that the right hon. Gentleman confirms that the Labour party is committed to reducing spending on police forces by more than £1 billion—but, of course, they did not deliver those savings when they were in government; it cannot be done without reducing the work force. We have identified additional savings, including those that will accrue from pay restraint, and indeed the £350 million a year that will accrue from better procurement of goods and services. In fact, the total savings are well over £2 billion a year.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Does the Minister welcome the news from Birmingham that officers are being taken off the street to answer the phone and deal with other administrative tasks? Is that the kind of efficiency that the Government are striving for?
Nick Herbert
The hon. Gentleman should know that, in police forces generally, a third of human resources are not on the front line. Well over 20,000 police officers are in back and middle-office positions, with a higher than average proportion of them in the West Midlands constabulary. It should be possible to drive savings while still protecting the front line. That is what we ask and expect chief constables to do.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
Given the Minister’s numbering problems at the outset of these questions, he probably now recognises the importance of having a good back office.
I have read again a copy of the HMIC report, “Demanding Times”, which was published in June 2011. He will know that a table on page 4 states that only 5% of police officers and PCSOs perform back-office functions, many of them necessary. With more than 16,000 police officers to be cut during the next few years of the spending review, does this not show what we already know—that there is and will be an impact on the front line from these cuts, with the loss of uniformed and neighbourhood officers and detectives?
Nick Herbert
First, I should say that what the hon. Gentleman mentioned at the outset shows that I need a better pair of glasses. As to his question, he always mentions the number of officers in back-office positions—the fact that there are thousands of them will, I think, surprise the House—but he never mentions the considerable number in middle-office positions, are not on the front line. I repeat that well over 20,000 officers are not on the front line, with 16,000 of them in the middle office. Savings can be driven while protecting front-line services—something that Opposition Members neither understand nor accept.
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
8. What steps she is taking to reduce the burden of health and safety regulation on police officers.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
We have worked with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Health and Safety Executive to publish new guidance, in order to support police officers to do the right thing by taking a common-sense approach to health and safety rules.
Mark Lancaster
As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), some jobs are dangerous, and being a police officer is certainly one of them. As a bomb disposal officer, I have some empathy with a police officer who told me recently that by the time he has filled out the mountain of paperwork required for health and safety, all he has done is delay the point at which he gets on the street to do his dangerous job. Although I commend the Government on tackling this area, can we not do a bit more?
Nick Herbert
Working with police forces, we continue to attack bureaucracy. I pay tribute to the work of the chief constable of the West Midlands, Chris Sims, who drives these efforts by leading our reducing bureaucracy programme board. We have identified that 2.5 million police hours could be saved through improvements to form filling and other means of reducing bureaucracy. In addition to those substantial savings, we have already announced savings in relation to reducing the burden of the stop-and-account form, and scrapping the stop form, saving another 800,000 police hours a year.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I inform the Minister that on my regular visits to Huddersfield police station, John Robins, the chief superintendent, has never mentioned a problem of health and safety, but he is worried about the glib talk about getting rid of back-office functions, such as the crucial intelligence unit, without which police on the beat would not know where to go and what to tackle?
Nick Herbert
We are clear that intelligence functions are part of the front line. However, as I keep trying to point out to hon. Members, a third of all those employed in police forces, and all the resources they command, are not on the front line. It is, therefore, possible to drive savings without damaging or affecting the kinds of services to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Those are the questions that he should be asking his local force.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
10. What progress the Government has made in reducing the level of immigration.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
15. What steps she is taking to reduce the level of immigration.
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer question 10 together with what I profoundly hope is question 15 on the Order Paper.
The Government introduced reforms to economic migration, including a limit, from April this year, and we have begun to implement significant changes to the student visa system. We are also consulting on changes to family migration, to break the link between work and settlement, and on overseas domestic workers. Taken together, those measures present a comprehensive package to tackle abuse and reduce net migration.
Andrew Selous
The Government’s immigration objectives have widespread support across the House and across the country. What is the Minister doing, however, to tackle the links between temporary and permanent migration into this country?
Damian Green
Along with the list I just read out, that is a long-term issue that we are tackling. Our consultation on employment-related settlement, which was published on 9 June, sets out proposals for breaking the link between work and settlement, including making the skilled migrants route, tier 2, a primarily temporary one. One problem that this country has had is that people come here and are not sure whether they are on a permanent or temporary route. That problem does not affect most countries’ immigration systems, and we are determined to drive it out from our country’s system as well.
Matthew Hancock
What assessment has the Minister made of the economic impact of uncontrolled immigration over the past decade, and what is he doing to ensure that managed migration is, in future, a boost rather than a burden to the economy?
Damian Green
The problem for the previous Government was that, in letting in uncontrolled numbers, they did not differentiate between those who would bring benefits to the British economy and those who would act as a drag on it. At the heart of our policy is the distinction between those whom we want in this country—the brightest and the best—to study, work and bring long-term benefits to this country, and those whom we do not want, who either evade what they are supposed to be doing, coming here pretending to study but wanting to work, or still more, who come here to live off our benefits system. We will have a much better focused immigration system, as well as significantly lower net migration.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
One of the groups who have been coming to this country over the past 15 or 20 years—and indeed, for longer—and who have contributed significantly to it socially, culturally and economically are people who study at Christian theological colleges and Bible colleges in the United Kingdom, but they currently face a very difficult time because of the Government’s policies. Many Bible colleges may have to close. I am sure that the Minister does not intend that source to dry up, so may I urge him to give specific consideration to the group of people concerned to establish whether there is something that he can do?
Damian Green
I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are in close contact with the various small theological colleges, and are considering how we can resolve the issues involved. As I have said, genuine students studying genuine courses at genuine institutions of study are of course welcome in this country.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
The latest figures show that net migration has risen by 20% to 239,000, that the number of work visas issued by the Government has gone up rather than down since their cap was introduced, and that as a result of the changes in the English language requirement for spousal visas, only 55 visas for a three-month period have been refused. What will it take for the Minister to admit that his rhetoric on immigration does not match the reality, and when will he start being up-front with the British public?
Damian Green
I am always up-front. Indeed, let me be up-front about the “latest figures” that the hon. Lady has quoted. They are the figures for December last year, and thus cover the last few months of the Labour Government. When that Government introduced the points-based system that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said was providing progress in the immigration system, net migration was 165,000; two years later, after two years of Labour policies, it was 239,000. That is why we are acting on the work route, the student route and the family route, and on the link between temporary and permanent migration. Only now that we have a Government who are determined to act across the board on immigration will we get the numbers under control after 13 years of abject failure under Labour.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Does the Minister accept that immigration supplies people who are essential to a whole range of activities, such as the work of high-tech companies, research, and a huge number of other activities in my constituency? Will he ensure that that flow continues, and resist the siren calls both from the Opposition and from his own Back Benchers for the Government to clamp down on people whom we desperately need?
Damian Green
I hope my hon. Friend will recognise that the changes we have made to, in particular, the work-based system allow skilled workers with a specific offer of a specific job to come to this country, while preventing the entry of unskilled workers and of people who pretend that they wish to study when their main intention is to work. In that way we can indeed retain the advantage of those who bring benefits to the country, but without retaining the old immigration system, which was out of control and destroyed public confidence in all kinds of immigration.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
11. What steps she is taking to reduce antisocial behaviour.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
This Government are clear that reducing antisocial behaviour is core business for the police and their local partners. Current action includes highlighting effective practice that will help professionals to improve their response to victims and communities, setting out proposals for more effective powers, and making more data available to the public.
Karen Lumley
We know that nearly two thirds of under-16-year-olds breach their antisocial behaviour orders. Will the Minister reassure my constituents that despite the protests of the shadow Home Secretary, ASBOs will be replaced with effective sanctions that will actually tackle antisocial behaviour?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend has made an important point about the measures available to professionals on the front line who are dealing with antisocial behaviour. We are keen to ensure that they have discretion to deal with problems in their localities, and can act speedily to bring relief to communities that are suffering from such behaviour. That is the focus of the Government, that is what we have been consulting on, and we will present our response to the consultation in due course.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Met have said that ASBOs have been a valuable tool in combating violence and antisocial behaviour on the part of gangs. Following the August riots, will the Government ditch their plans to weaken the ASBO regime through proposals to remove the criminal sanctions and introduce far lighter penalties for those who flout the law? Do communities not deserve to be protected by the full force of the criminal law?
James Brokenshire
I am sorry to tell the hon. Lady that I think she has completely misunderstood the situation. We are ensuring that antisocial behaviour measures are effective and will provide relief for communities. As for the need to combat gangs, we are ensuring that injunctions are available to support the police and communities and enable firm and clear action to be taken against gangs, and we will have rolled them out to all communities by the end of this year. Those are practical measures to bring relief to communities, which is what the Government are determined to do.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend reassure my constituents that the introduction of police and crime commissioners will help to ensure that the police focus on local policing priorities, such as antisocial behaviour, that matter in neighbourhoods such as those across my constituency?
James Brokenshire
With a mandate that will respond to local concerns and priorities, I have little doubt that police and crime commissioners will focus on how their local police forces address antisocial behaviour and will ensure that the necessary strategies, funding and resources are made available. Our reforms are designed precisely to ensure that local communities’ views are heard very loudly and clearly. That is at the heart of the reforms, and I am sure that police and crime commissioners will have antisocial behaviour at the top of their agendas.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is using some robust words, but he does not seem to understand the point. Antisocial behaviour orders are a preventive measure but they need the back-up of a criminal sanction to make them effective. That has worked across the country. Does he not listen to the police, who say it is an essential element in tackling antisocial behaviour?
James Brokenshire
The Association of Chief Police Officers has been clear that it supports
“a simplification of the tools and powers available to frontline practitioners, making it easier for them to do what works best.”
That is the action we are taking to help the police and communities, and to bring relief against antisocial behaviour, which, sadly, the last Government failed to do.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
12. What procedures are in place to repatriate illegal immigrants whose treatment in NHS hospitals has been completed.
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
The UK Border Agency works closely with health professionals to facilitate the removal of patients who are not entitled to remain in the country. Where appropriate, special arrangements are made for the removal of persons undergoing treatment, including the provision of medical escorts. The Government take a robust stance on abuse of NHS services.
Margot James
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. My local hospital, Russells Hall, was forced to admit a Pakistani national who was not eligible for NHS treatment. He was given a discharge when he was medically fit to leave the hospital. That was as long ago as August last year, yet since then the hospital has had to negotiate with the border agency and Pakistan International Airlines for a date for his release, and that has cost £100,000-plus. Can my hon. Friend assure me that he will put the necessary pressure on the border agency to enable this individual to be released without further delay?
Damian Green
My hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot go into too much detail on the Floor of the House about an individual case. I am, however, happy to be able to reassure her that since she brought this case to my personal attention, an airline has now been found to carry the individual concerned. We are sorting out care and reception arrangements in order to ensure that the removal goes smoothly, and I understand that he will be removed in the near future.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
14. What research she has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the contribution of gangs to the public disorder of August 2011.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
As I said in the House last month, the recent civil unrest was a dark time for everybody who cares about their community and their country, and I realise that the hon. Gentleman’s constituency was affected. As part of the work of the inter-ministerial group on gangs, I have commissioned an assessment of the role played by gangs in the recent disorder, and I will report our findings to the House in October.
Mr Umunna
I thank the Home Secretary for her response, and should declare an interest as the chair of the London gangs forum.
I have been told by my local police that gangs were not necessarily co-ordinating all the activity in our area, although gang culture is a big ongoing issue for us. How much of the £18 million that the Government have committed to tackling this issue—funding that will help police and local community groups—will directly benefit the London borough of Lambeth?
Mrs May
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. If I may, I will write to him with the specific information he has requested about Lambeth. London as a whole is one of the three areas, along with Greater Manchester and the west midlands, that are particularly benefiting from the funding that has been made available, as they are areas where the gang problem is a particular issue. The hon. Gentleman is right that, notwithstanding whatever role gangs played in the riots and unrest of early August, we must deal with gang culture, because, sadly, it is a problem that blights too many of our communities.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
Are the events of early August not a wake-up call to the fact that the problem of gang culture, which has been around for a long time, needs to be taken more seriously? Although tough enforcement action against known gang members is part of the solution, is it not clear that a much wider approach will be required to tackle the problem?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why the inter-ministerial group on gangs is not only looking at the enforcement issue; we are looking at other matters, such as preventing young people from getting involved in gangs and diverting them from gangs when they become gang members. We are examining examples of good work from both outside the UK and within it—for example, in Strathclyde and Waltham Forest.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
16. What steps she is taking to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The new Prevent strategy was published on 7 June 2011. It outlines three key objectives: responding to the ideological challenge of terrorism; supporting individuals at risk of radicalisation; and working with sectors and institutions where there are risks of radicalisation.
Henry Smith
Will my right hon. Friend assure the House, and indeed the country, that we will not see a repeat of the scandalous situation under the previous Labour Government where public money intended for counter-terrorism actually ended up funding some extremist activity?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. As far as this Government are concerned, extremist organisations have no role in delivering the Prevent strategy, and if organisations do not support British values, we do not intend to fund them. Organisations funded by central Government must clearly demonstrate that they are working in the public interest. In this area, the transparency that has been adopted by this Government, both at central and local level, will be an important part of the process of enabling people to see where the money is being spent and to challenge that, if necessary.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Yesterday was, of course, the 10th anniversary of the terrorist atrocities of 9/11. None of us will ever forget the events of that day or those attacks on our own shores, including the 7/7 London bombings and the decades of terror campaigns waged in Northern Ireland. The Government remain as committed as ever to preventing future acts of terrorism and keeping the public safe. Following the death of bin Laden, al-Qaeda is weaker than at any time over the past decade. New threats will evolve, but so will our security measures to counter them. While we remember the victims, we must also remain vigilant. I commend those, particularly our front-line emergency workers, who continue to work against terrorism and risk their lives to protect ours.
Stephen Phillips
Will my right hon. Friend update the House about the meetings she has had with chief constables and colleagues following the recent rioting, which was of great concern to so many of my constituents, to ensure that there is no repetition and that those involved are speedily brought to justice?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that question. We have had a number of meetings with chief constables and others. As I said in an earlier answer, I am chairing an inter-ministerial group that works on tackling gangs—it is looking at that particular aspect of the riots—and we have already had a number of discussions about public order policing, in particular. I have, of course, asked Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to examine the issue and advise on guidance for forces on matters such as tactics and the number of police that need to be trained in dealing with riots.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
It is now 15 months since the joint thematic review on the nature and culture of gangs reported in June 2010. The review was carried out by the chief inspector of prisons, the chief inspector of constabulary and the chief inspector of probation. They concluded that
“there was no integrated joint national strategy”
and so agencies had
“missed significant opportunities to work with young people involved or likely to get involved in gangs.”
Can she say when we are likely to get a response to that review from the Government?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman has raised the matter of a review that was, of course, reporting on what had taken place under the Labour Government. We are undertaking a particular piece of work on gangs, bringing a number of Departments together to examine the issues and work out how we can best address the gang culture and prevent young people from getting involved in gangs. In doing that, we are doing what is absolutely right: we are looking at not only the evidence that has come before, but at practice on the ground today. We are finding out what is working today and looking at how to extend that good practice to other parts of the country.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
T3. During the recent disturbances, children in Banbury as young as 14 sought to use Facebook to incite public disorder. Will my hon. Friend update the House on her discussions with providers of social networks?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)
I can inform my hon. Friend that the Home Secretary held a constructive meeting with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the police and representatives from the social media industry and the companies have made clear their commitment to removing illegal content and, when appropriate, closing accounts, whether at the request of the police or because of a tip-off from other users. It was agreed to step up co-operation to ensure that these processes are working effectively.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
T2. Due to Government cuts, Worksop police cells are to close this month. Local police officers have asked me to ask the Home Secretary this: how exactly will that closure contribute to crime reduction in Bassetlaw?
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
It is entirely a matter for the chief constable and police authority how they deploy their resources. There has been some rationalisation of custody and we are also very supportive of those forces that seek to contract out custody facilities and in so doing improve their service and save money.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
T4. The Equality and Human Rights Commission posted qualified accounts in 2009-10 and the auditors found poor financial management, poor record keeping and poor leadership. What specific actions will the Minister take to rectify this problem and to ensure that taxpayers’ money is not wasted by that organisation?[Official Report, 14 September 2011, Vol. 532, c. 9-10MC.]
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the issue. The qualifications, of course, represent spend for periods under the previous Government and we have been absolutely clear with the EHRC from the start that any problems with its accounts under this Government are likely to result in financial consequences for it. In March, we set out our plans to change the EHRC. Our consultation closed in June and we will be responding shortly, but we have already announced that we will reduce its budget by more than half from £55 million in 2010-11 to £28.8 million in 2014-15.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
T8. When it was announced that the Government would do away with the National Policing Improvement Agency, Ministers acknowledged that it was important for the functions undertaken by that agency to go to some other organisation and for there to be great clarity, but 14 months on we are still not clear. When will the Home Secretary tell us exactly which functions will go to which body as a result of the abolition of the NPIA?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have already identified a number of functions and where they will move to. For example, certain issues, such as non-IT procurement, have come back into the Home Office. We are working with the police forces to set up a police-owned company to deal with IT, which is a significant part of what has been undertaken previously by the NPIA. We will be making announcements about the exact destination for the other aspects of the NPIA’s work in the coming weeks.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
T5. I am sure the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice will agree that police officers need the best and most professional training. Does he therefore welcome moves by colleges such as Loughborough college in my constituency to offer a police, law and community course, which is already being used by at least three of our police forces?
Nick Herbert
I commend Loughborough college for taking the initiative in this important area. We are committed to improving the professionalism of the police. I understand that the course is not accredited at the moment and that the college should seek that accreditation before it can be treated as appropriate learning for the minimum qualification for a police officer.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
The chairman of Cheshire police authority, Margaret Ollerenshaw, has written to me to say that by March 2012 we will have 217 fewer police officer posts and that by 31 March 2015 a further 151 officer posts will have to be cut. She says:
“These cuts need further consideration in the light of the service demanded of the police”.
How will these cuts, combined with 446 staff posts that will be cut, help combat crime and antisocial behaviour in Halton and Cheshire?
Nick Herbert
Tomorrow I will take part in a conference that has been organised by Cheshire police to consider those precise issues and to identify the opportunities that arise from adopting a leaner structure. The chief constable of Cheshire is as convinced as I am that it is possible to reorganise in a way that protects front-line services.
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
T6. Will the Home Secretary join me in congratulating Thames Valley police on halving crime at this year’s Reading festival compared with last year and, more generally, on demonstrating that it is possible to protect visible front-line policing while finding budget savings?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, to which I am very happy to respond, not least because I could hear Reading festival from my home even with the doors and windows shut. A significant number of people attended that event, which has had problems with crime in the past, so Thames Valley police are to be congratulated on the work they did this year to reduce crime. The Thames Valley force is a very good example of a force that is committed to ensuring that it retains front-line and response policing while also cutting costs by, for example, collaborating with other forces.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The chief constable of Greater Manchester says that he is closing police stations to make his force more like Argos. Does the Home Secretary agree with that crazy comparison? My experience of Argos is that the local branch never has what you want and you have to travel miles to find it.
Mrs May
The chief constable of Greater Manchester has been absolutely clear that it is possible to make cuts in budgets but that it is also necessary to make changes in and transform the way that policing is delivered. He is committed, as are other chief constables, to ensuring that he delivers a quality service to the people of Greater Manchester.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
T7. Given that so many people were left for years—sometimes for more than a decade—with uncertain immigration status, creating wrenching circumstances if their claims for status fail now, does the Minister consider that it was immoral of the previous Labour Government to lose control of the immigration system, and will he assure the House that he will not do likewise?
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
Yes, my hon. Friend knows that one of the myriad problems we inherited on the immigration front was the remains of a backlog of half a million asylum cases that had simply disappeared inside a warehouse. We have now got to the end of that process, but he is right: it is absolutely essential not to let any similar-sized backlog build up again—not just for general confidence in the immigration system, but as part of our moral duty to treat anyone who comes to this country and applies for asylum with as much efficiency as we can. The system should work not just for them but for the taxpayer. It is a win-win if we get the asylum system to be more competent than it was.
Mr Speaker
Order. I feel it is my moral duty to press on so that we get more Back Benchers in.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Some of the most pressurised communities in London are facing the loss of familiar and well-liked safer neighbourhood sergeants. Will the Minister give an assurance that there will be no more reductions in the local leadership of safer neighbourhood teams, or is the model of ward-based safer neighbourhood policing now dead under this Government?
Nick Herbert
The hon. Lady knows that this is a matter for the leadership of the Metropolitan police and for the Mayor. The Mayor has made it clear that he seeks to maintain the number of police officers in London at above 32,000, which will be more than he inherited from his Labour predecessor, and to protect neighbourhood policing.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
T9. In Torpoint and other parts of my constituency, police response teams are finding that their times are restricted by the geography of the area, which means that some officers are forced to cross the River Tamar on a ferry or to drive for at least 30 minutes. Does my right hon. Friend consider that that is acceptable?
Nick Herbert
I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns about this issue and I also appreciate the particular geography in that part of her constituency. These matters of deployment are for the chief constable to decide and it is better that Ministers do not try to second-guess those, but I am happy to draw her concerns to the chief constable’s attention.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
Do Ministers believe that a local police station is a front-line service?
Nick Herbert
I think that what is important is the visibility and availability of police officers, which is variable between police forces. In many cases, it can be significantly improved. I have said to the House before that if police forces can find innovative ways to increase their presence in communities—for instance, by being in supermarkets—that can often be very much better than maintaining empty or underused offices that are rarely visited.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Will the Home Secretary place in the Library a definition, with examples, of what constitutes police back-office and, as we have heard this afternoon, middle-office facilities? Does she accept that part of the front line is 24-hour policing with 24-hour police stations in our major urban centres?
Mrs May
I am happy to say to my hon. Friend that the work on the definition of the back, middle and front-line functions has been done by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, not by the Home Office. A report defining those functions is available from HMIC, and I am happy to make sure that it is available in the Library.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
Crime levels in north Wales dropped by 45% over the 13 years that Labour was in power. Over the past year, crime levels have gone up. Do Ministers accept any responsibility for the increase in crime?
Nick Herbert
As there has barely been any reduction in front-line police officers in the period that the hon. Gentleman describes, I think that what he tries to imply is false. What matters is how effectively police officers are deployed and how efficiently they are working. What Opposition Members do not accept is that we have to deal with the deficit. We must find the savings because of the mess they left this country in.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend condemn the antisocial behaviour and racism of the Islamist demonstration near the commemoration of 9/11 yesterday? Does she agree that that demonstration should not have been allowed to take place so close to the commemoration, and will she take steps to stop that happening again?
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The recent disturbances in Salford had a large element of organised criminality. The Home Secretary is aware of Operation Gulf in Salford, led by Superintendent Kevin Mulligan, which has had significant success against organised criminals. With the cuts that are proposed in Greater Manchester, what support can she continue to ensure goes into successful operations to tackle serious and organised crime?
Mrs May
As the right hon. Lady knows, chief constables will be making decisions about particular local operations that they wish to undertake, but the Government are giving much greater power to the police to deal with serious organised crime through the creation, in due course, of the national crime agency. We touch far too few organised crime groups in the UK. Organised crime costs this country £30 billion to £40 billion a year. The NCA will help to tackle that.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Following this weekend’s utterly despicable revelations of the way in which 24 of my constituents have been kept as slaves, some for 15 years, may I wholeheartedly commend the robust action of Bedfordshire police in bringing that to light and putting it right? Will the Government please pay particular attention to the issue of internal trafficking in the United Kingdom, given that 17 of those 24 slaves were British citizens?
Damian Green
I am sure the whole House will share my hon. Friend’s disgust at something that came as a shock to many of us. He is right. What we saw was effective police action, co-ordinated in many ways by the Serious Organised Crime Agency. As he knows, the new national crime agency will have among its functions co-ordinating activity against trafficking, both domestic and international, which will give us a much more effective way of combating such particularly vile crime.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
I have been contacted by a constituent who was born in Germany while her father, an Irish citizen, was stationed there with the British Army in 1948. Despite her mother being British, and the fact that she has lived the remainder of her life in the UK, she is a British subject, not a British citizen, which carries additional cost and inconvenience when she travels. Will the Home Secretary consider how to resolve that historic anomaly?
Damian Green
That sounds like a deliberate quiz question for the Immigration Minister, with every possible complication within it. If the hon. Lady wishes to write to me, I will happily examine the details of the case.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Is the Minister aware that in the police service a centrally procured box of 100 wipes for electronic equipment costs £19, whereas it can be bought on the internet for £1? What can the Government do about that?
Nick Herbert
Overall, we believe that huge savings could be accrued through better procurement by the police, but we have to remember that the costs of procurement are not just the cost of goods. They are the cost of the separate organisations in 43 forces that are individually procuring goods and equipment. On those calculations, we think we can save £350 million a year by more effective procurement.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Youth workers up and down the country were asked to work on the streets during the recent disturbances, but many of those workers are being made redundant. Has the Minister examined the probable impact on crime and antisocial behaviour of these cuts to youth work?
Mrs May
In the work of the inter-ministerial group on gangs, we will of course look at effective ways of dealing with gang culture and with young people who get caught up in criminality, but I say to the hon. Lady and her hon. and right hon. Friends that the evidence indicates that the Government, in various forms, often spend a lot of money on individuals and their families, but sadly not all of that is spent effectively. Our task is to ensure that money is focused effectively to deal with the problems.
Spring Gardens Care Home
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
Order. May I appeal to Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, affording the same courtesy to the hon. Gentleman that they would want to be extended to them in similar circumstances?
Greg Mulholland
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I present a petition on behalf of the Friends of Spring Gardens campaign group, a group in my constituency formed by families, friends and supporters of residents facing the loss of their care home as a result of a raft of care home closures across the city by Leeds city council.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Leeds,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that Leeds City Council should act now to stop the closure of Spring Gardens care home in Otley; notes that the home is the only council-run care home in the Otley catchment area; also notes that most of the residents are in their 80s and 90s and the closure of the home would severely disrupt their lives.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Leeds City Council to take the necessary steps to stop the closure of Spring Gardens care home.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000956]
Independent Banking Commission Report
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
I would like to make a statement on the final report of the Independent Commission on Banking. The report is an impressive piece of work, broad in scope, incisive in its analysis and clear in its recommendations. The Commission has done what we asked it to do; it has come up with an answer to the question of how Britain can be the home of successful international banks that lend to families and businesses without exposing British taxpayers to the massive costs of those banks failing. Frankly, it is a question that should have been asked and answered a decade ago. We should all thank Sir John Vickers and the other members of the commission—Clare Spottiswoode, Martin Taylor, Bill Winters and Martin Wolf—for a job well done.
The commission and its report have not come about by accident. It was set up by the coalition Government to learn the lessons of what went so catastrophically wrong: a decade-long, debt-fuelled boom that ended in a dramatic financial crisis, a deep recession and a debt overhang that is still holding back our economy; a regulatory system that totally failed to spot enormous imbalances building up and proved incapable of dealing with the crisis when it first broke; and most importantly, in the context of this report, huge global banks that turned out to be “too big to fail”, so that taxpayers were called upon for many billions of pounds in order to prevent a financial meltdown. We still do not know, and may not know for many years, how much of that money will ever be recovered, despite promises made at the time that not a penny would be lost.
We are fundamentally changing the system of regulation and tackling the debts, but the bail-out for banks is the element of the crisis that has, justifiably, caused the most anger. It is an affront both to fairness and to the very principles of a market economy. It is not available to any other sector of the economy, nor should it be. It breaks the principle that those who take risks should face the consequences of their actions. As a result, it played an important role in encouraging the excessive risk taking that caused the crisis.
Of course, taxpayer bail-outs did not happen only in this country. An international regulatory response to the crisis is now emerging, with the new Basel rules and the anticipated new additional requirements for systemic banks, but here in Britain we cannot rely only on the international reform process to make our banking system safe. The challenge we face, and the risk for our taxpayers, is different from that in most other countries. The balance sheet of our banking system is close to 500% of our GDP, compared with just over 100% in the US and around 300% in Germany and France. Only Iceland, Ireland and Switzerland had larger banking systems, relative to their GDP, and they have all now taken action that goes well beyond new international standards. As the report states,
“part of the challenge for reform is to reconcile the UK’s position as an international financial centre with stable banking”.
This is what I have called the British dilemma: how to remain a successful global centre of finance without asking taxpayers to bear unacceptable risks or putting the broader economy at risk. We set up the Banking Commission to help us solve the British dilemma.
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
Let me start by expressing our thanks to Sir John Vickers and the Independent Commission on Banking for producing a report which will radically reshape our banking industry and our wider economy and which will echo all around the world. It is now the task of the Government and this Parliament to respond to its recommendations in an equally balanced, radical and timely manner, because taxpayers, customers and businesses want radical action. They were shocked and angered by the irresponsible actions of banks in New York, in London, in Frankfurt and in Amsterdam which caused the global financial crisis. But while they are angry at the banks, they are also angry with the regulators, the central bankers and the Governments who failed to foresee and prevent this irresponsibility.
As I have said before, for the part that I and the last Labour Government played in that global regulatory failure, I am deeply sorry. But let me say to Conservative Members and, in particular, to the Chancellor, who accused me in 2006 of supporting
“burdensome, complex”
regulation which, he said, would make
“cross-border market penetration more difficult”
and
“threatens the global competitiveness of the City of London”,
that perhaps the Chancellor also needs to show a little humility about that global regulatory failure.
In April, I set three tests which I believe the Government must meet in implementing banking reform: to protect taxpayers in the future; to secure international agreement to protect jobs in Britain; and to deliver a wider banking system to support the wider long-term interests of our economy. I will take them in turn. First, to protect taxpayers, we support the commission’s radical reforms on ring-fencing and regulatory standards. Unlike the Chancellor, who revealingly supports them in principle, we agree with the Business Secretary and support them in practice. We agree with the commission, which says that the current weak state of the economy does not weaken but strengthens the case for reform. These are complex reforms, and the cautious timetable that the commission has set is understandable. However, given the unsettling public bickering we have seen within the Cabinet in recent weeks, we strongly agree that the Government must provide clarity about their view of the commission’s recommendations as soon as possible—and move rapidly to put in place the necessary legislation and rules.
So let me ask the Chancellor this: will he agree to publish, by end of this year, alongside his response, a detailed implementation plan for the commission’s recommendations on ring-fencing, including clear milestone dates? Will he agree to legislate as many of these changes as possible in the draft Financial Services Bill? To make sure that there is no foot-dragging—to move beyond principle to practice—will he agree with our proposal to ask the Vickers commission to come back in 12 months’ time and publish an independent report on progress so far?
On the second test of securing international agreement, will the Chancellor ensure that the Vickers report is placed firmly at the centre of the global financial reform agenda? Will he set out a plan and timetable for that international process? In recent months, he has failed to deliver international leadership on the eurozone. If he fails on this agenda, we will see a global race to the bottom, with other financial services centres taking short-term advantage of our tougher approach, which would put thousands of UK jobs at risk.
Thirdly, on competition in the wider economy, the commission is right to highlight the costs to consumers and businesses of excessive concentration in UK banking. Greater competition is not the whole answer to the culture of short-termism that still plagues our capital markets, but we fully support the commission’s recommendations on divestiture, a new challenger bank, easier account switching and a stronger competition duty on the new financial regulator. However, until 2015 is too long to wait to judge whether progress is sufficient or whether we need a referral to the Competition Commission. Delays could leave consumers and small businesses to pick up an unfair share of the multi-billion pound bill for tougher capital standards. Will the Chancellor therefore commit to review progress not in four years, but in two years in 2013—two years earlier than the commission recommends?
Finally, none of these reforms can help the thousands of small businesses that are currently struggling to access the credit they need. As the Bank of England has confirmed, net bank lending to business is not rising, but falling. It is down £4 billion in the most recent figures, despite the Chancellor’s toothless Merlin deal with the banks. Will the Chancellor agree today to ensure that state-owned banks increase their lending in the coming months? Will he act now to have greater transparency on pay and bonuses and repeat the bank bonus tax for a second year? Will he recognise that rising unemployment and a flatlining economy will further depress confidence and small business borrowing until he changes course and adopts a plan B for growth and jobs? Today’s report provides some of the answers to the pressing problems we face; it is time the Chancellor woke up to the rest.
Mr Osborne
Let me start by welcoming the right hon. Gentleman’s support for the report of the Independent Banking Commission. I welcome the fact that he now wants to see it implemented in this country, as I understand it, even if the changes are not implemented abroad. That is a change in his position from April, which I welcome. We all enjoyed his apology for what went wrong. He has another four years of those, I think, before he makes up for the horrendous mistakes that were made.
Mr Osborne
The right hon. Gentleman was the Minister responsible for the City when Northern Rock totally lost control of its wholesale funding; he was the Minister responsible for the City when RBS launched its takeover of ABN AMRO; he was the Minister responsible for the City when HBOS was making all those unsupportable loans. No one in this House knows more about how to get it wrong than the right hon. Gentleman. He talks about unseemly bickering on the Government Front Bench, yet we have just been reading the memoirs of a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who is no doubt about to speak. What he reveals about the regime that the shadow Chancellor operated shows that this is the pot calling the kettle black, to put it mildly.
Let me come on to the specific points that the right hon. Gentleman made. First, on the legislation in this Parliament and the draft Financial Services Bill, he is trying to make hay by exploiting a completely false distinction between principle and practice. We support these measures in principle and will put them into practice through detailed legislation. One cannot support all of this in practice because it requires detailed legislation, which even John Vickers says is not for the commission. Let there be no doubt that we support the Banking Commission’s report and that we will legislate in this Parliament. The draft Financial Services Bill might well be a vehicle for implementing some of the changes, but we might also require a separate Bill. That is partly because we need to get the draft Financial Services Bill through the House so that the new regulatory regime, which we are also introducing, is up and running by the beginning of 2013. As I said, I think it is sensible to stick with the proposal put forward by John Vickers that we set ourselves the deadline of legislating in this Parliament.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman talked about the international environment. He knows, as many hon. Members do, that there has been a lot of movement on the international front to introduce the new Basel requirements, which are, of course, on the same timetable as the Vickers proposal that the changes should be completed by 2019. Those are sensible changes, but we will argue for other changes that we would like to see at international level, not least the implementation of some of the agreements made under both this Government and the previous one at G20 level, on such things as bankers’ pay and remuneration. We want to see those properly implemented in all regimes. Of course, we hope that other jurisdictions, the Financial Stability Board and others will look at the report, but John Vickers was not asked to produce a regime for the world; he was asked to produce a regime for the UK to reflect the fact that we have 500% banking assets as a proportion of our GDP.
Thirdly, I am afraid that I just do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman on competition, and nor does John Vickers. The right hon. Gentleman says that we should have a Competition Commission inquiry in 2013, but my office has contacted the secretariat of the Banking Commission today to ask it for its view. The commission said that the reason why it chose 2015 is that three vital things that it wants to be operational, including the new challenger bank and the new switching of bank accounts proposals, do not come into effect until 2013. By the way, the latter is a very significant proposal, and I hope that it will get some coverage in the media among all the discussion of investment banking—the proposal is that people can easily switch their current accounts, and their direct debits and so on will follow automatically. However, that does not come into effect until 2013, and the Financial Conduct Authority is not operational till 2013.
The Banking Commission considered that timetable, and it thinks that 2015 is the right year in which to consider whether the changes are working in practice. I agree very much with that—[Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor says “12 months”, but he had 13 years to get these changes right. At the last general election, I remember having a debate with my colleague the Business Secretary and others in this House. The only party arguing against structural change of the banking system was the Labour party, so it is simply ludicrous of the shadow Chancellor to suggest that we are dragging our feet. We are getting on with it. We have produced this report within a year and a half of being in government, and now we are getting on and putting it into practice, so that we do not make the mistakes he made when he was in office.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
After that uncharacteristically guilt-racked contribution by the shadow Chancellor, may I, by contrast, applaud the Chancellor for appointing this Banking Commission and for withstanding the intensive lobbying against it by the very same universal banks that very nearly destroyed the world economy? May I thank him also for accepting the recommendations of the Vickers commission? Finally, may I put it to him that I very much hope that we will proceed as he has promised, not only with legislation in this Parliament, but in implementing it as soon as possible, and well before 2019, when the long grass may have grown into a forest?
Mr Osborne
I thank my right hon. Friend for his support for the Banking Commission, and for his kind words. He has many decades of experience—
Mr Osborne
Well, I think my right hon. Friend was certainly alive when Messrs Glass and Steagall were, which most Members of the House could not say.
I respect my right hon. Friend’s experience. He has long argued for some form of separation between retail and investment banking and has been consistent in making that argument. Events have borne out his advice to successive Governments.
We asked John Vickers carefully to consider the timetable, and he gave a lot of thought to it. He recommends that all the changes should be completed by 2019, but that other changes should take place at earlier dates—he specifies those dates in his work. The 2019 back-stop is appropriate, because that is the date when the international rules also need to be in place. We should not underestimate the huge amount of work to be done in this House to get the report turned into legislation that works and that people do not find ways around.
Mr Alistair Darling (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Chancellor for plugging my book, but when he gets a chance to read it, I think that he will see that political parties on both sides of the House went along with the culture that led to some of the problems we had to deal with and that some of the shrillest voices calling for light-touch regulation were those of Members now sitting on the Treasury Bench. Will he tell us a bit more about what discussions he proposes having with other Governments, in view of the interconnected nature of the banking system, which is only as strong as its weakest part? Will he also deal with the erroneous assumption that there will never be a case in the future when a Government might have to bail out an investment bank? We should remember what happened to Lehman Brothers. It cannot ever be said that we will never have to do that again, even with a bank that is not thought now to be systemically important. I welcome the report, but it has to be seen as part of a wider range of reforms necessary to make our banking system stronger and more secure.
Mr Osborne
I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s experience of having been through all that he went through as Chancellor. He had to deal with these problems in real time over long weekends, and I have paid tribute previously to the work that he did on behalf of our country in those difficult months. As for his book, I have only just started reading it, but as far as I can see, I get off relatively lightly compared to the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown).
The right hon. Gentleman made a good point about the interconnectedness of the banking system. The Basel rules are significant, and I believe that that process was initiated when he was Chancellor and representing the United Kingdom. New arrangements have been agreed in record time. It took 10 years to come up with Basel II, but about 18 months to come up with Basel III. The international rules are important because they help us to deal with investment banks in foreign jurisdictions, such as Lehman Brothers, and to protect all globally systemically important banks and give them bigger cushions. As he well knows, new proposals are coming down the track for additional capital requirements on the most globally systemically important banks. That is significant. Also, we are putting in place the recovery-and-resolution ideas that, again, he initiated when he was Chancellor in order to ensure that we can deal with the failure of the UK end of an American investment bank. That will ensure that these banks do not just live internationally and die nationally, but that we can resolve any problems.
I would make a broader point, however. Yes, we have to do that at an international level, but we also have to consider regimes that have large concentrations of banking, such as Switzerland—let us, for a moment, leave aside Ireland and Iceland, which were obviously virtually bankrupted by what happened. It is interesting that Switzerland, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is as keen as anyone to remain internationally competitive, has introduced its own domestic regime for its banks. It is wholly appropriate for us to consider doing that in this country while, of course, recommending to other countries changes that we think are sensible for all jurisdictions.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
Sir John Vickers has made a strong case both on competition, on which he has endorsed proposals from the Treasury Committee, and on the ring fence, on which the Committee will now be taking evidence from him. On the timing of implementation, however, rather than adding a ring fence to the list of measures in the current Financial Services Bill, which is already long and complex, surely it is sensible to commit now to a separate ring-fencing Bill in this Parliament, while making it clear now that full implementation of the higher capital and debt requirements, which might lead in the short term to lending risks, can be left at least until 2018 or possibly later?
Mr Osborne
The Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee makes a sensible suggestion. It is likely—I do not want to say certain—that we will need a separate piece of legislation on some of these specific changes to banking. However, I hope that we can also use the Financial Services Bill to implement other key parts of the reform. That is the case because we want to get this right. The draft Bill is currently being discussed by the Joint Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), and we simply will not be able to produce all that detail in the next couple of months before the Bill is introduced. We have to get this right. As John Vickers said, short-termism got us into this mess, and we need a bit of long-termism to get it right. However, I hope that the commitment to legislate in this Parliament reassures people that it is going to happen in this Parliament. This bunch of Ministers, this Government, will be held accountable if we do not legislate in this Parliament. We have given a clear commitment, and I am sure that the work of the Treasury Committee, which my hon. Friend chairs, in looking at how this report can be put into practice will be very valuable.
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
Why effect a firewall between retail and investment banking—which is highly complex and which the banks will use every device to get round—rather than effecting a clean break, which provided 60 years of stable banking after the great depression? Why wait eight years to implement some of the changes, when that will continue to expose taxpayers to another financial crash and when the banks are still too big to fail?
Mr Osborne
One of the original purposes of creating the Banking Commission was to try to resolve the argument, which is held in this Chamber and elsewhere, about whether to split banks, ring-fence them or leave things as they are. In this report John Vickers goes through all the arguments for a complete separation of the banks and comes down on the side of saying that it would not be sensible. He thinks that the cost to the economy would be particularly high, and without any real stability benefits. He also thinks that there are circumstances where one would want a retail bank to be supported by the rest of the bank—the investment bank—and have money transferred into it, which would enhance stability. The third point, which will not be universally popular in this Chamber, is that such a separation would be almost unenforceable under European law, because other European banks—or, indeed, one of our banks that had moved to another European jurisdiction—could passport money in. For those three reasons, John Vickers does not think it sensible to split the banks up.
Mr Speaker
Order. The Chancellor is helpfully offering the House very informative answers, but I would gently point out that thus far we have made what can best be described as leisurely progress, on which I hope we can now improve.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
Reform of the banks was one of the key foundation stones of the coalition Government, so I very much welcome today’s report. The public will certainly expect this Government to legislate as soon as possible to enact the various parts of the report, but they will need a reassurance today that there will be no excuse for the banks not returning to lending to small and medium-sized businesses, which are so necessary for our economies to return to sustainable growth.
Mr Osborne
The agreement among my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Business Secretary, me, the Prime Minister and other members of the coalition Government has been solid on this report. Anyone who has been looking for disagreement in the coalition has not really been able to find it today because both parties agreed that this was a good idea and we both support the report’s conclusions. On lending, briefly, we have the Merlin agreements and we are trying to protect small and medium-sized businesses as these huge banks deleverage, and the process has helped to do that. Indeed, the targets are for a big increase in small business lending, and I am confident that they will be met.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
It does not take an expert in forecasting—or even the Chancellor of the Exchequer—to foresee large banks seeking to use the proposed changes to increase restrictions on customers accessing bank accounts, cashpoints and other services, or to impose charges for bank accounts. What reassurance can the Chancellor provide me and my constituents that his Government will not let that happen?
Mr Osborne
As I said in my initial statement, an important part of this report—it will not be at the top of the evening news tonight, but it is important—is the proposals to enhance competition on the high street and create a new challenger bank, so that customers have real choices. There is also a proposal for a free service that would enable anyone who wanted to switch their current account to do so almost immediately, with all their direct debits and all the other things attached to their account switched too. That will really help customers to shop around—at the moment, customers do not switch their current accounts because they think that it would be too difficult and cumbersome—and is one of the most retail-friendly proposals in the report.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
If there is one class of people more unpopular than MPs, it is bankers—and I know where all the populist pressure is coming from. However, regulators do not create wealth; they stifle it. Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that we have to live in the real world and that London’s pre-eminent position is based on the fact that we have the lightest regulatory regime in Europe? Will he undertake to preserve that for the sake of our wealth creation and not kill the goose that lays the golden egg?
Mr Osborne
Well, it was not much of a golden egg, unfortunately, in recent years. It is important for this country that London, Edinburgh and other centres remain globally competitive and that London remains the pre-eminent global centre for finance. Some of the changes taking place in the City, such as the one I mentioned, involving trying to develop an offshore renminbi market, are all part of London being a competitive place to do business. However, being a competitive place in which to do financial services does not mean that there has to be a huge taxpayer subsidy for universal banks and their retail banking arms in the UK. John Vickers explicitly deals with the competition issue. People might have expected him to come to a different conclusion on this, but one of the interesting things he said was that we should not impose additional capital-to-equity ratios on investment banks, precisely because he does not want us to make them internationally uncompetitive.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I thank the Chancellor for his statement, and for giving me early sight of it. I congratulate the commission on the report, and particularly on the report’s dealing with the resilience in the banks and its rejection of splitting up the universal banks in favour of flexible ring-fencing. However, the timetable for this is eight years from today until the final implementation. That is necessary because of the complexity and the potential cost to the banks of implementation, but will the Chancellor ensure that the banks do not consider the next eight years to be a hiatus during which they can return to business, and bonuses, as usual? Will he also ensure that he drives forward as many of these recommendations as he can as quickly as possible before the 2019 backstop?
Mr Osborne
I will not repeat what I have said about the timetable. Suffice it to say that it is what John Vickers recommended, having really thought about it. This involves a combination of getting the detail right and ensuring that the changes do not unduly damage credit supply in the short term. That is why he has recommended a longer timetable. As he pointed out at his press conference this morning, once we propose such changes and start to legislate for them, some of them will start to happen anyway as banks try to get ahead of the curve—that is certainly what happened with Basel, although they were arguably too quick to get ahead of the curve in that instance—and that is what he anticipates happening when the changes are introduced.
Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Given the report’s emphasis not only on the size of the British banking sector but on the lack of competition within it, will the Chancellor assure the House that he will follow through on the recommendations to encourage new and challenger banks to provide the finance that our small businesses desperately need?
Mr Osborne
I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. The report addresses the issue of Lloyds, which is required to sell branches under European Union state aid requirements. John Vickers thinks that the key test for the Government’s handling of the Lloyds issue will be whether we have created an effective challenger bank. He thinks that any such new bank should have about 6% of the personal current account market, which is more than the state aid proposals would lead to, and that it should be properly funded. I take those recommendations very seriously.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
What reassurance can the Chancellor give the House that the ring-fencing will be effective at the time when it is most likely to be tested—namely, in the run-up to another debt or liquidity crisis? I listened to his earlier answer about the investment banks putting money into the high street banks, and about that being an advantage for the proposals for ring-fencing, but I have to tell him that I do not find that wholly convincing. If the idea is to get support, he has to be able to explain to the House how this proposal will work when it is required to do so.
Mr Osborne
In a sense, the right hon. Gentleman is right. The proof of all the arrangements that we are putting in place, and the international arrangements, will be in the pudding—although it is not really the kind of pudding that we want, because it is a banking crisis.
Mr Osborne
Yes, perhaps there are too many kitchen metaphors. The point I was making is that we are trying to clean up the mess.
We should not just assume that banking crashes happen every 70 or 100 years. We must hope that they will never happen at all, but we need to put in place the regulatory arrangements, capital requirements and structural changes that will ensure that the person who is in the hot seat the next time it happens, and has to do the job that the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) had to do, will have more tools available to him than the right hon. Gentleman had as Chancellor.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Regulation in the banking sector has already changed beyond all recognition. In my view, the best bit of that regulation is giving accountability back to the Bank of England. There is no doubt, however, that yet more regulation will have a cost. We can see from bank share prices now that investors already think that the future of the banks is not as glowing as it was. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in order for small and medium-sized enterprises and personal current account customers to benefit in the future, we need a more diversified banking sector and we need to encourage more competition and to go beyond what the Vickers commission is doing by promoting it through the Financial Conduct Authority as well as through our implementation of the Independent Commission on Banking proposals.
Mr Osborne
I hesitate to read out bank share prices, as they might have changed in the 45 minutes I have been on my feet The reaction from the banks today has not dramatically affected the prices of UK bank shares. There has not been a dramatic fall, nor indeed a dramatic rise. They have remained broadly flat—unlike those of French and German banks, which are very substantially down today. What that also suggests is that John Vickers—and, I would argue, the Government—did a good job in trying to price the proposals into the share price by giving clear signposts about the way in which we were going, so that it did not come as a big surprise. I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the Financial Conduct Authority. As a member of the Select Committee, she can look at some of the Vickers’ proposals potentially to change the FCA’s remit. We need to consider that, as do Members who are looking at the Bill.
Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)
On ring-fencing, Vickers suggests 2019 as a back-stop, but page 151 of the report makes it clear that “efforts” should be
“made to complete it sooner.”
Does the Chancellor accept that recommendation from Vickers and, if not, why not?
Mr Osborne
I, too, used the phrase “back-stop” in the statement. Vickers recommends that the changes be completed by 2019, but also recommended in his press conference that they be legislated for in this Parliament and that some of the changes might take place before that. We need to consider all these issues, but I think we need to pay attention to the 2019 date that Vickers sets out in his report.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I congratulate the Chancellor on this report, but I believe it takes for granted the adequacy of accounting standards. Will he look again at the incentives and risks inherent in the international financial reporting standard?
Mr Osborne
Yes, I will certainly do that. One of the discussions going on in international circles at the moment is how to make all the various standard-setting bodies more accountable. They are very powerful institutions now and they are not really accountable to national Parliaments or international bodies that represent national Governments. Discussion is going on about how the Financial Stability Board, which is the organisation that brings together different banking areas and different countries to discuss regulation, might be able to make the international accounting standards more accountable.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Small and medium-sized enterprises are going to be at the heart of any future economic recovery. I went around a number of businesses in my constituency during the summer recess and the message I was getting, which is different from what the Chancellor has said, was that they are still finding it difficult to get banks to provide lending and support. What is the Chancellor going to do about it? Those businesses cannot wait around for a few years for legislation to happen, so what is the Chancellor going to do today, next week and next month to improve the lending and support from banks, as it is still a problem for the businesses in my constituency?
Mr Osborne
I have already talked about how the Merlin agreements try to protect and indeed increase small and medium-sized business lending at a time when many of these banks are shrinking their balance-sheets, which were over-extended. We have talked a lot about timetables. The Lloyds divestment and the creation of a new challenger bank are things that have to be got on with this year. The offer has to be put to bidders this year and it must be completed by 2013—and, hopefully, sooner. In other words, we are encouraging the creation of a new presence on the high street, which should give the hon. Gentleman’s constituents greater choice and competition.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
This report is warmly welcomed, as, indeed, is the Chancellor’s response. It has to be said, however, that 2019 is a long time away. Will the Chancellor reassure the House, business and the public by publishing as soon as possible the specific route by which these recommendations will be implemented?
Mr Osborne
As I have said, the 2019 back-stop is the considered view of John Vickers and his commission. They have spent an enormous amount of time thinking about this, about trying to get the balance right between getting the rules in place, getting the rules right, and ensuring that they do not damage credit supply in the short term, about which many Members have asked. The report contains other milestones—some of the changes that he wants to see put into place by 2013, for example. John Vickers has done a good piece of work, and given a lot of thought to the issues, and I do not want to second-guess them just hours after he has published his report. We will produce a full, detailed response to the report by the end of the year.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
The Chancellor has referred to Project Merlin, which is generally regarded as a fairly ineffectual agreement, not least because, according to Bank of England figures, net lending to small and medium-sized enterprises has contracted month on month. Across the House, we can agree that it would be undesirable for politicians to seek directly to run the banks in which we have a public stake, but surely that should not preclude the Chancellor asking United Kingdom Financial Investments Ltd to ensure that the banks change the culture that they exercise towards SMEs. When was the Chancellor’s last discussion with UKFI about that?
Mr Osborne
I talk to UKFI all the time, and one of the things I talk about is ensuring that the banks in which we have a public ownership of shares are meeting their Merlin lending targets. I congratulate Lloyds, which has changed its operations and advertising campaigns and has tried to encourage small business lending. The hon. Gentleman talks about targets, but again there is complete amnesia about the fact that Labour were in government about 18 months ago. The Labour Government introduced net lending targets, which he wants us to introduce, abandoned them after 12 months, after those targets were completely missed, and then said in the House of Commons that they would introduce gross lending targets for two banks, RBS and Lloyds. We have not just stuck with the methodology that they developed, but have extended it to the entire banking system. Before they criticise those trying to clear up the mess, Labour should remember what they did in office.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comment that we should not confuse the interests of bank shareholders with those of taxpayers. Should we not also remind ourselves, however, that unless the shareholders are doing well, the bank balance sheets will not be doing well, and ultimately small business borrowers will not be doing well? He is winning the argument on the reforms, but will he reassure the House that he is mindful of the cost of capital of banks? By raising business costs for banks, we would be in danger not only of driving them offshore, but of raising the costs of capital for UK business.
Mr Osborne
Of course, that is the difficult balance that we all must get right. The challenge is to ensure that banks can lend well, as people have been asking them to, while at the same time ensuring that they have a greater cushion should things go wrong. In his report, one of the things that John Vickers points to is that if a bank is ring-fenced, its retail deposits are more likely to be used to support retail lending than to support an investment bank’s activities. He thinks that the ring fence could positively enhance lending opportunities for ring-fenced banks.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Given that Northern Rock had no investment arm and Lehmans had no retail arm, does the Chancellor have any sympathy with the view that ring-fencing will add little over the proper capital requirements and ethical investment decisions that Vickers calls for, save for £6 billion additional cost to the UK economy?
Mr Osborne
The short answer is no, I do not. On pages 31, 32 and 33, the report of John Vickers and his commission goes through how the reforms would have improved the situation regarding Northern Rock, Lehman Brothers, RBS and HBOS. We must remember that the reforms are in the round. I have been asked a lot about ring-fencing and retail lending, but there are also higher capital requirements, and a requirement for a loss-absorbing cushion for bondholders. Those changes would also have helped with Northern Rock. On top of that, the new regulatory regime would, I hope, have exercised more judgment.
Of course, the ring-fencing idea, which is just one of the four or five major recommendations, is only really relevant to universal banks. The only universal bank listed by the hon. Gentleman that went wrong is RBS. As is clear from the memoirs of the former Chancellor, ring-fencing would have helped enormously to resolve the problems of a very complex universal bank without the need for recourse to the taxpayer.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The ICB’s ring-fencing proposals are not so very different from the Glass–Steagall provisions that existed in the United States. I worked for a United States bank under Glass–Steagall. I was also there when Glass–Steagall was abolished in 1999, and witnessed the adverse change in behaviour. On the basis of my experience at the coalface, may I reassure the Chancellor that he is right to welcome the proposals?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend—who wrote what I thought was a very good piece for The Times, published on 9 September—has made a point based on his personal experience. I may or may not offend someone when I say that he is probably the most senior former investment banker in the House of Commons.
Mr Osborne
That is because they leave the House of Commons and go to work for investment banks.
My hon. Friend's experience was that an investment bank had many incentives to use retail deposits to subsidise its activity. That was not always right, and Glass–Steagall helped to stop it. We are not reintroducing Glass–Steagall, or introducing it in the United Kingdom; we have a different set of proposals which John Vickers has spent time developing, and I think that they meet the challenge that my hon. Friend set out in his article.
Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
The House will certainly have welcomed the statement that retail banks are likely in the future to funnel their deposits into domestic lending rather than the vast maw of the money markets. The Chancellor has said that there ought to be 10% capital for the retail banks. Presumably that is high-quality equity, and it is reported that a further 10% of non-equity may be required. May I ask the Chancellor to ensure that the capital requirements are no greater than those of Basel III? Too tall a requirement might cut across growth, and cut across lending to the small and medium-sized business sector.
Mr
Osborne: The 10% capital requirement against risk-weighted assets is based on the same definition as, and goes a bit beyond, the Basel rules, which recommend 7%. At present, however, the Financial Stability Board is developing proposals to add 2.5% for large, systemically important banks such as RBS and Barclays. The difference will be between 9.5% and 10%, which is quite close, for the retail ring-fenced side. On the investment side, as I have said, the commission does not recommend going beyond the international rules in order to keep London competitive.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
On that point, let me say that I welcome the careful timetable that has been set out. That is particularly important when the Government are prepared to act unilaterally, which the last Government were not prepared to do.
May I urge the Chancellor, when faced with the inevitable whingeing from banks saying that they are considering leaving the United Kingdom, to bear it in mind that the UK retail business is unbelievably profitable, and to say that banks that want to leave should exit their business or be invited to do so?
Mr Osborne
I agree with my hon. Friend that London and the United Kingdom constitute a very attractive place in which to locate a universal bank. We have what I think will be the best regulatory regime in the world, with the best regulators. We also have a good rule of law. This is a good place in which to live, and it happens to have a good time zone as well. All those factors make it a very good place from which to run financial services.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The Chancellor may recall that the coalition agreement called for net lending targets for the nationalised banks. Why did the Project Merlin deal involve much weaker targets for gross lending?
Mr Osborne
Net lending targets were tried by the previous Government, and when we looked at that in detail on coming into office, we saw why they had failed so spectacularly, and decided not to repeat the mistake.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
May I commend the Chancellor on setting up the commission and on making such an unambiguous statement today? Will he confirm that he has the full backing of the Government, and that No. 10 will not be unleashing the “forces of hell” on No. 11?
Mr Osborne
One thing that has dramatically changed under this Government is the relationship between those in No. 10 and No. 11. We not only talk to each other, but also occasionally share a friendly drink.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
The commission appears to have diluted its interim proposal to place a duty on the regulator to promote competition, but the Treasury Committee stated in its report on this subject that that was a crucial recommendation. The Chancellor has mentioned the importance of competition on numerous occasions today. Will he look again at this recommendation and ensure that we maximise the opportunities to improve competition in the market for the benefit of consumers and taxpayers?
Mr Osborne
I do not think the hon. Gentleman is being entirely fair. A specific part of the report deals with the remit of the new Financial Conduct Authority, and it says that—although we have changed our proposal in the light of the interim report, as I announced at the Mansion House—we could go further and make the requirement to promote competition an overriding duty on the authority. We should look at that over the next couple of months. I would welcome the input of the Select Committee, and we could respond later this year.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
On the impact of these reforms on lending, does the Chancellor agree that bad banks are bad for growth too, and therefore strengthening our banks and financial services industry, as proposed in the report, is good for the UK economy?
Mr Osborne
Yes, in short: I agree with my hon. Friend. John Vickers and his commissioners explicitly address the costs and benefits of these changes, and although they accept that there will be some additional costs, they will be more than outweighed by the broader benefits that include the benefits of having an environment in which banks are seen as more stable and the benefit to the UK economy of retail banks using their retail deposits to support retail lending.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Some 100,000 jobs in Edinburgh are reliant on the financial services sector, including many tens of thousands in my constituency. How can the Chancellor reassure the House and my constituents that the banks will not pay the cost of implementing the Vickers report recommendations by cutting my constituents’ jobs?
Mr Osborne
Of course, one of the groups of people who are the innocent victims of what went wrong are the many people who worked in the branches of banks such as RBS and HBOS throughout the country and who lost their jobs even though they were not investment bankers working in the City of London or trading mortgage derivatives and so forth. I hope that we can now build a successful and competitive banking system that, in Scotland and elsewhere, hires people, opens branches and reverses the trend of recent years. Such groups of people have definitely been the innocent victims of what went wrong and we must do right by them.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
What impact does my right hon. Friend think these generally welcome proposals will have on the timing of the return of our nationalised banks to the private sector?
Mr Osborne
Of course, we all want to see the return of the banks to the private sector. If truth be told, the big fall in recent months in the share prices of these banks and others—American and European—around the world have pushed that timetable back a little further. I do not think that that is a surprise to anyone. Our objective is to get these banks back into private hands, and Northern Rock—the good part of Northern Rock, I should stress—is currently up for sale.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Many of my constituents worked for HBOS, and some of them still work for Lloyds TSB. Many of them—and many people throughout the country—would like to know whether the Banking Commission report will do anything to change the values and culture of the banking sector, which to them seems to have been characterised by greed, selfishness and irresponsibility. Is there anything in this report that will lead the sector to have higher standards of moral values and behaviour?
Mr Osborne
It will help to see a return of relationship banking, which disappeared over not just the past few years, but the past few decades. It will also make the people running large banks more focused on their retail arms and on delivering a good customer service. The arrival of new faces on the high street will also help to do that, because it will make people up their game. I am not sure that I would describe this as a return to “Captain Mainwaring banking”, as it is sometimes described, because, as I recall from “Dad’s Army”, he was not very good at running anything. What we actually want is good relationship banking where banks understand their customers—
Mr Osborne
The hon. Gentleman says we’re all doomed, but the idea of these reforms is to ensure that we are not doomed in the future.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Following on from the Chancellor’s answer to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), the figures in the Vickers report indicate that there will need to be between £200 billion and £400 billion of equity capital and other funds at risk within the ring fence. What impact will that have on the provision of capital and credit to business?
Mr Osborne
John Vickers explicitly examines the argument that this will somehow undermine credit and comes to the conclusion that it will not. He says that, first, because the broader benefits of a stable banking system to the banks themselves and to the economy outweigh the costs and, secondly, because retail banks will, as I say, be more encouraged to use their retail deposits to support retail lending.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
One of the forms of banking competition that many people in Britain want is the encouragement of more mutuals, with a legal safeguard to prevent them from being refloated. What plans does the Chancellor have to progress that agenda?
Mr Osborne
We do want to see more mutuals created—we have explicitly said that in relation to Northern Rock, while not ruling out other potential options for Northern Rock. We have also taken action to strengthen credit unions, which are another part of the piece. It will be good to see mutuals growing, and the proposals in the report, particularly those on competition and the switching of current accounts, will help the mutual sector.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
I welcome the Chancellor’s considered response to the Vickers report. Will he comment on the implications of the proposed reforms for his strategy of rebalancing the UK economy towards manufacturing and regions outside London and the south-east?
Mr Osborne
The proposals will help because they will mean that these universal banks will have retail banking arms, in a ring fence, that are very focused on getting lending going to the economy outside the centre of London. We may think of it like this: the boss of the Royal Bank of Scotland a couple of years ago would have had someone running NatWest—running a ring-fenced subsidiary—who would have been totally focused on trying to get NatWest lending as a successful retail bank, rather than worrying about whether they could take over a Dutch investment bank. The ring fence will mean that parts of a universal bank will be extremely focused on getting support to businesses, in the black country and elsewhere.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Eight years is a long time, given that we are facing a sovereign debt crisis across Europe and, possibly, the end of the euro in that time frame. Does the Chancellor accept that the taxpayer will continue to foot the bill in the event of an investment bank, such as Lehman’s, collapsing? Does he accept that we will remain in a situation where bankers can take irresponsible risks and receive massive bonuses if they come up trumps, and where the taxpayer will continue to have to pay out if they go down?
Mr Osborne
The hon. Gentleman is being unnecessarily defeatist. I do not see why we cannot construct a regime that means we do not have to bail out banks when they fail. There are a number of different parts to this: requiring banks to hold more capital, including requiring people who hold bonds in the bank, as well as shareholders, to suffer a loss should the bank fail; the role of the regulator in preventing banks from doing stupid things, such as buying a big Dutch investment bank once the credit markets had already frozen up; and the proposals on ring-fencing. We have to work to get to a system where we are not standing behind banks that are too big to fail. If that were the case, we would end up with a banking system that is just a utility, and that would change the way in which banking interacts with our economy. We want banking to be successful and to be out there lending, but we want it to be properly regulated and we want to make sure that we do not have to stand behind it.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I very much associate myself with the remarks about mutuals and credit unions, but I want to ask the Chancellor about what the commission says about competition, for which it has some excellent recommendations and it is all too easy to think that they apply merely to the retail sector. Does the Chancellor support the idea that we should be taking the wholesale sector as seriously as the retail sector, given that equity underwriting fees, for example, have gone from 2% 20 years ago to something like 4%, 5% or even 6% today?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of competition in the investment banking sector. It is not often talked about outside the pages of the Financial Times, but it can be very uncompetitive, the fees can be exceptionally high, and there is that old maxim that no one ever got fired for hiring Goldman Sachs. The report will enable Britain to remain a home of competitive investment banking while protecting retail customers. That should encourage new entrants and drive down the fees that are charged. That would all be a good thing.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
In the first six months of this year, the five major UK banks lent £63 billion to non-financial corporations, excluding small and medium-sized enterprises. The Vickers recommendations would not oblige the banks to protect that lending via the 10% capital requirement for retail banks within the ring fence. Does the Chancellor agree with that recommendation, which would contribute to up to two thirds of all bank balance sheet holdings being outside the protection of the ring fence?
Mr Osborne
Again, I think we should trust the judgment of John Vickers and his commissioners. They explicitly considered whether to prescribe more closely than they have the scope of the ring fence—I am not talking about the height now, but the scope—and whether to include lending to larger corporates inside or outside it. They decided to leave that open to the banks. We will consider that advice and recommendation, but it strikes me as quite sensible to have some flexibility about the scope, if not necessarily the height, of the ring fence.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
I welcome the Chancellor’s statement this afternoon. The availability of lending for small businesses and competition in personal banking are as significant to my constituents as they are to those of other Members. In Northern Ireland, however, both are impacted on directly by the Irish banks. What aspects of the report could inform the ongoing discussions with the Irish Government to ensure that those issues are effectively addressed for Northern Ireland businesses and individuals?
Mr Osborne
We are in near constant discussion with the Irish authorities about the Irish banks and their impact on the rest of the UK, including, of course, Northern Ireland. In the next few weeks, the UK will disburse the first part of its loan to Ireland, which formed part of the Bill that was passed through this House at the end of last year. Because we passed that Bill and made the loan to Ireland, we are around the table having that discussion all the time with the Irish authorities about the impact of the Irish banks on the rest of the UK. I do not think we would be at that table if we had not made that loan, and I assure the hon. Lady that both I and the Financial Secretary have been spending a huge amount of time on the Irish banks, and we are well aware of the impact on Northern Ireland. If she wants to talk to us about that at any time, we would be very willing to have that meeting.
Points of Order
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week, this House was asked to debate, amend and agree the Health and Social Care Bill. We were asked to scrutinise that legislation with no updated information on the costs and consequences of the biggest reorganisation in NHS history, because the Government had promised a new impact assessment but had not published it before the debate. It was then smuggled out with no press statement the very next day and it shows that savings are planned at £2 billion less, it shows that the new economic regulator, Monitor, is set to have 600 staff at an average cost of £84,000 each and, most importantly to this House, on page three it shows that the Minister signed it off on 1 September, a full five days before the debate in this House. It is a disgrace that these facts were kept hidden from the House and the public before such a critical and controversial debate. In the light of page 447 of “Erskine May”, can you advise this House whether the Government have followed the proper parliamentary procedure and of what steps can be taken to stop such abuse in the future?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. He has made his point and it will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench. Although the release of such information is a matter for the Government rather than for the Chair, I can tell him and the House that I do attach importance to the timely provision of information to the House, which is both courteous to Members and helpful in their deliberations. It is fortunate for the right hon. Gentleman and the House that at the time of his raising his point of order—this may not be a coincidence—the Leader of the House was sitting on the Treasury Bench. The Leader of the House is as courteous a man as is to be found on either side of the Chamber; he attaches importance to these matters and though he may not wish to respond to the point of order now, I can assure the House that he will have heard it.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to a written question regarding Government policy on equality issues relating to gender-specific dress codes in the workplace, I was rather surprised when the Home Secretary replied outlining what she was wearing on the day in question—a grey trouser suit and some shoes from L. K. Bennett—and mentioned her personal preference for smart dress and her belief that such dress had never hampered her career. Intrigued, I inquired at the Table Office whether I could seek regular sartorial insights from Ministers via written questions. I was advised that because the choices Ministers make before leaving home, such as
“whether to wash, shave or wear blue underpants”
are entirely personal and are not part of their ministerial responsibility or subject to Government policy, it would not be in order for me to do so. Is it therefore in order for a Minister to answer an entirely orderly and serious question regarding Government policy on an issue that has been raised with me by a constituent with what is a frivolous, albeit fascinating, fashion commentary?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Lady will understand immediately when I say that I do not regard myself as an authority on fashion. In response to points of order, I think an appropriate humility and self-denying ordinance on the part of this Chair would be prudent and seemly.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his sedentary intervention on the subject of ties, about which I do not intend to expatiate now or at any time from the Chair.
The hon. Lady kindly gave me notice of her point of order. What I would say to her, very seriously, is that the content of answers to parliamentary questions is a matter for the Government and not the Chair, and there are very good reasons, which will be immediately apparent to Members, why that should be so. The Chair cannot get into the business of acting as umpire or arbiter of the merit or demerit of a particular answer—only on the question of whether it is orderly. However, if the hon. Lady is dissatisfied with the answer, she should contact the Table Office to find other and perhaps further ways of pursuing the matter to obtain the satisfaction she seeks.
Police reform and social responsibility Bill (programme) (No. 3)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 13 December 2010 and 30 March 2011 (Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill (Programme) and Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be taken at this day’s sitting in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
2. The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
TABLE
Lords Amendments | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 | 8.00 pm |
Nos. 5, 7 to 52, 54, 55, 58, 60 to 168, 53, 56, 57, 59, 169 and 170 | 10.00 pm |
Subsequent stages
3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Stephen Crabb.)
Question agreed to.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 296 / Noes: 220 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:17 - The House divided: - Ayes: 291 / Noes: 224 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:53 - The House divided: - Ayes: 202 / Noes: 300 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 2 to 4 and 6, Government motions to disagree, Government amendments (a) to (d) in lieu, amendment (i) to Government amendment (a) in lieu and amendment (ii) to Government amendment (b) in lieu.
Nick Herbert
This Government are determined to swap bureaucratic control of the police for local democratic accountability, replacing police authorities with directly elected commissioners. In the past there has been too much central interference with decisions that should have been taken locally and by professionals, yet too often the centre has been weak where it needed to be strong, such as in ensuring the fight against serious and organised crime or better co-ordination between forces. Our aim is to reverse this position, giving greater freedom to professionals to do their job and sweeping away central interference and bureaucracy, while refocusing the Home Office on key priorities and threats.
But we cannot just take away central direction and leave the police to get on with it. Like any public service, the police must answer to someone. Politicians do not and should not run the police, but they should and they must hold the police to account on behalf of the public whom the police serve. Officers must be accountable for their actions and forces must be accountable for their performance. Both parties in the coalition were committed in their manifestos at the last election, in differing ways, to enhancing the democratic accountability of policing. The coalition agreement pledged the introduction of directly elected individuals, subject to strict checks and balances, by locally elected representatives.
The Bill seeks to establish clear and democratically accountable leadership for police governance, but amendments in another place would remove those provisions. The Lords amendments do not try to increase the local accountability of the police. They do not even try to ensure that there are adequate checks and balances in place. The amendments simply say that the status quo should be preserved and that the chair of a police authority should be called a police and crime commissioner. This rebranding of the status quo will not suffice.
The whole purpose of the Government’s reform and its strength is that local councillors will still be involved in the governance of policing, but an elected individual, with a mandate from the people, will take the executive decisions.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Minister is preaching a great sermon on how everything will be transformed by the creation of commissioners, but my concern is that what he means by the word “local” is not at all what is going to be brought about. The South Wales police force area covering Swansea and Cardiff—two cities that have never particularly loved each other—and large chunks of the valleys, which have a very different policing agenda from those two cities, could not possibly be constituted as a single political unit by anybody who was starting afresh. So my worry is that there will be less political accountability to local people and more accountability to one individual, who will probably be more likely to represent somebody in Cardiff and Swansea than somebody in the valleys.
Nick Herbert
Although I think there is a serious debate to be had, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman for a number of reasons, principally that he may be making an argument for smaller forces—that is not a proposal that the Government are making, or one that, I suspect, the Opposition would support. Also, if a single chief constable can be in charge of that whole force and be responsible for the operation of the force across the varied area that the hon. Gentleman describes, why should not a single individual be capable of holding that chief constable to account? In London we have seen the Mayor taking responsibility for policing over a very much greater population, including a diverse population with a large number of local authority components.
Chris Bryant
What I have found in the past few years in South Wales police is that although it is true that the chief constable is not particularly accountable, what has made the police accountable is the local PACT—Police and Communities Together—meetings, where members of the public get to know they can get in touch with their local beat police officer. It is that transformation of the police that will render policing far more effective, rather than the somewhat bureaucratic system that the Minister is setting up.
Nick Herbert
We are hardly setting up a bureaucratic system. It is one that involves direct democratic accountability. The two things that the hon. Gentleman describes are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to maintain neighbourhood policing and local accountability while still introducing direct democratic accountability and governance, for the reasons that I set out.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I must say that I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on the usefulness of PACT meetings. The Minister referred to accountability and to the Metropolitan police. There is an issue with the governance of the Metropolitan police, because they do not and will not have a police commissioner, as that is part of the Mayor of London’s muddle of responsibilities. Of course, the Metropolitan police’s activities go far beyond London and have implications not only for other parts of England but for Scotland and Wales, yet we have a Mayor with devolved responsibility getting rid of a Metropolitan Police Commissioner. Is there not a bit of a muddle over the accountability issues right across this new pattern of policing?
Nick Herbert
I do not accept that there is a muddle. The right hon. Gentleman will know that it was the previous Government who set up the current governance arrangements in London. The Metropolitan police have national policing responsibilities and therefore answer in part to the Home Secretary, which makes them unique. However, the reforms in London to give greater local accountability have been popular with the public, and it is that principle that we seek to extend. Indeed, the principle of having one accountable individual directly responsible for the totality of force activity is crucial to the Government’s vision. Policing governance by committee has led to an unelected body having power over the precept, with no one being properly held to account for decisions or poor performance and no one truly being in charge.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
The Minister states that this whole idea is popular. What does he base that on, because all the information I have seen indicates that the public do not want this?
Nick Herbert
If the hon. Gentleman had been paying attention, he would know that I was talking about the popularity of the reform that his Government introduced —the introduction of the Mayor of London. Evidence from opinion polls shows that a large majority of the public welcome the idea of enhanced local accountability for policing.
The public have not had a voice. As the shadow policing Minister, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), has pointed out:
“Under the current system, 93 per cent of the country has no direct, elected representation.”
Indeed, only 7% of wards in England and Wales are represented on a police authority, so it is no surprise that only 7% of the public understand that they can approach their police authority if they are dissatisfied with policing. Most people have no clue who their police authority chair is. How can a body be an effective link between the police and the people if it is invisible to the people? I agree with the former policing Minister, who said that people must “know who to go to” and be
“able to influence their policing through the ballot box.”
That was the hon. Member for Gedling.
Some say that this visibility does not matter and, provided that a wise committee takes the right decisions, there is no need to refer to the people. That is the argument that favours rule by quangos over democratic decision making. The defenders of the current system of governance say that it works well, but I am afraid that I disagree. Only four of the 22 inspected police authorities were assessed by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and the Audit Commission as performing well in their most critical functions. I understand why police authorities oppose their own abolition, but there are few who believe that the authorities can remain in their current form. Even the Opposition do not share that view.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister back to the Dispatch Box after his recent illness. We have missed him. There have been riots and both the commissioner and the head of counter-terrorism have resigned, so the Minister’s re-emergence provides great stability for all of us who are interested in policing issues. I agree with him about the invisibility of police authorities. The Home Affairs Committee considered this matter in the last Parliament when the Government wanted to introduce an element of election. What concerns me is the progress on the protocol, which the Committee believed was extremely important in defining the relationship between the chief constable and the new police and crime commissioner. If he does not plan to refer to this later in his speech, will he tell us now what is happening about the protocol?
Nick Herbert
I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern to ensure that we get the protocol right. We have made very good progress with it, and I will deal directly with those remarks, if I may, later in my speech. I also thank him for his kind words.
Nick Herbert
I am just going to make a little more progress. Let me deal with costs, and then I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.
The shadow Home Secretary says that the reform will cost “well over £100 million”. No, it will not. She reaches that figure by counting in the running costs of police authorities—money that, apparently, should not be spent. So, this is Labour's latest policy: not just no elections for those who hold the police to account, but no one to hold them to account at all—because, apparently, police authorities would go as well.
The only additional cost of the Government’s reforms is the cost of elections. That will normally be £50 million every four years, £12.5 million a year on average, or 0.1% of what is spent on police forces.
Nick Herbert
I will come to that immediately. There will be a one-off additional cost for holding the elections in November next year, rather than in May, and the cost will indeed increase: it will increase from 0.1% of police spend to 0.15%, and then it will go back down to 0.1% again. So, this is apparently the full weight of the Opposition’s argument: a delay in holding an election will temporarily cost 0.05% of police spend. That is a risible case.
Mark Tami
But why is there a delay? The whole House knows why: it is because the Liberal Democrats do not want the elections on that day—despite the fact that the Liberal Democrat leader has previously said that the electorate are perfectly capable of understanding different elections on the same day.
Nick Herbert
Hon. Members have spent their whole time trying either to stop the reform or to delay it, and now, when an introduction is delayed for a few months, they apparently do not want that, either.
The central point is that, in any case, the cost of elections is not going to come from police budgets. It is just nonsense to claim that the money for elections could instead be spent on police officers. That is a poor argument. It ill behoves an elected politician to complain about the cost of democracy. It was Labour that made the police more accountable to a new Mayor of London. The referendum itself cost £3 million to conduct, and the elections still cost £18 million every four years. Did Labour then say that this money could be better spent on police officers? No, of course not. If greater democratic accountability is a price worth paying in London for a quarter of all policing, why not in the rest of the country?
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
The Minister will know that the impact assessment said originally that the cost of elections was £50 million. He will also know that the Prime Minister told us, and he has confirmed, that additional costs for the one-off election were another £25 million. Will he also confirm that the impact assessment contains £37 million of transition costs to the new arrangements, which do take the figure to over £100 million?
Nick Herbert
No, I do not accept what the Opposition have constantly been saying, which is that the overall cost of this reform is over £100 million. That is based on a figure that the Association of Police Authorities has been using, where it appears that it has been counting two elections into the cost. I go back to the point that I have made: the only additional, ongoing cost in relation to this reform is the cost of holding elections. It is a very bad argument to suggest that a democratic reform should not go ahead simply because elections will cost money, and it is not an argument that Labour Members were willing to use in the past when they supported all sorts of proposals for elections, including in relation to the Mayor of London.
I now give way to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has been very patient.
Chris Bryant
I have never supported the politicising of the police, and I will not do so under the Minister’s plans. My anxiety is that when a politician comes along, they usually do not just want a little office in the corner; they want lots of other people to service that office. I suspect that the cost that he is allowing for now will be hideously understated by the time we have had these people in place for four years. However, the bit that I completely do not understand is why we have to have elections next November. Surely, if we were trying to save money and one believed in having these elections, they should be at the same time as the other local elections six months later.
Nick Herbert
I will come to that issue. However, I will say to the hon. Gentleman now that if the elections were delayed for a further six months to take them to May 2013, incoming police and crime commissioners would be unable to participate in the budget that would already have been set for that year. They would be unable to take the key decisions—[Interruption.] It will still be the case, even though the elections will be delayed by six months, that incoming police and crime commissioners will be able to set the budget and the plan for the following year, as originally intended. I do not accept that there would be no difference as a result of a delay until the following year.
Nick Herbert
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am going to move on.
I want to come back to the issue of London’s Mayor, which was much discussed in the other place, as it has been here. I want to credit the Opposition for the creation of the office of Mayor, which, as I have said before, has been a popular reform. As we debate these issues, the Mayor has been playing a key role in the decision over who will next lead the Metropolitan police. He has given Londoners an important voice in policing. How many Londoners would prefer their police force to answer to an invisible committee? Now the Opposition are criticising the Mayor’s role in policing—well, they invented it. Of course the Opposition do not like the current Mayor. They may not like what he does, but that is not a reason to dislike the office or to object to the same principle of greater democratic accountability being introduced in the rest of the country.
Let us be clear: the Mayor does not run the police in London; he holds them to account, and that is the principle that we are advancing. The British model of impartial policing must be retained, and it will be retained. Our aim is not to abandon the tripartite arrangement of police governance between the Home Office, local representatives and forces, but to rebalance it.
Keith Vaz
The name of the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner has been announced as the Minister has been speaking from the Dispatch Box, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will tell the House who it is. I will leave it to him to make the announcement rather than me. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”] No, no, no. I do not want to spoil the fun. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister does not know, but it has just been announced. Will he assure the House that it was done with the full agreement of the Mayor of London, that there was no dispute, and that we will all now be able to unite behind the new commissioner, whose name, I think, is winging its way over to him as I speak?
Nick Herbert
I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I am not going to make an announcement before it is confirmed to me that the name has been formally announced.
To prevent too much power from being vested in a single individual, we are putting in place strict checks and balances. This is an important part of the argument. The checks and balances include local police and crime panels with representatives from each local authority and independent members, which will have the power to scrutinise the commissioner’s actions. District councils will have a stake in police governance for the first time. They do not currently have that position in police authorities. The panels will have teeth. They will have the power of veto over excessive precepts and the appointment of chief constables, and they will have the weapon of transparency.
We have listened to concerns and have strengthened the safeguards in the other place. I will go into the detail of those changes when we discuss them later. However, I want to highlight three important areas where we have listened, not least to the professional advice of senior police officers, and acted. First, in response to the point made by the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee on the operational independence of the police, it is fundamental to the British system that the police remain operationally independent. No politician can tell a constable—a sworn officer of the Crown—who to arrest. Forces will continue to be under the legal direction and control of their chief constable. There is no change in those legal arrangements.
Since the Bill left this House, the Government have published a draft protocol that clearly sets out the roles of the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner, and how they and the other actors, including the police and crime panel, will interact. We did that partly in response to the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee. Senior chief constables, including senior leaders of the Metropolitan police, welcomed the publication of the draft protocol. They have said that it provides clear direction on the future roles of chief constables, police and crime commissioners and the Home Secretary, and that it ensures the balance between operational independence and appropriate public accountability. I agree with chief constables that we must include in the protocol the fact that the police and crime commissioner must set the strategic direction and objectives of the force and decide the budget of the force, while being clear that chief constables remain operationally independent.
We also amended the Bill in the other place to make it a statutory requirement for the Home Secretary to issue the protocol. This work is not over. We will continue to work closely with the Association of Chief Police Officers and others to ensure that the protocol covers all the necessary issues in the necessary depth. It is vital that we get this right. We have made tangible progress in ensuring that the operational independence of police officers will be protected under this Bill.
Nick Herbert
The protocol is intended to govern the relationship and it will be issued by the Home Secretary. The legal control and direction of the force will remain, as I said, with the chief constable. The protocol describes the appropriate legal arrangements. I have no doubt that, as we have seen in London, those who stand for election will understand that.
Secondly, we will ensure that policing in this country is able to deal with national threats. It has been suggested that police and crime commissioners will be focused on local issues to the exclusion of those that require a strategic response, making them too parochial. I disagree. PCCs will be responsible and accountable to the public for the totality of policing. However, the fight against terrorism and against serious and organised crime is an area in which the central Government have a legitimate role.
The new national crime agency, working with police forces, will transform the fight against organised crime. The Home Secretary will issue a strategic policing requirement, which will guide forces on their responsibilities for serious and cross-boundary policing challenges such as terrorism, organised crime, public order and responding to major incidents and emergencies. Police and crime commissioners and chief constables will be under strong duties to have regard to that requirement. This is not about addressing a problem created by the introduction of police and crime commissioners. The strategic policing requirement, alongside the national crime agency, is a critical refocusing of the Government’s role to address an existing set of policing challenges for which the response to date has been lacking. We continue to work closely with the police service to ensure that that happens. The passing of the Bill will by no means be the end of the conversation, but let me be clear: ensuring that police forces can continue to deliver on national and strategic issues, and meet national threats, remains a priority for me and for this Government.
Nick Herbert
I will give way quickly to the hon. Gentleman, who can also have a final intervention.
Chris Bryant
If what the Minister says is true, how could Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, say that the phone hacking allegations were just codswallop, and that the police should not investigate because the story was dreamt up by the Labour party?
Nick Herbert
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I was reading a note and was not properly listening to what he said. Will he say it again?
Chris Bryant
Do concentrate! If all of what the Minister says is true—that the police and their operational independence should not be politicised—how can it be right for the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, to say that the phone hacking allegations at the News of the World were codswallop, and that the police should not investigate any further because it was a story got up by the Labour party?
Nick Herbert
Surely the hon. Gentleman misses the key point. First, the Mayor should not seek to direct an investigation any more than the Home Secretary should. Secondly, the Mayor will be held accountable for all issues, which is what Londoners expect. The point is that, before the Mayor, accountability was invisible. We seek to introduce that greater accountability elsewhere. The issue is not whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Mayor was right or wrong. There is now a figure who can be held accountable for the performance of the Met.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The Minister will know of the constabulary of Dyfed-Powys police in west Wales. There are probably 15 elected politicians of various parties representing people for that area, including in the Welsh Assembly. Does he agree that if there were any hint of a police commissioner taking a political line, the 14 other elected members of various assemblies and Parliaments would hold him to account and ensure that that did not happen?
Nick Herbert
I agree with my hon. Friend. We are putting in place very strong accountability arrangements, but also checks and balances and transparency. That will ensure the visibility of decisions when they are taken. Panels of locally elected members will be able to hold the commissioner to account and to scrutinise the decisions that are made. All of that will be done in full view of the public, in a way that the current proceedings of police authorities simply are not.
I am afraid that I must briefly detain the House on other formal matters before us. In lieu of the Lords amendments, I shall move a Government amendment to re-establish the Secretary of State’s power to issue a financial management code of practice for police and crime commissioners. A code of practice is currently issued to police authorities, which are required to have regard to it in the discharge of their financial functions. This enables the Home Office accounting officer to assure Parliament that funds given to the Department are used appropriately.
The Bill repeals the general power to issue codes of practice to police authorities under which the existing financial management code was issued. To ensure that we adhere to the principles of financial regularity, propriety and value for money, we propose that the Bill be amended to retain the power to issue codes of practice, but to restrict it to codes relating to financial matters only. The code will set out to PCCs and chief constables how they are expected to conduct the financial management within their force area and ensure good governance of public funds, the majority of which fall within the ambit of the vote from this place. It will be the responsibility of the Government to ensure that the code is fit for purpose and that it enables a PCC to set a budget that is responsible and, crucially, responds to the needs of their local communities and priorities. As such, I cannot agree with the Opposition amendments.
Government amendment (b) in lieu of Lords amendments 1 to 4 and of Lords amendment 6 will move back the date of PCC elections by six months, from May 2012 to November 2012, to allow more time to ensure that all the necessary preparations are in place. That will give good quality candidates, including—I hope—independents, the time to come forward, plan and campaign. PCCs will still be able to lead the strategic planning for 2013-14, as originally proposed—that was the point I made to the hon. Member for Rhondda. Thereafter, elections will revert to May every four years. Reform in London can still take place early because the Mayor is already in place.
In respect of the amendment giving the Welsh Assembly the power to set the first election date in Wales, the Government have placed on the record, in this House and another place, the efforts and negotiations in which I took part and which we undertook with the Welsh Government in order that the National Assembly for Wales could play a stronger role within policing governance in Wales. We have made it clear that we cannot legislate potential to provide two different systems of governance within England and Wales. Moreover, we cannot withhold from the people of Wales the necessary reform that will give them a stronger voice and visible accountability for how policing is delivered within their four police force areas by delaying the implementation of these reforms until the National Assembly sees fit. As the House knows—and, indeed, has determined through statute—policing remains a reserved matter and therefore the House shall decide when and how policing governance will be delivered. That said, we hope soon to restart constructive discussions with the Welsh Government so that they can consider positively how to work in partnership with both PCCs and police and crime panels.
In conclusion, these reforms are essential to address the democratic deficit in policing, to end the era of central Government’s bureaucratic control, to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour and to drive value for money. There will be benefits all round. Chief constables will be liberated from targets and central direction so that they can be crime fighters. Police officers will benefit from a less bureaucratic system in which discretion is restored and someone close to their force has a strong interest in driving out waste and prioritising the front line. Local authorities will benefit from a continuing say in the governance of policing, and district councils will have a role for the first time. The taxpayer will see better value for value money as commissioners, who will have responsibility for the precept, focus relentlessly on efficiency in their forces. Local policing will benefit from a strong democratic input, focusing attention on issues of public concern. The Home Office will be focused on its proper role, especially to address national threats and to co-ordinate strategic action and collaboration between forces. Above all, the public will have a voice in how they are policed. PCCs will have the mandate and the moral authority to reflect public concern about crime.
In the end, the House has a choice. The shadow Home Secretary repeatedly described elected police commissioners as a “US-style reform”. It is striking that Labour seems to think that democratic election and accountability are un-British. The Government trust the people to elect representatives to make the right decisions and to kick them out if they do not. It is strange that so many democrats are so wary of democracy. I believe that we can and should trust the people.
Vernon Coaker
With the indulgence of the House, let me start by endorsing the comments that the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee made in welcoming the Minister back to full health. I know that the Minister has not been too well, and we missed him on the TV over the summer. In all sincerity, I am pleased that he is back and functioning well.
However, I do not intend to let my feelings of good will towards the Minister prevent me from saying that for a moment at the end of his speech it was like being in church—the “Hallelujah Chorus” was all that was needed to illustrate the promised land to which the Minister believes he is taking us. However, let us be clear about this: what we are doing is quite extraordinary. We are not just repairing a bit of damage or tweaking that the Lords have done; what the Minister is having to do—and in a way that is hugely embarrassing for the Government—is reinsert in the Bill the whole concept of police and crime commissioners. In other words, he is having to reinsert the absolutely fundamental principle of the Bill.
However, one would not have known that from what the Minister said, which was that what we are doing today is nothing more than a tidying-up exercise—a bit of tweaking that the Government have found it necessary to do to ensure that the Lords did not inadvertently cause a problem that they had not intended. However, let us be clear: the Lords absolutely wanted to create a problem for the Government on this issue. What they were saying was that, unlike the Government, they recognise that the proposal has absolutely no support in the country. The only people who support the policy are the Minister, a few of his friends, a couple of people at No. 10 Downing street, a few Back Benchers, a couple of think-tanks and the whipped masses, who we will no doubt see later.
Vernon Coaker
I will in a moment; I am just getting going. If the hon. Gentleman lets me, I will make a few points and then give way to him—he served on the Committee.
One of my hon. Friends asked the Minister where the evidence was that there was a demand for his proposal out there in the country. The answer was that there was none. I and many others have consistently asked the Minister to publish the results of the public consultation on “Policing in the 21st Century”, a document to which there were approximately 800 responses. We have not heard a word from a Minister about those 800 responses. I wonder why that is. I am sure that if a large number of those responses had been in favour of the proposal, the Minister would have published every one. However, he cannot do that, because we know that very few of those responses were in favour. This Government—who, we are told, are in favour of listening to the people, in this new dawn of not imposing things—say that in this instance they know best. The fact that nobody supports the proposal does not matter to the Minister.
Vernon Coaker
Don’t worry; I have not forgotten the hon. Gentleman.
The same goes for councils. We have just heard about the objections of the Local Government Association and the Association of Police Authorities. The Minister’s answer to them is: “We don’t care what you say—you’re dinosaurs. You’re in the way of me reaching the promised land; you’re in the way of me reaching what I regard as the best reform. You’re people who are out of touch. You will inevitably vote against this proposal because it’s like turkeys voting for Christmas.” However, there are individuals on those local councils and police authorities—members of all parties or none—who have dedicated their lives to the service of their communities and to policing in their communities who fundamentally believe that the Government’s proposal is a bad reform. To dismiss them purely as people who do not want to vote themselves out of a job does them no service at all.
Mr Burley
The hon. Gentleman says that there is no support for the reform, but let me read him two quotations. The first is from the Lib Dems’ manifesto, which says on page 72 that they will
“Give local people a real say over their police force through the direct election of police authorities.”
This is the second quotation:
“only direct election, based on geographic constituencies, will deliver the strong connection to the public which is critical”.
That was the hon. Gentleman himself, in a speech in 2008. Rather than there being no support for reform, is it not true that the case for reform of police governance has been made right across the political spectrum?
Vernon Coaker
I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not just reading that out; he normally does better than simply reading out Whips’ documents. He will remember, as I do, that in Committee the Liberal Democrats actually voted against their own amendments—
Vernon Coaker
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman admits it. I have never known anyone vote against their own amendments, but there we go.
Vernon Coaker
I do not think there has ever been any disagreement, either in Committee or in any of our other debates on police governance, about the need to make police authorities more visible and find ways of helping them to work more successfully in their neighbourhoods. That has never been in doubt. However, people have certain concerns relating to the introduction of direct elections—whether using the model involving a directly elected police authority, or the one involving a directly elected individual—and I will discuss those worries in due course.
The Minister has failed to provide the House with the evidence for why the Government are taking forward these reforms. He says that there is support for them, but he has failed to put any evidence for that before the House. Let us look at the detail of the Bill. Interestingly, when the Minister argues against the points that have been made on this matter, he simply says that people are wrong, and that he does not agree with them. However, we all know that there are serious issues involved that need to be addressed. He and the Liberal Democrats might have sorted out a way of getting the Bill through, but that does not negate the real concerns that were mentioned by Members on both sides in Committee and that have been mentioned again since.
The Minister says that there is no way in which a police and crime commissioner would be able to influence a chief constable or interfere with the operational independence of the police. He dismisses the politicisation argument with a sweep of his hand, but he knows that real concerns have been expressed about operational independence and politicisation. It is worth repeating some of the points that have been made. Let us imagine that, if the Bill is passed, an election will take place at some time in the distant future, perhaps on 15 November 2012 or on the first Thursday in May 2013. What are the manifesto commitments that the candidates for police and crime commissioner are going to stand on? They are not going to stand on the promise of a better counter-terrorism policy or a decent fraud policy for the pensioners of their area. What they are going to stand on is something like, “We want to see police stations kept open in our community,” or “We want to see more visible police officers going up and down our streets every single day.” That is the sort of manifesto on which police and crime commissioners will stand.
By putting these provisions back into the Bill, the Minister makes it difficult for us to believe that there will not be a conflict between someone elected on a manifesto like that and a chief constable who says, “Hang on a minute. I don’t think that is the right policing priority for this area. The right policing priority for this area is not having police in that neighbourhood. My professional judgment says that they should be placed here, and there. I am going to take some officers from their duty in that neighbourhood and put them into a domestic or sexual violence unit or a fraud unit. These will be front-line officers, but not in the sense of being visible uniformed officers on the street.”
Vernon Coaker
I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) first.
Mr Burley
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but he lulls us into thinking that this is a new thing. Was not Tony Blair’s summit on knife crime when he was Prime Minister—when he called all the chief constables to No. 10 Downing street to discuss what could be done about that crime—an example of a politician quite rightly reflecting public concern over a type of crime and influencing the police to do something about it? Is that not exactly the same as the power of influence that the police and crime commissioners will have, and is it not a good thing?
Vernon Coaker
Obviously, people try to influence what the police do. I have no problem with that and, of course, I sat on some of the summits that the Prime Minister called, which brought chief constables together to deal with a national issue of importance and concern. What is different is where someone is elected on a manifesto at a local level, which might contain specific commitments about what should happen in that local area. That is the fundamental difference between those circumstances and what the Bill proposes.
Vernon Coaker
Because the person will have a specific local democratic mandate and will have been elected on certain pledges, it is different from a Prime Minister or other national politicians responding to a problem that has arisen and working with the police to try to deal with it. The context is totally different.
Mark Tami
Before my hon. Friend moves away from specialist units, their work is very important, but the general public might not see what those officers are doing in the local area. Such units are often set up because of the failings of traditional policing after tragic events like the Soham murders or other instances when the police forces might have failed to work effectively together.
Vernon Coaker
That is the point I am making. Front-line officers are not just uniformed officers visible on the street; they might include officers in the specialist units to which my hon. Friend refers. I agree that they are particularly important.
Alun Michael
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a big difference between this and the approach adopted under the Labour Government, which was about highlighting a problem or concern when something needed to be done? It was about how to hear from the police and how to learn from them about what was needed to tackle issues like antisocial behaviour, for instance, thereby providing the tools necessary to do the job. It was about teamwork between the Government the police, which contrasts greatly with what is happening now.
Vernon Coaker
That is absolutely right. The teamwork, collaboration and partnership working was, I think, one of the consequences of a Bill that my right hon. Friend took through in 1998. I believe that was one of the most successful reforms carried out under the last Government.
Let me deal with a fundamental issue that will be dealt with more fully in the next group of amendments. It is important, so I shall refer to it now, as it is one of the crucial issues on which the hon. Member for Cannock Chase might want to reflect further. When Tony Blair was Prime Minister, one thing he could not do was sack chief constables in individual areas. Under the Bill, however, the police and crime commissioner will be able to sack the chief constable, without the police and crime panel having any power to control it. That is an important difference; in my view, it is a big flaw in the Bill.
Keith Vaz
Is my hon. Friend as puzzled as I am that although, apparently, the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner has had a photo call with the Home Secretary—before she came into the Chamber—and the policing Minister has been at the Dispatch Box, there still has not been an announcement to Parliament of the new appointment. Everyone knows that it is Mr Hogan-Howe, but apparently the House of Commons does not know. Has my hon. Friend been told the name of the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. It might be helpful if Vernon Coaker gave way to the Home Secretary.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I am tempted to say that there is no need for me to rise to my feet now, given that the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee has given the name of the new commissioner. As I have just come into the Chamber, the policing Minister and I were discussing the best way to announce to the House the appointment of Bernard Hogan-Howe as Metropolitan Police Commissioner. He is the former chief constable of Merseyside, where he had a fine record of crime fighting, seeing crime levels go down by just under 40% over three to four years. I am sure that he will bring that crime-fighting capability to London and the Metropolitan police.
Alun Michael
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is good that the Home Secretary has now spoken to the House, but before this debate, when the Chancellor was at the Dispatch Box, the new commissioner’s appointment was widely publicised on television. So, as my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee was suggesting, the appointment has not come to the attention of the House as quickly as it should have.
Mr Deputy Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman has been in the House a long time and will recognise that that is not a point of order. He has put his point on the record.
Vernon Coaker
On behalf of the shadow Home Secretary, myself, and all Members of the House, may I wish Mr Hogan-Howe well in his new role as commissioner and in the important job of work that he will have to do?
The issue of the politicisation of operational independence is important, but Members have also referred to the huge problems that will be caused by having one police and crime commissioner to represent such a large number of areas and communities. Despite that, the Government are reinserting the proposal in the Bill with no indication of how they expect such problems to be overcome. We have heard from Devon and Cornwall, and Avon and Somerset, about this issue of size, yet the Minister just says that it will not be a problem. We also learn from the Minister that he believes that the Bill contains proper checks and balances and that, therefore, the reinstatement of the provision is not a problem. However, he fails to point out to Members that the police and crime panel has only two powers. One—to be fair to the Government, they have amended the majority that is required from three quarters to two thirds—is the veto over the appointment of the chief constable, and the other is the veto over the precept. That is it. The police and crime panel has no other power. The policing Minister wants us to disagree with the Lords amendments on the basis of his assertion that the Bill contains proper checks and balances, but I say to him that the police and crime panel has only two real powers to hold the police and crime commissioner to account.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
Is not the hon. Gentleman doing a disservice to the future police and crime panels? They will doubtless be composed of notable members of the community, perhaps with expertise in crime and the justice system, and they will have an incredible platform from which to address the local media and engage in a debate on local television and radio. I envisage that kind of check and balance on a potentially wayward police and crime commissioner coming from the panels. So they will not have just two powers; they will probably have three, the third being the power of voice.
Vernon Coaker
Of course they will have the power of voice. I have the power of voice here, but I shall still lose the vote, unless something goes dramatically wrong. I can still argue for what I think is right, but at the end of the day a police and crime panel will have no real sanction or power to change what a police and crime commissioner is doing if it believes it to be wrong, apart from the two specific powers that I have mentioned. As will become clear when we debate the next group of amendments, the panel will not even have the power to veto the sacking of a chief constable. The police and crime commissioner will have a completely unfettered power.
The Minister told us that the Government had listened to what the Lords had said, and that a chief constable who was to be sacked would be able to go to the police and crime panel and tell it why the police and crime commissioner was wrong. The panel would not have any power to do anything about it, but the chief constable could make representations to it. That might be a good thing, but it does not alter the fact that a chief constable in that position would have no proper right of appeal. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the police and crime panel can say what it thinks, but ultimately it can be ignored by the police and crime commissioner, except in the two specific instances that I have mentioned.
Simon Hart
In what circumstances does the hon. Gentleman believe that a police and crime commissioner would go solo and make a serious decision like that against all the interests of the community and, indeed, the other elected politicians and councillors who might reside in the area? How likely is that to happen?
Vernon Coaker
There are a number of possible examples. Let me give the hon. Gentleman one of them. If an election is approaching and a chief constable is refusing to follow the priorities on which someone intends to stand, what would prevent that person from saying to the chief constable, “Unless you announce that you will introduce neighbourhood policing, put bobbies on the beat and keep this police station open, all of which I will include in my manifesto, I will sack you”? There is no power for anyone to stop a police and crime commissioner from doing that to a chief constable.
I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in this matter, and I know that he would be as anxious about such circumstances as I would be. He may think that they will never arise, but he and I both know that many situations arise that were not predicted. I should have thought that any Government would want at least to include a provision ensuring that police and crime commissioners did not have an unfettered power, but as the Bill stands it is completely unfettered.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend think that the Mayor of London has already demonstrated such circumstances in managing to get rid of two commissioners of the Metropolitan police?
Vernon Coaker
My hon. Friend's point speaks for itself. It illustrates some of the problems that can arise in connection with police and crime commissioners.
I will not rehearse all of what has been said before, but the Minister has asked us to disagree with the Lords in their amendment, and to reinsert the original proposals on police and crime commissioners in the Bill. The “one person” argument, the “operational independence” argument and the politicisation argument are all still there, as is the lack of power for the police and crime panel—the fact that it is a toothless watchdog—yet the Minister is telling us that he is right, and that everyone else is wrong. In their amendment 6 on the police commission model, the Lords attempt to overcome some of the existing problems—such as having one omnipotent person, as the Government would like—by ensuring that the police and crime panel is established as set out in the Bill and that the police and crime commissioner is appointed from among that group of people.
This group of amendments also addresses the delayed election issue. I know some of my hon. Friends want to say a little more about the Welsh aspect of that, and I fully understand and support their argument.
We oppose in principle both the elections and police and crime commissioners. We also believe that if the Government are going to press ahead, May 2012 is a ridiculous date given issues such as the speed with which things would be required to be put in place and the Olympics. The Government apparently now agree with that, but have come up with the equally stupid idea of holding the elections in November. That would be costly, and there would also be further problems that have been pointed out not by the Opposition—my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary has not pointed this out—but by the Electoral Commission, including the problems of daylight hours and of the electoral canvass going on at the same time. The Electoral Commission is a body that is independent of this House, and it has pointed out to the Minister that it is silly to delay things until November. Moreover, members of that commission have said that the cost of such a delay would be significant.
I therefore ask the Minister to tell us how on earth the Government have arrived at that date. Why are they delaying the elections? Is there any truth in the newspaper reports that it was in order to ensure that the Liberals voted for the Bill in totality? Is this another example of the tail wagging the dog?
Steve McCabe
If we give the Government the benefit of the doubt and accept that the delay is to allow more time for candidates to campaign and make themselves known to the public and for the untried and untested arrangements to be developed to the point where they might actually be implemented, would it not make sense to delay the elections until at least May 2013? That would enable the Government to increase the turnout and save on cost, whereas what they are doing is reducing the chances of a high turnout and increasing the cost, which seems completely nonsensical?
Vernon Coaker
I agree with my hon. Friend about the logic of the Government arriving at the date of 15 November. In speaking to the amendment in question, the Minister in effect just said, “We’re changing the date,” in what amounted to not much more than a shrug-of-the-shoulders argument. The House deserved more than that, because many people say that if we are going to delay this, it is much more sensible to delay until May 2013. Why has this date been chosen? Why is it so special? What discussions have taken place with the Liberals?
There has been much debate about the cost of the elections. How has the figure of £25 million been arrived at? The Government have accepted the sum of £50 million, and £25 million is now to be added to that. As shown by Channel 4’s “FactCheck”, there is now a debate. We have also seen that a referendum that was held on the same day as other elections cost £89 million. Admittedly, that did not include Scotland, and this arrangement is just for England and Wales.
Again, there is no proper explanation, and that fault runs all the way through the Bill. Most of the time the Minister relies on assertion and saying, “This is the right thing to do,” or, “I don’t agree with what other people say.” Very little evidence is given, and there is seldom any resort to any studies that might have been done. Instead, there is just an assertion of what the Minister thinks is the right thing to do.
I shall conclude, as I know that many Members wish to speak—and I see that you are getting a bit restless as well, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Government have offered no real argument as to why these measures should be put back into the Bill, and they have no real answers to the questions that were raised throughout the Committee’s proceedings. They have offered no real argument as to why they think this delay is right, nor have they made any real assessment of the costs involved. They have offered no real argument as to why everyone else is wrong and they are right.
Even at this late stage, the Minister pretends to us that another little tidying-up exercise is needed. The change in respect of the financial code of practice is presented as merely a technical amendment, yet one of the key demands made in the Lords was that a code of practice was necessary in respect of the police and crime commissioners. However, apart from a few sentences of assertion from the Minister, we have no real idea even at this late stage about this financial code of practice, which will govern the way the police and crime commissioners operate. The Government have therefore not just produced another tweaking amendment, but have had to bring forward a major change. That is why we tabled our amendment about the importance of this change to chief constables. The Minister again just dismissed this, but perhaps he would agree with those who say, “Why shouldn’t the chief constable have some real say about what should be included in that financial code of practice and about the impact of police grant cuts on officer numbers?”
This is the wrong reform at the wrong time. If we were to ask people whether they would set as a higher priority this Government spending more than £100 million on the ideological experiment of police and crime commissioners or instead spending that money on police officers on the street, I think almost everyone in the country would say, “Let’s have police officers on the street and not spend £100 million on elections that nobody wants.”
Mr Ruffley
I support the Government amendments, and would like to favour the House with some recollections from the two and a half years before the last general election when I did the job that the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) does. In the course of my shadow duties, I had occasion to speak to a great number of police authorities, crime reduction partnerships and voters and I came to the following conclusion: while police authority members believed for wholly honourable motives that the proposed step was retrograde and potentially dangerous, I could find very little antagonism and opposition to the idea of elected police and crime commissioners—and I challenge the Opposition to produce evidence that that idea is unpopular with the British public.
If we rely on MORI—I do not see why we should not rely on it—we know the following about British public opinion. Over the past five or six years, it has regularly produced findings that demonstrate that police authorities, as vehicles for making the police accountable to the public they serve in any locality, are invisible. That is not a term of abuse. Some of my best friends are members of police authorities, and they take umbrage when it is suggested that they do not do a good job. Many of them do a good job, but the fact remains that they are invisible to the public.
The main thrust behind this proposal is to have a single focal point of accountability, much in the way that the disparate things that used to happen under the Greater London council and all the other bodies associated with the running and governance of London were brought together in the shape of a directly elected Mayor. By and large, that has been a very popular programme of government and a very good idea. Having a single focal point of accountability focuses people’s minds, as the public know that if something is going wrong in policing, there is one man or woman to whom they can go to find out whether it can be fixed and when it will be fixed.
Vernon Coaker
I acknowledge the experience that the hon. Gentleman brings to these debates from his former shadow policing role. He challenged me to produce evidence of where this approach was not wanted, so may I refer him to the Liberty polling evidence produced a few months ago? I cannot remember the exact month when this was produced, but when people were asked who they would trust more to protect their family from crime, 65% said:
“A Chief Constable reporting to a Police Authority, as now”.
Some 15% said that they would prefer:
“A Chief Constable reporting to an individual politician elected as a Police and Crime Commissioner”.
There is some evidence for him.
Mr Ruffley
I will not take issue with the skewed nature of the wording—“politician” is often a dirty word. I have no knowledge of the survey, but what many of the respondents would probably not understand is that the majority of those serving on a 17-person police authority are politicians—nine of them will be indirectly elected council members. So a clear political element is already involved, which brings me on to my next point.
Steve McCabe
It is true that the members of police authorities are indirectly elected and are party people. However, is not the difference that most of the commissioners will owe their allegiance directly to the political party that maintains the machine that gets them into power? They will have two obligations—not only to the electorate, but to the political machine—and so they will be party political commissioners.
Mr Ruffley
The hon. Gentleman makes the reasonable point that these people will fly under party colours. However, when getting elected as Members of Parliament for our constituencies we all fly under a party label and rely on a smooth-running local party machine—that is what we hope it is—to get us elected, and yet once elected our duty is to serve all our constituents without fear or favour. I know that he is a diligent constituency man, as I hope I am. I take up the issues and concerns raised by each individual who comes to see me in my advice centre, regardless of race, creed, colour, faith, party political persuasion and even whether they are nice to me or rude to me. All of us take that view, because it is in the nature of the office we hold. I would be very disappointed if a police commissioner, elected at the ballot box, as we hope will be the case a year this coming November, did not take that same view.
Steve McCabe
I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman is an extremely diligent MP who does not judge the people who come to his advice centre. The difference is that when a member of the public approaches him they know perfectly well that he is a Tory MP—I do not say that in any disparaging sense, because they would identify me as a Labour MP—but when they approach a member of the police they expect that person to be a politically neutral member of the police. People would not expect such a person to be the Tory or Labour police commissioner, and that is surely the distinction here.
Mr Ruffley
There is a difference here, because we are not talking about having police officers—actual law enforcement officers—being party political, and neither is the hon. Gentleman. The commissioner will represent a mode of accountability—on behalf of the public, who will have voted for him or her, and will be able to hold the chief constable to account in a more focused and single-minded way. They will do the job that the police authority attempts to do at the moment. We believe that it can be done better by one individual.
I wish to deal with the issue of politicisation and the democratic mandate. In the last Parliament, the Labour party and my party came to pretty similar conclusions about the accountability arrangements—the answerability arrangements—that currently pertain, as did our colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches; we came to the conclusion that those arrangements were not adequate and that there was a democratic deficit. We know that because of what was said by the hon. Member for Gedling, and although that has already been cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley), I wish to reinforce the point. In 2008, the then Labour Government’s draft legislative programme announced that there would be a Bill including proposals to provide
“a clear and powerful public voice in decision making through directly elected representatives”.
I understand that in the Committee stages of this Bill there were mild flirtations by Labour Members with various forms of direct election, and I think it is entirely proper for the Labour party to change its mind. I understand that the shadow Home Secretary now wants to ditch the whole idea of elections. However, let us just be non-partisan for a moment and accept that in the previous Parliament all three major political parties concluded that there was an argument for having a sharper, keener focus of responsibility. That involves letting the people or person holding the chief constable to account have a mandate from the public, arising from a direct election, on the basis of one person, one vote, in the police authority area over which a police and crime commissioner would preside. There is something incredibly important about a mandate being secured in that way, as both Labour and the Liberal Democrats were conceding in their policy pronouncements as recently as the end of the previous Parliament. So let us not kid ourselves that the end of the world is nigh as a result of this proposal for police and crime commissioners.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument that there is a democratic deficit and that that needs to be addressed. I even accept his argument that the people making the decisions at the moment are not visible. But does he not recognise that there is another problem with electing someone who has responsibility for just one service: it excludes them from the normal political decision making that has to be undertaken by anyone elected to government or local government? Normal decision making would mean that the person involved would have to measure priorities for policing against those for social services, education or recreation. We are really going only half way if we elect only a police commissioner who does not have the rest of the local public services to deal with.
Mr Ruffley
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He has huge experience from being leader of one of the great cities of this country, he knows what he is talking about and he spoke eloquently in August about how the riots affected Manchester. His is a genuine point that is not easily resolvable. The idea is that a directly elected police commissioner will be able to set the precept, and one of the strengths of a police authority—probably the only strength I can think of—is the fact that a proportion of the members of that police authority also sit on the precept-raising authority with their councillor’s hat on. That means there is a connection between the council raising the precept and individual members of that council, wearing a different hat, sitting indirectly on the police authority. That was a useful nexus and it will not necessarily be the case here.
In practice, I would expect any police and crime commissioner worth his or her salt to listen carefully to the priorities of, and arguments put by, the leading group on the relevant precept-raising authority. I do not pretend that this proposal is perfect in that regard. There will be quite a big disconnect between the person wishing to set a police precept and the authority that has to go out and raise it, but that might be the rough edge of an otherwise quite unremarkable proposal. That returns me to my theme and my next point.
This is not a radical revolution that will throw all the police cards up in the air and it is not a case of letting the chips fall where they may. I do not believe that that is a sensible way to make public policy nor do I think it is a sensible way of running the police service. I think we are in agreement on that point. However, many of the powers and duties of the new police and crime commissioner will be virtually identical to those of police authorities at the moment.
At the end of the last Parliament, I was rather a sad individual and I counted the number of duties and powers that police authorities had under a wide range of legislation from the Local Government Act 1999, under which they had value-for-money audit responsibilities, to the police Acts and so on. There were about 120 to 130 such duties and responsibilities and it seemed to me that those authorities exercised quite a lot of power over the police, such as the power to call police officers to account. I struggle to see how the panoply of powers possessed by the average police authority is very different from the powers, duties and responsibilities that a police and crime commissioner will have. We know that the setting of a precept is an identical power and we also know that police authorities, in conjunction with a chief constable, set police priorities and objectives for the year. Police authorities have strong views on the strategic objectives for a local police area and it seems to me that the police and crime commissioner will have similar strongly held views but will have the advantage, at least, of a public mandate through the ballot box when he or she sits down with the chief constable and they set out their plan to run the force in any given police area. Equally, police authorities can appoint and, in certain circumstances, dismiss chief constables. That is a power that police and crime commissioners will have, too. For me, those are the big ticket items.
Vernon Coaker
Given the hon. Gentleman’s experience, I am interested in his view about the unfettered power of the police and crime commissioner to sack the chief constable. Does he believe that should be subject to the same veto provisions as the police and crime panel has for appointment and the precept?
Mr Ruffley
My understanding is that that is not in the Bill, but I envisage that the occasions on which a police and crime commissioner will wish to dismiss a chief constable will be few and far between. As we know, under the old legislation, police authorities had the power to dismiss chief constables, but it was rarely used. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) intervened publicly to say that a police authority should exercise its power to dismiss an allegedly underperforming chief constable. Police authorities used the power extremely rarely, and I have no reason to suppose that an elected police and crime commissioner would be very different.
Mr Ruffley
Even in Bury St Edmunds, I dare say. Let me repeat the other statistic, because it is quite shocking. Fewer than one in eight uniformed officers are available to respond to the public visibly. That includes not only response units going around the streets but also those handling such calls—the visible availability. There must be a better way of asking any chief constable searching questions about why that is happening on their patch or police force area.
I conclude by saying that police authorities have had many years to ask some of those difficult questions, but those two statistics, shocking as they are, represented the situation in July 2011. The police authorities have had their fair crack but they have not been able to squeeze the efficiencies and to ask the difficult questions that they should have. It is time for them to move over and for the police and crime commissioners to have a crack and see whether they can do better. It is in that spirit of cheerful optimism that I support the amendments moved by my right hon. Friend the Minister.
Keith Vaz
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), who is very knowledgeable about these matters. I shall speak only briefly and I begin by apologising because I have to be away before the end of the debate because the chairman of the committee on homeland security from the United States Congress is coming to meet members of the Select Committee to discuss counter-terrorism.
I want to speak very briefly on these matters and I do not want to repeat the debate we have had before about the principle of police commissioners. However, I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said about this being an attempt by the Government to reposition police and crime commissioners at the heart of the Bill. I know that all Members have heard the arguments before and, as we have just heard, opinions are deeply held on both sides of the House.
I shall concentrate on three issues. First, I was disappointed that the announcement of the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner was not made to the House. It has become a feature to announce resignations to the House and I think that such important appointments ought to be announced here first rather than to the BBC and Sky News. However, I am glad that the Home Secretary heard the mood of the House and rushed in here to make her announcement by intervening on my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling. I join the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend in congratulating Bernard Hogan-Howe on his appointment; I know that he comes with enormous experience. He was the only candidate for the position of chief executive of the new National Crime Agency, but he was plucked from that job and made the acting deputy commissioner, and now hehas the top job. It is a very demanding job and I wish him well.
Let me make two quick points about the Bill. As I said in my intervention, I welcome the Minister back, and I think he has done excellent work on the protocol, which is an example of what can happen when a Select Committee makes a recommendation. We called it a memorandum of understanding—we started with the Magna Carta, but felt that was too grand and downgraded it—and it has become a protocol. The Minister and others have been in discussions about the protocol and we look forward to seeing the latest draft—he sent me a draft in July—because it is important that the Select Committee is involved in these processes. That is especially true of the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), who is not in his place at the moment but is very keen on these matters and wants to be involved in the discussions. We have to remember that although ACPO and the Home Office may agree the protocol, the third part of the triangle has not even been elected yet. We do not have any police and crime commissioners, but if we are to have a protocol, they will have to be consulted on it in some way.
Nick Herbert
I should point out that the protocol was negotiated with the deputy mayor with responsibility for policing in London and with a representative of the Association of Police Authorities—the chair of a police authority. That side of policing governance was therefore represented. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that is important.
Keith Vaz
Indeed. I thank the Minister for reminding me. I know that he has mentioned it to me before. He is right. It is important that those two individuals are consulted, but neither of them is going to be a police and crime commissioner. Kit Malthouse is very experienced, but he is already there. A bit of wiggle room may be needed when we get to the end of the process. Let us wait and see. However, the Minister has made excellent progress.
I am concerned about the timing of the election. When Ministers appeared before the Select Committee they were emphatic. We asked them to delay the election until May 2013, after the Olympics, but they emphatically replied that they thought everyone would be able to cope and the election should be held in May 2012. Delaying it until November at an additional cost of £25 million, over and above the cost of police and crime commissioners, is in my view an example of the fact that money can be found when there is a political will to find it.
When negotiations have to be conducted with the Treasury, Ministers are very willing to enter into such negotiations, but I understand from the Home Secretary that the matter has not yet been signed off by the Treasury. When she appeared before the Select Committee on Thursday, she said that she was in negotiations with the Treasury. I should have thought that if the Prime Minister says, “Find the money,” and the Home Secretary says, “Find the money,” even the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to accept that. I am not sure what the negotiations are about, but I assume the Minister will get his £25 million.
Steve McCabe
There is an issue about money, but does my right hon. Friend share my concern that in the past the Government have resisted setting a threshold for the elections? Holding them in November is, as we heard, likely to depress the turnout. What level of turnout would give a new commissioner legitimacy—for example, in the west midlands, with a population of 5 million?
Keith Vaz
I shall leave it to my hon. Friend to decide what level of turnout is acceptable for the west midlands, with its population of 5 million. My concern is the electoral register. At that time, electoral registration officers will be involved in their annual canvass. Nobody likes to campaign in November. I cannot remember the last time we had elections in November, although the Minister will no doubt tell us when he winds up. It has certainly not happened in my time in the House, and I have been here for more than 24 years.
November is, of course, not the best weather to campaign, and I am not sure that everyone will open the door to Members of Parliament, even Members as charming as the Minister and the shadow Minister. The register will be in the process of being compiled, it will not be complete, and the basis of the register will be May 2013. The Minister needs to reassure us on this point, but I hope very much that we will take into consideration some of the comments that have been made. I look forward to hearing replies to some of them in the Minister’s winding-up speech.
Simon Hart
It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). May I say how glad I am that he had such a good shooting trip over the weekend, which I fixed for him with the Indian cricket team? I hope their shooting was better than their cricket.
I support the Government’s attempts to reverse Lords amendments 1 to 4. If I had not been convinced of the arguments for doing so before tonight’s debate, I would have been convinced after I heard the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). I suspect he might accuse me of misquoting him, but he said that one of the problems with the election of police commissioners is that they will have a democratic mandate. Surely that is what the proposal is all about. Arguing against it on the basis of a fear that somebody might have a democratic mandate does not sit comfortably with the whole direction of the coalition Government.
I shall concentrate on two themes—first, communities and the police, as they are affected by the election of police commissioners, and secondly, a wider discussion of the broader consequences. Hon. Members know that I represent a small part of the Dyfed-Powys constabulary area in west Wales. There is always a perception that the priorities and work load of rural police forces are different from those of other forces, and to a great extent they are, but even a constabulary such as Dyfed-Powys, which has a huge geographical area to cover, covers some intensely urban and suburban areas which have all the same problems as any other part of Britain.
That is a particularly good example for the House to consider and to which we can apply the principle of elected commissioners to see whether the arguments stack up. I do not think that anyone on either side of the argument is suggesting that the current situation with regard to police authorities is perfect. Of course it is far from perfect. Nobody is arguing that the proposal is perfect in every detail but it is argued, with some validity, that it is considerably better than the situation we have put up with for 50 years. Let us not forget that police authorities have largely been operating under the same structure for that length of time, yet the challenge facing policing and the social dynamic of Britain has changed radically over that period. It is entirely sensible that we should seriously consider reforming the manner in which governance is applied.
There seems to be no question but that the relationship between communities, whether they are urban, rural or suburban, is at best remote and strained, and that when these recommendations are in place, it will be considerably enhanced. Much of the debate has been about the politicisation of the role. I think we exaggerate that. Having read over the weekend some of the contributions to the debate in another place, I recommend to hon. Members the contribution of Lord Dear, who was a serving officer in the west midlands for 40 years. He was happy to go on the record as saying that his initial reservations about the proposal had been gradually eroded as the debate unfolded.
The idea that there is no politicisation now is absurd. There is a huge degree of politics in policing now. Chief constables make rather adept politicians, as it turns out. They agonise over press releases and over the relationship that they have with politicians in their area. In an intervention, I mentioned my force, Dyfed-Powys. I feel rather sorry for the chief constable. Not only does he have a wide range of MPs to deal with from various political parties, but he has a wide range of Assembly Members representing different parties, and several different local authorities. He has to balance the relationships that he has with all those individuals.
The idea that a single elected police commissioner can storm into that relationship, overpower a chief constable and not be held to account by the numerous other elected representatives in that area is exaggerated. It is an excuse to try and undermine a good idea, rather than an evidential basis upon which to do that.
The role of commissioners will be the political one. To coin a phrase, the commissioners will do the politics, enabling the chief constables to do the policing. I do not know whether many Opposition Members look at the website “Labour Uncut”—it is probably their equivalent of “Conservative Home”—but even “Labour Uncut” thinks this is one of the Prime Minister’s better ideas. I think it goes so far as to say that it is his only good idea, a view that I do not share. It grudgingly reaches the conclusion that this democratic improvement is something that the coalition Government got right.
Continuing the theme of politics interfering with police forces, Lord Dear’s speech in April this year referred to his time in HMIC and in particular to Derbyshire police authority 15 to 20 years ago. If ever there was an example of intense political interference with a police force, that was it. It was staunchly party political and had a hugely debilitating effect on that police force. The consequence was that Lord Dear, in his position in HMIC, had to judge the force to be not fit for purpose as a direct result of the party political interference and the sub-standard police authority at the time. Therefore, the idea that this risk applies only to future proposals and has in no way poisoned the operation of constabularies in the past is also a complete myth. I concede the points made by the hon. Member for Gedling and acknowledge that there are concerns. The Minister has addressed some of those and, I am sure, will address more as the evening wears on.
Taking this from a police officer’s perspective, we can see that it is all the more important to address these concerns publicly now. The argument that this is a one-size-fits-all solution and that, because constabularies are not all the one size, it cannot possibly work in all places needs further explanation. The officers’ concerns about the ownership—not in the physical sense—of staff issues, building-related issues and the more mundane elements of policing are, in debating terms, unfinished business.
We also need to reassure people about political ideology. In our various debates on police reform, political ideology has somehow been labelled a negative influence. If political ideology includes the desire to make a police force more accountable and cost-effective and to give better value for money, that is an ideology that I am more than happy to sign up to. In going about our duty, we should not attempt to scare potential voters in these important elections into believing that someone who adopts ideology should be avoided at all costs. There will of course be political ideology, whoever ends up in these positions and whatever party they represent. Even if the status quo were to continue, political ideology pervades the system.
The Minister will no doubt offer some reassurances on the points raised about the crime panel, although I am less worried about it than others seem to be. There will be a large number of locally accountable people in my area of Dyfed-Powys who will be very sensitive to the risk of one man going off piste and running a solo political operation at the expense of the voters who put him there, which I think would be extremely unlikely.
Vernon Coaker
The hon. Gentleman says that he thinks that would be extremely unlikely, but given the fact that it could happen, however unlikely, and the seriousness of a PCC’s unfettered ability to sack a chief constable, does he not agree that the Bill should at least provide HMIC, for instance, with a reserve power to refer such a sacking to the Home Secretary so that he or she could judge whether anything untoward had happened? Is not some sort of reserve power necessary to protect against such an eventuality, however unlikely?
Simon Hart
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but I am not sure that that necessarily needs to be in the Bill. I think that there are sufficient checks and balances in the process anyway. His question presupposed that the existing system is risk free, but clearly it is not. We have all seen examples of the relationship between police authorities, local communities and chief constables breaking down. I argue that the proposals we have heard debated on numerous occasions so far during this Parliament represent a better and safer version of what we currently have. I share neither his concerns, nor his optimism that we can design a piece of legislation that is 100% risk free. I do not think that that is possible either in this area, or in many others.
To me the arguments that this is an improvement on the existing arrangements are reasonably compelling. However, I take the hon. Gentleman’s point and do not think that it has necessarily been answered in a way that is convincing for us, let alone for the people it will affect directly, either those who will vote, or those who will do the enforcing. Both deserve a clear answer. On that point, further clarification on what action will be taken in the event of a failure is significant, because I am not convinced—I am not sure about other hon. Members—that if the relationship between the chief constable and the elected commissioner breaks down for any reason, there are sufficient checks and balances to ensure that that will not have a negative effect downstream.
Mark Tami
There are constant attacks on the back office, or the middle—a term introduced today—as if these people sit around doing nothing. I do not know what they do, but that is the image that the Government are trying to put across, as if we can sweep all those people away and service will be unaffected.
Simon Hart
I certainly do not think that that is the Government’s position. It might be the position taken by some of the media, but I do not believe for one minute that the Government are attempting to underplay the importance of some of those jobs. I just think that sometimes, in the interpretation, we attach less value to the back office than we do to the front line. That seems to be an interpretation of the tone in which Members from both sides of the House sometimes speak. For those doing vital back-office intelligence jobs, or even those providing relatively mundane services to support front-line officers, that can have a very debilitating effect. I think that the packaging, tone and messaging of this kind of debate is an area where we owe the recipients rather more care than perhaps we have been able to provide so far.
A police officer said to me only this morning that the House is sometimes guilty of basing this argument purely on efficiency. The expression “We’re all in it together” sometimes triggers a groan from Opposition Members, but for many officers who are looking with a pretty uncertain eye at what the future might hold for them and their families, it would be more helpful if we were to say that what is happening is part of rectifying a wider economic issue than we have perhaps been able to stress so far. I also think that there has been a fixation—I try to be balanced about these things, but Opposition Members sometimes test the patience of all of us, and on this particular point a little too far—that somehow there is always a correlation between police numbers and police efficiency. Whatever survey or piece of evidence we tend to look at these days, there is an increasing amount of information, which should enable us to come to the view that the two things are not always connected. They are some of the time, but the idea that an efficient police force is a big police force is a myth that this debate has to some extent helped to dispel.
In public opinion terms, however, we have to go quite a lot further, because that idea leads, unfortunately, to a problem whereby the public have confidence in their police force only so long as it is a bigger police force which is expanding its numbers, whereas we should be reassuring voters and, in particular, vulnerable members of society that an efficient police force, which finds ways of carrying out its work better for less and involving fewer people does not mean that they will not be safe in their beds at night. We exploit the fixation with numbers irresponsibly if the person listening happens to be a pensioner wondering whether they are going to be burgled.
Simon Hart
What emerges from that intervention is that the hon. Gentleman reads Tory leaflets and I do not, and he can keep reading as far as I am concerned, but the fact is that evidence now goes so far as to show even opposite trends. We do not have to go into that now, because I suspect that it is slightly outwith the amendment, but I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman uses his time so wisely.
Having started from the position of being a little sceptical about how a police commissioner covering such a vast area of urban and rural Wales could be effective, I have slowly but enthusiastically come to the conclusion that they will have an incentive to take into account public mood, public aspiration and public desire in a way that the current arrangements do not, and that it is a good thing, because it will therefore automatically lead to police priorities being more sensitive to a community’s requirements. If that happens, public satisfaction with and confidence in the police will, I trust, improve, and if that happens so will value for money in real terms and the perceived value for money of police forces, which are undoubtedly having to do some things that neither we nor they wanted them to do.
Although significant concerns have been well and reasonably articulated in the House, they in no way override the benefits to my constituents of proceeding with elected commissioners next year. We all know that they will not work perfectly everywhere all the time—no proposal that any of us has seen will do that—but one thing is certain: they will bring the community closer to their police force than is the case at the moment, and that is all the more to their credit.
I believe firmly that if we have good chief constables, which by and large we do, and if we have good police commissioners, which I have no doubt we will—let us face it, they are going to earn twice as much as a Member of Parliament, which probably means that they will be twice as good, and there is no reason to believe that they will not be extremely efficient and conscious of the impartial role that they have to play—that will lead to a vast improvement on the existing situation, recreate public confidence and trust in the police force and deliver value for money. As our friends in the Treasury remind us, that is never far away from such debates, but sometimes we lose sight of the fact that we have an economic mountain to climb.
We do not need to go into all that now, but this is one small part of the climb, so I will happily support the Government in opposing Lords amendments 1 to 4, and I hope that other Members will do likewise.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
I will be brief, because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
August reminded us why our police service matters. In the face of the worst outbreak of rioting and arson that that this country has seen in 30 years, terrorising communities all over England, including in Birmingham, our police were truly heroic. They were the thin blue line, acting decisively to restore order in the most difficult circumstances, and they were under outstanding leadership from their chief constable, Chris Sims, a man who acted decisively not because he needed to be told to do so by politicians returning from holiday, or by putative police commissioners, but because he was going to put right a terrible wrong—the outrage of what we were seeing on the streets of Birmingham.
In that process, Chief Constable Sims made it clear to Birmingham Members of Parliament that he was utterly determined to defend the British model of community policing. What was so impressive about the way he put it was this: he told us how he had become a police constable a year before the 1981 riots; how he had lived through some dramatic moments throughout the ’80s, ’90s and into this century, with tensions on the street and, sometimes, widespread public disorder; how he, like the rest of our police service, had learned painful lessons from the mistakes of the past; and that what the police service had done was to fashion a model of community policing that he and his fellow chief constables were absolutely determined to defend—what he called the bedrock of our ability to police more generally and to restore order in those most desperately difficult circumstances.
That model is based on trust, confidence and consent, and it must never, ever be put at risk by the politicisation—of the wrong kind—of our police service, be it loose talk from Ministers of water cannon and baton rounds, which would have been exactly the wrong thing to use, or this proposal to elect police commissioners. We undermine that British model of community policing, with independent chief constables able to make crucial operational decisions, at our peril and at the peril of the model itself.
The proposal for the election of police commissioners is also a grotesque waste of money: £112 million to be spent on the election of 41-odd police commissioners, some of whom might well indeed be odd. That money could put back on the streets 3,000 police officers. In the west midlands, the proposal would also see one man or woman elected to cover an entire conurbation, the nature of which is very different from one end to the other, of 5 million people.
The Government appear determined to plough on regardless with this proposal, as they do with the cuts to our police service—1,200 police officers will go in the west midlands. Ministers must recognise that if they want to spend money they should do so on police officers at the sharp end and on supporting them, not on elected police commissioners, not least because the impossible pressures being generated by Ministers are leading to perverse outcomes at the sharp end in the midlands. They include the revelations in the past fortnight that the police have had to use G4S to undertake major police functions, such as the investigations into the tragic killing of the three young men in Winson Green, the shooting at the Barton Arms during the riots and the murder in terrible circumstances of a 63-year-old in Northfield.
Because the police are so short of key staff, they are having to use G4S, employing many “A19” officers to perform the same duties now as they did in the past, when they would far rather be in a bobby’s uniform than that of G4S—and at £20 an hour, which is far more than police officers would have been paid. The part-privatisation of our police service is the perverse consequence of the pressures that the Government are putting on chief constables at the sharp end.
I would like any hon. Member in this House who went to the people of his or her constituency last May and said, “Vote for me—I will cut the police,” to put their hand up. I suspect we will be waiting for that for a very long time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said in his excellent contribution, we must work without hesitation further to improve how democratic accountability operates. At a time like this, elected police commissioners are the wrong priority at the worst possible time.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I endorse the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) in as much as I pay tribute to the police for the way they handled the recent riots and the like. Where I differ from him is that I would argue that recent circumstances have strengthened the argument in favour of elected police commissioners.
Two of the most widely used words in Government and public administration are “transparency” and “accountability”, and rightly so, yet the idea of proper meaningful oversight by a democratically accountable individual is being rejected or, it is argued, should be watered down in such a way that it would do little more than maintain the status quo. The question has been asked, “Where is the demand for this from the general public?” Of course, that demand is inevitably somewhat limited. Those such as ourselves, local councillors and the like, who take a day-to-day interest in these matters, will argue the case one way or the other. The general public—most of them, anyway—come into contact with the police only on relatively infrequent occasions, and it is then, if something goes wrong, that they want to know who to turn to for assistance.
Police authorities are anonymous and deliver no real accountability. To give an example from my constituency of Cleethorpes, which is part of the Humberside force area, the two councils on my side of the Humber—North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire—have three representatives on the police authority, which has 17 members. On alternate years, they have only two representatives; it is a bizarre situation. People do not know who to turn to because the authority is completely and utterly anonymous.
In the same way that the profit motive energises the private sector, the democratic process and the electoral mandate that it generates energises and gives vitality to public bodies and authorities. Without it, they face a real danger of becoming inward-looking and, very likely, of not delivering the service expected of them by the public. I reject the argument that having elected commissioners brings politics into policing and destroys Sir Robert Peel’s vision, which has served us so well for many generations. As the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) said, there will need to be clear ground rules that establish the working relationship between the commissioner and the chief constable. I was pleased that the Minister addressed that and recognised that we must get exactly the right protocols in place.
Once these ground rules are in place, it is imperative that neither the commissioner nor the chief constable move away from them. Inevitably, the commissioner will have to articulate the concerns of those whom he or she represents and ensure that the policies put forward at the time of their election are implemented. He or she must not publicly undermine the authority of the police chief; nor must the chief constable or his officers undermine or publicly criticise the commissioner.
I said that recent events—the riots and the like—have strengthened the argument for commissioners. The exchange of arguments between highly placed officers who made some very unacceptable and unwarranted remarks was unseemly and undermined the authority of Ministers—or the police, depending on which side of the argument one was on. These attempts to undermine political authority go further than the outspoken comments during the recent riots: such political interventions by the police can trickle down even to parish level. I am sure that many Members will have experienced in their past days as councillors, and so on, the arguments that are constantly put forward to councils—parish councils and the like—that the problem is all due to budget cuts made here or there. In effect, that undermines the elected authority that oversees the police, despite the fact that it is, as I said, somewhat anonymous.
There are alternatives. We could muddle along with the existing system of anonymous authorities manned by sincere, hard-working individuals. However, that system does not meet the needs of a modern democracy, which, if it means anything, must give our constituents a choice between competing candidates and their views on how we should be policed. There have been arguments in favour of elected police authority chairs. Many years ago, I was an advocate of that, but the more one looks at it, the more difficult one can see that it would be. What if the unelected appointed individuals on the police authority disagreed with the elected chairman? Who would win out in that situation? There is a parallel with planning inspectors overruling planning committees; we all know the arguments that that can give rise to. Because of the artificial geography of police force areas such as mine—Humberside—we are not quite moving towards localism, but getting there.
This is not the end of British policing as we know it but a major step towards introducing a system that can deliver the transparency and accountability that I am sure the whole House would approve of.
Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)
I am grateful to be able to speak to the amendment in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. The amendment is specifically about how the Bill affects Wales. In particular, it is about the relationship between the National Assembly for Wales, the Welsh Government and the British Government, and about the decision to hold the election for police commissioners in November.
When we last debated this, we talked about the so-called respect agenda, which respects the views, positions, functions and responsibilities of the devolved Administrations, Assemblies and Parliaments in the United Kingdom. The Minister touched on this in his speech when he rightly pointed out that the business of policing is not devolved—that it is still a reserved matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), who is sitting in front of me, agreed, when he was Home Secretary, that there should not be devolution of policing as we know it to the Welsh Assembly. However, 10 years of devolution have passed, and we now have a shared responsibility for matters that touch on police, crime and justice. Although the National Assembly for Wales does not have a specific responsibility for policing, the Minister knows that half the money that goes to police forces in Wales comes from the National Assembly, because local government in Wales is devolved. In addition, the Assembly and the Welsh Assembly Government have functions and duties that are central to the operation of policing. The relationship between the Home Office, the Welsh Assembly Government and the National Assembly is therefore crucial. I fear that by continuing to push the Bill through both Houses, the Government will damage the relationship between Cardiff and London.
The Minister and the House will recall that, uniquely, the Welsh Assembly refused to give legislative consent to part 1 of the Bill. That is unprecedented. Similarly, because of the special relationship that the Welsh Assembly has to policing, the Culture and Communities Committee of the Assembly asked the Government to delay the implementation of police commissioners in Wales until it saw how the measure worked in England and could understand how it would affect Wales. That request was ignored.
Worse, the Government are now insisting on a November election in Wales without consulting the Welsh Assembly Government or the National Assembly. We have more elections in Wales, as we have had over the past year. We have had the referendum on extra powers, we have elections for the National Assembly and there are local government elections next year.
The Minister knows that the cost of the election for the whole of the United Kingdom, which was a matter of debate some hours ago, will be at least £25 million more than was expected. He says that that money would not necessarily have been spent on policing, but it could have been. He dismisses the additional £25 million on top of the £50 million that was already to be spent. One should compare that with what was said by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who told the House not so very long ago—this is rather pertinent because of today’s and tomorrow’s news—that reducing the number of Members of this House of Commons by 50 will save £12 million. By changing the day of one election, that amount has been doubled overnight—so much for those predictions about money being saved.
Who on earth wants elections in November? All of us who have been involved in elections for too long to remember know that elections in November have disastrous turnouts. Add together the dark evenings and an electoral register still under discussion, and I would place a bet here in the House of Commons that the turnout for the elections for police commissioners will be rock bottom. Heaven only knows who might be elected on a low turnout.
The Minister and others talk about operational accountability. Of course Prime Ministers, Secretaries of State and Ministers do not tell the police what to do. When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and held responsibility for policing, I never told the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland what to do, although we would discuss it. However, can it be imagined that those who want to be elected on a very local level as police commissioner will not campaign on what are effectively operational issues? Add to that that the nuttiest people are likely to be elected if the turnout is low. That is a dangerous development that we face.
Our constituents simply will not understand how we can spend £25 million on changing the day of the election for police commissioners, £50 million on the elections themselves, and millions of pounds on administering the position of police commissioners, when over the next two years in Wales at least 800 police officers will get the sack.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will help me by spelling out the effect of his amendment. Would the Welsh Assembly not need to hold elections for police commissioners or would it still have a duty to select a date for the elections?
Paul Murphy
The effect of the amendment would be to ask the Government to talk to the Assembly and the Welsh Assembly Government, so that between them they could work out an appropriate date for an election.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) said that he had been converted to the Bill over the past couple of weeks. He is almost on his own in Wales, because the majority of Welsh Members of Parliament, the majority of Assembly Members, the majority of the non-Labour members of the Welsh Local Government Association, every single police authority in Wales and virtually every police officer I have talked to thinks that this is a bad idea.
In a devolved system in which the Government share responsibility for policing, the Government should immediately hold discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government and the National Assembly for Wales to talk about the principle of the election and the efficacy of the policy. To put it through in the way they are doing is the complete reverse of a respect agenda. Simply saying, “It is our responsibility in the British Parliament and only the British Government can do this,” completely goes against the spirit of proper negotiation and discussion that was a part of our United Kingdom. That goes to the heart of what this Government are often about: they say one thing and do another.
On this Bill, I join all my right hon. and hon. Friends in asking the Government to think again. In particular, on behalf of those of us from Wales who are concerned about this matter—many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have signed the amendment—I ask the Government to have an immediate discussion so that at least the people of Wales are heard and this preposterous and daft measure can be deferred.
Mr Burley
You will be pleased to note, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this time I remembered to stand up to be called—16 months in and we are still learning how this place works.
I rise to support the Government motions. I start by adding my congratulations to those of the Home Secretary and the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee to Mr Bernard Hogan-Howe on being named the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner. It is the toughest job in British policing. Following the riots, I am sure that everyone in this House would wish him well in his new job.
I will briefly restate the case for the reform of police authorities and explain why it is important, before addressing some of the challenges that have been posed by Opposition Members. The first thing to remember is the simple fact that the police are a monopoly service. The public cannot choose their force. Therefore, officers must be accountable for their actions and their performance. As this Government release the grip of Whitehall by scrapping centrally imposed targets and performance measures such as the policing pledge, the stop-and-account form and some of the uses of stop and search, we need to put in place other means to ensure that police forces deliver. What we are doing with police and crime commissioners is swapping bureaucratic control of the police for democratic accountability. In my view, we are putting in place far greater, far harsher and more publicly visible accountability—the accountability of the ballot box. Anybody who does not believe me should ask any sitting MP.
The second thing we must remember is that most crime is local. It is therefore far better that forces answer to local communities than to box-ticking officials in Whitehall. If local accountability is to substitute for the centralised performance regime of the past, it needs to be strong and democratic local accountability.
The problem, therefore, is extremely simple: police authorities are not strong enough to exercise that alternative governance, and they are not sufficiently connected to the public whom they are supposed to serve. Consider this: only four of 22 inspected police authorities have been assessed as performing well in their most critical functions by HMIC and the Audit Commission; only 8% of wards in England and Wales are represented on a police authority; and according to a Cabinet Office survey conducted just a couple of years ago, only 7% of the public understand that they can approach their police authority if they are dissatisfied with policing in their area.
Virtually no one in that survey knew who their police authority chairman was. In fact, I would be interested to know how many hon. Members can intervene and tell me who their police authority chairman is.
Mr Burley
Only two Members of the House could intervene and tell me who chairs their police authority, which tells us everything we need to know about their visibility. That is from MPs, not the public—we are supposed to know.
These invisible police authorities are supposed to serve the public. That is the same public who have no idea who they are, no idea what they do, no idea how to contact them, and certainly no idea that they cost them £50 million a year.
Paul Murphy
The Government prayed in aid an opinion poll that said that 7% of the people of England did not know anything about their police authorities or what they did. The hon. Gentleman might not be aware, however, that a recent survey in Wales showed that 82% of people did know about their police authority and believed that it did a good job.
Mr Burley
I understand that the survey to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was commissioned by the police authority. It might be that it posed the question to get the answer it wished to get.
A more recent survey has found that a typical police authority receives just two letters per week from the public. Let us compare that with what the de facto police and crime commissioner for London, Kit Malthouse, told the Home Affairs Committee in December last year. He said that when he was first given the title of deputy mayor with responsibility for policing,
“the postbag at City Hall on community safety went from 20 or 30 letters a week up to 200 or 300…We had a problem coping with it. That indicated to me there was a thirst for some sense of responsibility and accountability in the political firmament for the police”.
He said that having one person
“allows there to be a kind of funnel for public concern”.
However, the absence of a direct line of public influence is problematic not only for the public, but for police forces. Back in the 19th century, the founder of modern policing, Sir Robert Peel, said:
“The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.”
After a decade in which public approval of the police fell, it has now started to rise again. That is a welcome trend, but still only 56% of the public say that the police do a good or excellent job, and a survey by Consumer Research last year found that nearly a third of those who come into contact with the police—I do not mean criminals —were dissatisfied. Of the minority who complained, nearly two thirds were unhappy with the way the police dealt with their complaint. The police were among the worst performers of the public services.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that people feel dissatisfied with the police—unfairly, in many cases—because of the lack of visibility of police on the streets compared with previous years, and the ludicrous deployment of police in back-room jobs, rather than out in customer-facing roles?
Mr Burley
My hon. Friend makes a good point. For me, the natural corollary of that frustration at not seeing police on the streets or feeling that there are too many in back and middle offices, is that the public feel that they have no one to complain to. People do not know how to complain. They do not know who their police authority is—we have seen that from the surveys—and there is no single, high-profile, accountable individual to whom they can complain. That compounds the frustration that my hon. Friend talks about. They do not know to whom to go to say, “We want more police on the streets and we are going to hold you to account at the ballot box unless you deliver it.”
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend with his argument. A person who is minded to complain about Derbyshire police might try to find the police authority link on the front page of the Derbyshire police website, but they will find it right down in the bottom left—it has about the same significance as the link to the male voice choir.
Mr Burley
My hon. Friend makes my point for me. I would be fascinated to know whether any of the 43 police and crime commissioners elected next year will have such low visibility on their websites for people who want to contact them or complain about the police. All those points show why the introduction of police and crime commissioners is so important. They are a key element of the Government’s programme of decentralisation, where power is returned to people and communities.
I want the new commissioners to be big local figures with a powerful local mandate to drive the fight against crime and antisocial behaviour. After all, they will decide policing strategy; set the force budget and the local council tax precept; and appoint, and if necessary dismiss, the chief constable—that point has been made throughout the debate. They will do those things on behalf of the public who elected them, and who will then hold them to account at the ballot box.
A key point is that the role of commissioners will also be greater than that of the police authorities that they replace. That is the significance of the words “and crime” in their title. Police and crime commissioners will have a broad remit to ensure community safety within their budgets, and to prevent crime and tackle drugs. They will work with local authorities, community safety partnerships and local criminal justice boards, helping to bring a strategic coherence to the actions of those organisations at force level. In future, their role could be extended to other elements of the local criminal justice system, ensuring that the police and those who manage offenders operate together, working to break the cycle of crime.
In short, police and crime commissioners will be big beasts: highly visible, highly accountable and highly effective. The contrast between them and today’s police authorities could hardly be greater.
Vernon Coaker
Is the hon. Gentleman arguing for criminal justice commissioners? In other words, does he want locally elected people in an analogous role to that of police and crime commissioners in respect of chief constables? In my view, he does want that, but is that what he is arguing for? The House would like to be clear on whether the next stage is to have criminal justice commissioners elected by the local population.
Mr Burley
I am not arguing for that, but speculating how the role of commissioners could develop over time. The key point that I would make to the hon. Gentleman is this: there will be pressure on elected police and crime commissioners to do things in a different way. There will be pressure on them to be far more collaborative with other forces and other police and crime commissioners, for example, as was mentioned earlier in the debate, to drive efficiencies through procurement. There is no real reason at the moment for police forces to collaborate to purchase cars or uniforms together. They have not had that driver, yet they have had increasing budgets for 10 years. The guys who are elected next year will want to work with neighbouring forces. If I were elected as police and crime commissioner for Staffordshire next year, the first call I would make would be to the police and crime commissioner in west midlands, to ask, “Can we do things together? Could we collaborate to procure things together?” I would have a reason to want to reduce my budget so that I could spend it on delivering the pledges that I put in my manifesto, such as a pledge to get more officers on the beat.
The hon. Gentleman and I discussed Tony Blair’s knife crime summit. I was thinking through his logic after he answered my question, but I still do not understand it, so perhaps he could help. It was okay, at a national level, for an elected politician—the former Prime Minister—to hold a summit at No. 10 Downing street, inviting all the chief constables from around the country, who no doubt could have been doing other things with their time, to ask them what they were doing about knife crime, which he had identified as an issue in this country. No doubt he was coming under a lot of pressure from the public, who were contacting him and their MPs demanding that something be done, and quite rightly he called together the police forces to bang heads together and come up with a strategy to deal with knife crime.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
I am beginning to feel sorry for the hon. Gentleman, who seems to live in a really poorly policed area. My area has neighbourhood forums that the police attend. There are ward action teams involving local councillors. There are area committees on which the police are represented. There is an overview and scrutiny committee. In the police’s view, they are almost scrutinised too heavily. The link should be through democratically elected local councillors. There is no shortage of scrutiny of the police in my area. I feel sorry for him.
Mr Burley
I am fortunate to live in a very well- policed area. Staffordshire has an excellent chief constable. He is one of the few chief constables to come out and say that, despite his budget reductions, he will be making absolutely no cuts to the front line until 2013. We have forward looking police forces.
Mr Burley
He has confirmed to 2013. I do not know how long the hon. Gentleman wants him to confirm.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward), I would simply quote his party’s manifesto back at him. Page 72 of the Lib Dem manifesto—I do not know whether he helped to write it—stated:
“We will give local people a real say over their police force through the direct election of police authorities”.
Clearly, there is a problem. All the bodies that he named are bureaucracies. He just reeled off half a dozen bureaucratic bodies that no one has heard of, that no one knows how to contact and that do not deliver what local people want. His own party’s manifesto proposes a highly visible single individual who is accountable at the ballot box, whom people know how to contact and who is not next to the male choir on the website. How can that not be an improvement?
Mr Burley
I meant “commissioners”.
In the time left, I would like to deal with a few of the objections raised today. People listening to this debate in the Gallery could be forgiven for thinking that only the Conservatives want to reform police authorities. This is simply not true. As I said in an earlier intervention, the case for reform of police governance has been made across the political spectrum. There is party consensus in favour of the democratic reform of police authorities, although I accept that there are differences about the best model. I have read out the Lib Dem manifesto, but I ask Members to consider the following quote:
“Only direct election, based on geographic constituencies, will deliver the strong connection to the public which is critical”.
It continues:
“under the current system, 93 per cent of the country has no direct, elected representation. This is why we have proposed the Green Paper model; so that people know who to go to and are able to influence their policing through the ballot box.”
Those are not my words, but the words of the hon. Member for Gedling, the shadow policing Minister, in a speech in 2008.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is talking about Staffordshire. People in my part of Staffordshire do not want £1 million spent on these elections. They want local policing and they feel that the directly elected councillors who sit on the police authority do a good job.
Mr Burley
The hon. Lady speaks for her part of Staffordshire and I speak for mine. I can tell her that people in my constituency do not feel that they have ample opportunity to influence the policing priorities in their area, they do not know what the police authority is, they do not know how to contact it and they do not know how to get involved in all these bureaucratic panels and committees that the hon. Member for Bradford East rattled off.
The Opposition’s latest form of direct accountability is not a million miles from what we are proposing—directly elected chairs of authorities. That is the Labour party’s proposal. It was an idea proposed in an amendment by the shadow Minister in Committee. I was on the Committee and remember him pushing it to a vote. In my view, that would be the worst of all worlds, because we would have an individual with a mandate but unable to deliver it because he could be outvoted routinely by a committee of appointees. This model would cost more and not produce the single focus of a police and crime commissioner.
Many Labour Members have made the point today about the cost of delaying the elections. I think that we should start by reflecting on some wise words:
“We’ve got to go further in demonstrating value for money and delivering efficiency. We are investing a lot of money in public services, it’s got to deliver results”.
That was the now shadow Home Secretary in an interview with The Daily Telegraph in January 2008, when she was Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I could not agree with her more. In fact, I also agree fully with the next quote from the interview:
“Margaret Thatcher did talk about, you know, the housewife adding up the sums. Every family recognises the need to make sure that you can manage each month.”
Quite right too! I am glad that she and I agree with Lady Thatcher.
As so often with Labour, however, when it comes to public spending, it is a case of, “Do as I say, not as I do.” Its NHS national IT programme had a budget of £2.3 billion, but has now cost £12.6 billion—an overspend of 450%. Its pensions transformation programme at the Department for Work and Pensions had a budget of £429 million, but the current cost is £598 million—an overspend of 39%. Its A46 improvement programme had a budget of £157 million, but the current cost is £220 million—a 40% overspend. But worst of all was the cost of the millennium dome. It cost £789 million to build and £28 million a year to maintain.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I think that we might be straying a little wide of the mark.
Mr Burley
I thank you for your direction, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall focus my remarks. In April 2002, the National Audit Office showed that £28.4 million was spent on the dome’s maintenance in the year after it was closed. For just one year of maintaining the dome, we could elect someone who represents our views; for one year of maintaining the dome, we could let local people have a say over how their area is policed; and for one year of the dome, we could replace bureaucratic accountability to Whitehall with local accountability to the people. We will therefore take no lectures from Labour on how to spend £28 million. It is far better to spend it on reconnecting the public to the police than on Tony Blair’s Teflon-coated, flattened mushroom.
The Opposition object to delaying the election to November 2012. I am glad that it has been delayed to 15 November, not 5 November. Having a one-off election at the beginning of the cycle of elections for PCCs is a good idea because it will remove the charge of making them political. There will be no other elections on that day, so the first time that the PCCs are elected, no one will be able to claim that they were motivated to vote in a council vote or in a party political way. I support the delay on the grounds that it will make the first elections of these important PCCs non-political in the public’s eyes. Afterwards, they will revert to the same date as the council elections, thereby saving £50 million over four years.
In conclusion, policing is a monopoly service. The people cannot choose their force. This public service has to answer to someone, and we think that local people should have the power to do something about the problems that blight their towns and city centres. We are determined to rebuild the link between the people and the police forces that serve them, which is why these reforms are right for the people, right for the police and right for the times.
Graham Stringer
I was not going to speak in this debate, but so many interesting points have been made that I decided I would. The most interesting and perverse point was made by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) when he reached his conclusion. He said—I do not have the exact quotation; I am sure that it will be in Hansard—that he envisaged non-political elections taking place. I think that all elections—certainly all those to major positions representing millions of people, as they would in the case of the west midlands, Greater Manchester and our other great urban conurbations—are necessarily bound to be political. I would therefore suggest that he think through a little more what he is saying and doing, because what he described is completely impossible.
I am going to vote with my party against the Government on these Lords amendments for two reasons, even though Government Members have made significant arguments that I support. The first reason is that having elections in November is difficult to say the least. Some older Members of this House may remember that local government elections used to be held in the autumn. They were moved from the autumn because turnout was low, and also because they were a long way from the rate-setting process—it was thought that the finances and the elections should be put together so that the electorate could have a direct impact. They are solid arguments: it would be a mistake to have low-turnout elections in November.
However, that is not the most significant reason why I will not vote with the Government. The second reason is that there is clearly a democratic deficit with the police. There are many good councillors on police authorities in the metropolitan authorities, but they are not directly elected to that position, which means that it is more difficult for elected politicians to have real political accountability to the electorate. However well the chair of the police authority in Greater Manchester does—and Councillor Paul Murphy does an extremely good job in that position—he is not directly elected to that position. However, although I recognise that democratic deficit—I believe in direct elections for local politicians to control the police—it is not just the relationship with the electorate that is deficient; it is the relationship with other local public services.
It is good for the police to have to argue for their budget against other services. It is good for police forces to have to sit down with people whose jobs are about child protection, care of the elderly, transport and so on and argue for their priorities, so that they can understand more what is going on. Unfortunately, we are 30-or-so years into a series of ad hoc changes to local democracy—many have been made for good reasons; some have been made for poor reasons—which have left us in a mess. We need to take a more fundamental look at what is going on in local democracy than just saying, “We’ve got a problem with policing; we can make it more effective by introducing democracy.”
Those are the reasons why I will not be supporting the Government. On the other hand, I should like to remind some of my hon. Friends that democracy is expensive. If we asked most members of the public whether they would prefer money to be spent on two nurses or one Member of Parliament, virtually all of them would say that they wanted two nurses. However, if we asked them, “Do you want to be denied the right to determine locally who provides services?”—whether it be transport, policing or whatever—they will say that they want that right, and that right comes with a cost. Therefore, when people on this side of the Chamber say that now is not the time to spend money on improving and increasing democracy, I do not agree with them. Democracy is important and we have a deficiency; it is just that the Government’s proposals are not good enough at the moment.
The second thing that has been said is that rascals or the wrong people might be elected. Unfortunately, the electorate sometimes get it wrong—some people in the Chamber will know and respect that fact—but that is the nature of democracy, and hopefully they will put it right next time. However important policing is, it is not right to say that we can have a bureaucrat, however high up they might be in the police service, telling elected police commissioners or polices, authorities that they have got it wrong. The people who tell elected representatives that they have got it wrong are the electorate at the next election, not bureaucrats, and I do not think that we can have those decisions made failsafe.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for making a thoughtful and measured speech, but surely his points are equivalent to those made by my constituents in north Wales. They feel the same support for the police, but they occasionally feel frustrated. However, because we have six local authorities in north Wales, they do not know who to approach to get their message to the local police force. The Government’s measure will allow them to identify an individual who they can go to and make their point, so that they can ask for change while supporting the police.
Graham Stringer
I do not disagree with that. The hon. Gentleman makes a clear and explicit point; the point that I was trying to make is that there should not be just one person, who has only one service to think about. That person should also have to engage with the rest of our public services.
Greater Manchester has had an interesting history with its last four chief constables. They have been very different people. James Anderton ran a prejudiced police force. He was openly prejudiced against gay people, while the force that he ran was secretly—although most people knew—prejudiced in a racist kind of way. David Wilmot, who followed, was a very different chief constable who tried to improve relationships with the country. Mike Todd, who followed him, was a different kind of chief constable altogether, and now we have the current one. The interesting point is that the electorate of Greater Manchester have been left out of any of the debates about who their chief constable should be—from the bigot to the effective police officer to the peacemaker—and I do not think that that is a proper process for one of the most important services that is provided locally.
I am sorry, in a way, that I cannot vote with the Government, because there is a powerful argument for improving the accountability of police commissioners and the police service, and I hope that some of the people who have spoken on my side of the House will think a bit harder about some of those democratic arguments. Unfortunately, however, the Bill is seriously flawed, and I wish that the Government would go back and think again.
Nick Herbert
In the few minutes remaining, I want to pick up on a few of the points that have been made. First, however, I should like to add my own congratulations to Bernard Hogan-Howe on his appointment as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. He had a fine record of fighting crime when he was with Merseyside police and, since then, as one of the inspectors of constabulary. He has a challenging task ahead of him, and I am sure that the whole House will wish to congratulate him on his appointment.
Stephen Pound
I am grateful. The Minister is entirely right to congratulate Bernard Hogan-Howe, but I am sure that he will also want to offer a word of commiseration to the other candidates, excellent as they were in their way—particularly, if I may say so, Sir Hugh Orde.
Nick Herbert
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I would like to extend that note of commiseration to all three unsuccessful candidates, all of whom have given great service to policing in their current jobs. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that.
The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), the shadow policing Minister, raised a couple of issues that I would like to address. The first related to the transition costs resulting from this reform, and if I heard him correctly, he suggested that they would amount to some £37 million. He is not nodding, so perhaps he cannot recall mentioning that figure. I would like to ask him where he got the figure from, because it is not one that the Government remotely recognise, and I challenged him on it at the time. If he reads the impact assessment that we published in conjunction with the Bill, he will see that we estimated the transition costs at just £5 million. It does not help the debate if inflated costs are put about. It has been bedevilled by exaggerated costs for the reform and the elections, and I have put on record the fact that I disagreed with some of the figures presented by the Association of Police Authorities. Indeed, I have remonstrated with the association about them. I do not know whether those are the figures that the hon. Gentleman is using, but they are not right.
Vernon Coaker
I stand by the figure of £37 million, which, from memory, some external consultants came up with. Of course the Minister will disagree with many of the estimates that have been made of the costs, because they show that the reforms will cost quite a lot.
Nick Herbert
The hon. Gentleman really must do better than that; he has been a policing Minister, as I now am. As far as I am aware, those consultants were commissioned by the Association of Police Authorities. They made a number of assumptions, including about the additional use of Home Office official time, and those assumptions are wrong. The figures that I gave the hon. Gentleman are the official figures produced by the Government, and it is our formal view—I am basing this on the advice that I am given by officials—that the estimate of the transition costs made by the Association of Police Authorities is wrong; I want to say that again.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of November elections. I am advised that, in the dim and distant past, elections have been held in this country in November and, in the more recent though still fairly distant past, in October. It is of course the case that the presidential elections in the United States are routinely held in November. The next such elections will be held in November next year. Indeed, it was thought possible at one time that the former leader of the Labour party and former Prime Minister was going to call an election in 2007. Presumably, that would have been held in late October or early November, but the right hon. Gentleman chickened out, as we all remember. So November elections are not such an unusual proposition.
I would like to pick up on something that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) said when he challenged my use of the term “middle office”. He said that I had just invented it, but in so doing, he betrayed his lack of knowledge on these issues, and the fact that he has not read Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary’s report, in which the inspectorate helpfully offers a definition of the front line. Indeed, “middle office” is a standard term in policing; it is one that the inspectorate uses. It denotes functions that are not directly public facing but nevertheless involve fighting crime.
I want to return to an important point that I made during questions earlier. A very considerable amount of police resource, and a third of all human resources, are not on the front line. That is what the inspectorate’s report said, and it is clear that the hon. Gentleman has not read it; otherwise, he would not have been so astonished at the term “middle office”. Hon. Members should read that report. If they did so, they would see the inspectorate’s assessment of the number of officers in the back and middle office—the figure is well over 20,000—and of the way in which chief constables should consider whether those officers are in appropriate roles. As the Opposition are making a great deal of the fact that 16,000 police officers must be lost, it behoves them to look more carefully at where police officers are actually employed. There is no need for the front line to be damaged, provided that the right decisions are taken and that policing is made more efficient and transformed in the right way.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) paid tribute to the role of our police officers in dealing with the riots, and it was remiss of me not to have done so earlier, because that was the first opportunity that I have had to do so in the House. I certainly join him in paying tribute to everything that those officers did to protect the public and property, and to everything that they went through. I remind the House that a considerable number of officers were injured during that period. In my view, it is right that the justice system operated swiftly in order to deal with the perpetrators.
In the three minutes remaining to me, I should like to comment on the speech made by the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) on the relationship between Cardiff and London and the significance of the reforms in Wales. I have been engaged in discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government, and specifically with Carl Thomas—
Nick Herbert
I am sorry; I meant Carl Sargeant. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
In those discussions, I tried hard to reach an agreement with Carl Sargeant that would respect the devolution settlement in Wales. I recognise that he did not support the reform, but I pointed out that policing was a reserved matter. We wished to go ahead with it, but we also wished to ensure that the arrangements, particularly those relating to local government—a devolved matter, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out—reflected the wishes of the Welsh Assembly Government. We came up with the legislative consent motion.
I must put it on record, however, that, quite extraordinarily, Welsh Assembly Ministers then proceeded not to support their own motion, in spite of the fact that I had negotiated it with them in good faith. I said at the time that I thought that was a pity because, in doing so, they denied the special arrangements for Wales that this Government had tried hard to promote. It is important to understand that we tried very hard and will continue to try to respect the devolution settlement in Wales on this matter and, through constructive dialogue, to make the reform work in Wales.
Finally, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley), who cited Sir Robert Peel, who said:
“The police are the public and the public are the police.”
The reforms are about devolving power, giving it to the people, protecting the operational independence of the police while ensuring that the public have a right and proper say in how policing is delivered in their communities.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendments 7 to 42.
Lords amendment 43, Government motion to disagree and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendments 44 to 52, 54, 55, 58 and 60 to 79.
Lords amendment 80 and amendment (a).
Lords amendments 81 to 97.
Lords amendment 98, motion to disagree and amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.
Lords amendments 99 to 162.
Lords amendment 163 and Government amendment (a).
Lords amendments 164 to 168.
Nick Herbert
There are many amendments to consider, and I shall be as brief as I responsibly can be in taking the House through them.
Since the Bill was first introduced, a number of points have been made against it, principally on the issues of operational independence and the alleged politicisation of the police, and on the police and crime panel’s relationship with the police and crime commissioner being unclear with the panel having insufficient checks and balances to be able to scrutinise the police and crime commissioner properly. I want to reassure the House that the Government have listened carefully to those concerns. We spent many months considering them, and I believe that we have responded to all the key issues. That is reflected in the amendments we made in the other place.
I will not say any more now about operational independence, as we fully discussed that in our previous debate. I also alluded to the checks and balances, saying that we had made changes to strengthen them, and I want briefly to set out what they are. We have increased the powers of police and crime panels by allowing a veto of either the police and crime commissioner’s proposed precept or proposed candidate for chief constable through a two-thirds, rather than a three-quarters, majority. That was pressed on us early on, and we agreed to it. The panel will also have the power to request the chief constable—or Metropolitan Police Commissioner in London—to attend before the panel to answer questions, alongside the police and crime commissioner; that was also urged upon us.
The changes will also give the police and crime panels more discretion to decide their own make-up, thereby allowing a more diverse mix and better geographical spread. I know how important that is to many hon. Members. The panel will now be able to co-opt additional members, and the provision restricting the number of co-opted members to two will be removed. Instead, provided it is with the agreement of the Secretary of State, panels will be able to co-opt further members, so long as the total membership of the panel does not exceed 20. A local authority will also now be obliged to nominate a locally elected mayor, should there be one. These changes further remove the provision preventing co-opted members from being local authority members; instead, there will merely be an insistence that at least two must be non-authority members. That change allows maximum possible discretion as to the panel’s membership and flexibility across larger force areas or areas where local government structures vary.
Similarly, we are freeing up arrangements in London, where the London assembly will be able to decide the composition of its panel and allow the panel to contain persons who are not members of the assembly. Our approach will further allow the panel to decide the composition of its sub-committees, and allow for them also to contain non-assembly members. We have further strengthened the powers of the panel in London to allow it to veto, by a two-thirds majority, a candidate for the position of deputy mayor for policing and crime, if that individual is not a member of the London assembly. I remember discussing these issues in Committee, so I hope that the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) will be pleased that we have moved towards some of the suggestions he was making then. The changes place a new duty on the police and crime panel to support, as well as challenge, the police and crime commissioner, helping to ensure that they work together in the public interest, rather than having an adversarial or political relationship. That concept of support and challenge is important, and I am pleased that it has been introduced by way of these amendments.
The changes ensure that the London assembly will have all the necessary powers to require reports of the Mayor and to decide the constitution of its police and crime panel. They will also allow the assembly to hold a binding confirmation hearing should the Mayor wish to appoint anyone other than an assembly member to the post of deputy mayor for policing and crime. Our amendments will ensure that regulations regarding the handling of allegations of misconduct can be made in relation not just to police and crime commissioners, but to deputy PCCs, the holder of the Mayor’s office for policing and crime and the deputy mayor for policing and crime.
On PCCs working with police, the criminal justice system and local government partners, the changes will help to ensure that PCCs work well with their local government partners by requiring PCCs to send copies of their police and crime plans to community safety partners and by placing a reciprocal duty on PCCs and community safety partners to have regard to each others’ objectives. The changes will also ensure that PCCs hold chief officers fully to account for the way in which they carry out their duties to co-operate in safeguarding and promoting child welfare under the Children Act 2004. Our amendments will ensure that PCCs have the right powers to hold chief officers to account; they ensure that PCCs can obtain the right information from forces and that the chief officer cannot borrow money or enter contracts, except of employment, without the police and crime commissioner’s consent.
We are also proposing changes in relation to deputy PCCs. These will ensure that should a PCC wish to appoint a deputy, they would have to do so through a specific process and could not appoint certain people, for example, another PCC. That will ensure greater transparency in senior appointments within the PCC’s office. I should emphasise that there will be no requirement to appoint a deputy PCC; our amendment will simply allow it to happen. That inserts further flexibility and localism into the Bill by allowing PCCs the freedom to manage their affairs as they see fit.
We have discussed the appointment and dismissal of chief officers and I raised it briefly in our debate on the previous group of amendments. I wish to reiterate that it is a key part of a PCC’s role and it is essential that it is properly undertaken. Chief constables should not be appointed or removed on a whim or for improper reasons. Police and crime commissioners must take these key decisions fairly and reasonably, and the arrangements must include appropriate safeguards. We have ensured that the chief constable will have the right to attend a hearing of the police and crime panel should they be facing dismissal, and to make representations at that hearing, rather than simply being able to answer questions.
We will also consult the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales on regulations for these arrangements. We have made amendments to allow a retired chief officer to be re-appointed as a chief officer, whereas previously the Bill would not have allowed that. The change will widen the pool of talent available to the service and allow PCCs to appoint the right people to the right jobs. I wish to repeat what I said about the first group of amendments, which is that it is important to get the checks and balances on appointment and dismissal right. I hope that what I have said this evening will reassure chief officers that the Government intend that proper arrangements should be in place to deal with those procedures.
On elections and eligibility, the changes would ensure that the elections for PCCs can be properly regulated by the Electoral Commission, especially in terms of campaign spend. A lively debate took place in the other place about the role of peers in the House of Lords should they wish to become PCCs. There was a strong feeling in the other place that peers should be allowed to stand for this position and, following that debate, we introduced changes that will allow them to do so. We will allow a candidate to serve as many terms as a PCC as the public wish them to serve, rather than be limited to two consecutive terms. That will allow the public truly to decide who they wish to serve as their PCC and heighten the pressure of democratic accountability over them. It seemed on reflection that the two-term limit, which was a constitutional innovation in this country, was not necessarily appropriate.
By introducing a two-stage process for the transfer of police authority staff, the changes will allow police and crime commissioners to be properly involved in the decision about how staff will be split between themselves and the chief officer, rather than the decision being made for them by police authorities before they come into office. That will be complemented by a power of the Secretary of State to direct a policing body to vary a transfer scheme, which is an oversight power to ensure transfers are handled effectively. I believe there is general support among police authorities and chief constables for such a two-stage process.
I ask the House to agree to all these amendments and to pause to note that they represent the fact that the Government have listened to the debates on a range of subjects in the Commons as well as in the other place and responded by tabling amendments. That is contrary to what the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) was saying. We have listened on some of these important issues and have shown ourselves to be willing to amend the Bill and to introduce the necessary checks and balances.
The Government tabled amendments in the other place to allow the police and crime commissioner to suspend or remove a deputy or assistant chief constable who is standing in for the chief constable. I ask the House to disagree with amendment 43, because the Government have tabled new amendments in lieu of it. They achieve the same effect as Lords amendment 43 in respect of deputy or assistant chief constables, but also give the Mayor’s office for policing and crime the same powers of suspension and dismissal in respect of an assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police who is standing in for the commissioner. Meanwhile, we are amending Lords amendment 163, which gave the police and crime commissioner responsibility for complaints against a deputy or assistant chief constable who was standing in for the chief constable, again with the intention of applying it to London as well. I ask the House to agree to this Lords amendment, as amended.
Let me turn now to a couple of amendments tabled in this place. First, I want to discuss the amendment tabled by some of my hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I understand that the amendment is an attempt to deal with what I know is a considerable concern—the matter was raised at Home Office questions today—about the position of Cornwall. As it is a unitary authority, it would have had only one member of the police and crime panel under the Government’s previous proposals. As we debated the matter in Committee, there was general recognition that that would have to be dealt with. We listened carefully to the concerns and that is why the Government amended the Bill in the other place to allow panels to co-opt additional members up to a maximum of 20. In the case of Devon and Cornwall, that will allow an additional five councillors to be co-opted. If the councils agreed to that, once it had been submitted to the Home Secretary it could potentially bring Cornwall’s representation up to six members, which is proportionately higher than its current share of the police authority.
The amendment would mean that when exercising that power, Durham, Devon and Cornwall, and West Mercia police and crime panels would have to try to make representation on the panel as proportionate to the population as is reasonably practicable. Although I do not disagree with those principles, I believe we can trust elected local government representatives to make decisions in the best interests of the public. I do not think that councils would want to take advantage of a perceived benefit by denying other councils in their area sufficient representation. Government cannot prescribe in detail how those relationships can work, but it is important to note that the Secretary of State has the final say in approving the additional members of the police and crime panel who might be appointed. As I said in a letter to the leader of Cornwall council, which I copied to my hon. Friends who are Members of Parliament for Cornwall, the Home Secretary is fully aware of the situation and the potential imbalance in membership of the police and crime panel between Cornwall and Devon. We therefore expect that, in meeting the geographical balance criteria now in the Bill, as a consequence of the amendment that we tabled, police and crime panels with balanced county representation will be produced. That is now provided for in relation to the new members.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I very much appreciate my right hon. Friend’s reassurance and his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) earlier. We like to have a lot of confidence that our colleagues in Devon will act in the honourable way that the Minister has described, but can we have an absolute assurance from him that if that were not the case, the Secretary of State would intervene to make sure that Cornwall had its fair representation on the panel?
Nick Herbert
I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that were proposals brought forward that did not give that proper, balanced county representation on the panel, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would not be happy with those proposals. It is quite clear that Parliament’s intention in promoting these amendments is to ensure a proper geographical balance. The changes are being made precisely and explicitly because there are situations in unitary authorities where that would not be achieved. If there were any attempt to subvert that by nominating members in a way that did not reflect the proper geographical balance, my right hon. Friend would not feel able to approve such a scheme. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured by those comments, but the Government stand ready to meet her and other Members of Parliament from Cornwall, and the leader of Cornwall council if that is appropriate and he wishes it, to reassure them. Had the Bill not been amended, I would have fully understood the depth of their concerns, but I believe that the amendments address them.
On the Opposition’s amendments about the appointment and dismissal of chief officers, I have explained the changes that we have made and proposed on this issue. Important safeguards are being put in place and will be put in place through regulations. The Opposition suggest that even though the panel will already be required to scrutinise the proposed dismissal of a chief constable and even though the police and crime commissioner will be required to consider the panel’s recommendation, the panel should also be able to block the dismissal. I understand that that would be the force of their amendments, but that would give the police and crime panel the power to act as judge and jury on the police and crime commissioner’s electoral mandate to set the direction of the force and to hold the chief constable to account. It would also circumvent the governance structure of the chief constable, who is accountable to the police and crime commissioner, not to the panel. In establishing police and crime commissioners, we are giving the public a strong and powerful elected representative to hold their chief constable to account. Ultimately they should be able to appoint and dismiss that chief constable, subject—in relation to dismissal—to the proper safeguards. That power is available to police authorities. It is fundamental to the reform.
I repeat that chief constables should not be appointed or removed on a whim or for improper reasons. Police and crime commissioners must take these decisions fairly and reasonably. The amendments are not the right way forward. It would create an impossible situation if, in effect, a police and crime panel were able to veto the dismissal of a chief constable who would otherwise be properly dismissed under the arrangements that we are putting in place, as well as under the existing arrangements. That would produce an impasse. No doubt the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) tabled some of the amendments in order to probe the safeguards. I fully respect that, but I hope that on reflection he will recognise that the amendment goes too far and the Government would have to resist it.
The changes that we have made will all help to bring about the much-needed democratic accountability to the public, while ensuring that the strict checks and balances that we were committed to introducing are in place, and that concerns about operational independence have been fully addressed. I am grateful for the scrutiny of the Bill in another place, which enabled us to secure a number of important amendments. I commend to the House our amendments and the approach that I have set out.
Vernon Coaker
It is fair to say that a number of the amendments that the Government have accepted improve the Bill. The Minister was right to point out some of them. I was particularly pleased to see Lords amendments 5 and 7, which place a duty on the police and crime commissioner with respect to the well-being and the safeguarding of children, a topic that we raised in Committee. Those are important amendments with which we would all agree, and I am glad the Government have accepted them. Many of the other amendments have improved the Bill, given that following the Division earlier the Bill is going through with provisions in place for the appointment of police and crime commissioners.
As a result of the Lords amendments, there is now a requirement for elected mayors automatically to be members of the police and crime panel. I gently point out to the Minister that it will be interesting to see the clash of mandates that may occur when the mayor is elected on one crime mandate and the police and crime commissioner on another.
I shall not detain the House. As I said, I accept that many of the amendments mentioned by the Minister improve the Bill. I do not want to intrude on the private grief of Devon and Cornwall. I can only imagine the private meetings and surreptitious phone calls, amendments tabled and withdrawn, reassurances given about meetings, and so on.
Amendment 98 and the amendments in lieu that I tabled would give police and crime panels the power to veto the dismissal of a chief constable. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Minister does not want at least some sort of power to be made available to either the Home Secretary through HMIC, or the police and crime panels, whereby the dismissal of a chief constable can be vetoed.
To be fair to the Minister, the Government have rightly changed the majority required to veto an appointment from three quarters to two thirds, showing that they have listened in that respect, but why do they regard the dismissal of a chief constable to be different from the appointment? A police and crime panel can veto an appointment or a precept with a two-thirds majority. The Minister questions why we would want to fetter or in any way circumvent the power of a democratically elected individual when it comes to dismissal, yet they have done that with appointment and precept. The logic seems to be that if that is wrong for dismissal, we would not have it for appointment or precepts either. I say to the Minister that I honestly believe that this is a significant and serious flaw. Indeed, I think that it is a dangerous flaw.
The Government have included the protocol, which must be agreed by affirmative resolution of both Houses, in the Bill, but we can imagine a locally elected politician with sole responsibility for the police in their area believing that they should be able to do certain things or require the chief constable to do certain things. The chief constable could say, “No you can’t, because that breaks the protocol”. The Minister ought to tell us what would happen in those circumstances. Where there is such a conflict, what will happen if the chief constable says, “I’m not doing that because it’s contrary to the protocol”?
Even if there is a legal means by which the chief constable could try to resist such pressure, each and every hon. Member present can imagine the emotional pressure and the strain on normal human relationships that would result from knowing that, unless they conformed to what the police and crime commissioner was asking, they could be sacked. Who prevents the police and crime commissioner from doing that? The Minister says that it is okay because the Government have amended the Bill so that the chief constable can now go to the police and crime panel and make representations. What use is that?
The police and crime panel, having heard those representations and listened to the chief constable say, “I am being treated unfairly and required to do things that are inconsistent with my view of how I should conduct policing in this area,” may actually agree, but ultimately it can do nothing. The police and crime panel can say to the chief constable, “We absolutely agree with you. The police and crime commissioner is acting unreasonably and has it wrong.” What can it do? The answer is nothing. It can veto an appointment, as I have said, but it cannot veto a dismissal. What sort of framework is that for the Government to set up?
Mike Crockart
I want to speak in favour of a number of amendments. Before doing so, however, I make a plea from the heart as a new Member of the House. I am working with the Plain English Campaign to urge simplicity and transparency in product design and communications coming from the financial services industry. Having faced a minefield of amendments, amendments to amendments and disagreements with amendments over the past few days, I suggest that the Plain English Campaign could well assist this House with some of its processes.
Let me start with amendments 70 to 78 and 80 to 83, which deal with the composition of the police and crime panels. Originally the Bill allowed for a minimum of 10 members from local authorities, or one member from each authority for police areas with 11 or more authorities, and two non-political co-opted members in each instance. Our amendments in Committee sought to create additional capacity within the membership of the police and crime panels. The Lords amendment would mean that there was still a minimum of 10 political members and two non-political co-opted members but allow for a resolution by each panel to appoint any extra number of co-opted members provided that the total number does not exceed 20.
We spent a great deal of time on this subject in Committee and debated at least 40 probing amendments to the Government’s initial proposals. Then, as now, the key issue for the composition of the panel was how well it could manage to meet its balanced appointment objective as set out in schedule 6(30)(3), which bears quoting:
“The ‘balanced appointment objective’ referred to in this paragraph is the objective that the appointed members of a police and crime panel (when taken together)…represent all parts of the relevant police area”—
it says “parts”, not “local authorities”, to seek to ensure geographical balance—and
“represent the political make-up of…the relevant local authority, or…the relevant local authorities (when taken together)”.
That is a very important sub-paragraph. Our amendments proposing to increase the size of the police and crime panels would have given the PCPs a small amount of wriggle room to meet those geographical and political balance objectives. That involved an extra two members specifically to address concerns about balance.
The Minister agreed to reflect on those amendments, and I am happy to see that what has come back here today is a significant improvement, not only on what was initially proposed but on what was included in my amendment. While my amendment would have given an additional two members to help with the balance, these new proposals give a potential eight extra members who could be co-opted on to a police and crime panel, all of whom would be subject to the balanced appointment objective. This is a significant change which gives the vast majority of PCPs the flexibility they will need to ensure that we achieve an effective body for reviewing and scrutinising the police and crime commissioner across all the constituent local authorities. Of the 41 police areas, 31 would have the potential to use the maximum eight additional co-optees and only five would have fewer than an additional four members.
The one question that remains, although the Minister has already dealt with it to a great extent, is what constitutes, or indeed necessitates, the agreement of the Secretary of State to allow for the further co-opted members to be appointed. It is clear that this power is necessary. It would be bitter-sweet to have identified the issue and proposed the amendment to deal with it only for the Secretary of State to fail to agree to the use of that power. I would like to hear more about what circumstances the Secretary of State would take into account before making that decision—as, I am sure, would those who tabled amendment 80. I do, however, thank the Minister for listening and welcome this improvement to the Bill.
Lords amendments 69 and 98 deal with the power of veto for police and crime panels over the setting of the precept and the proposed appointment of a chief constable. The issue that consumed more time in Committee than any other was that of the powers available to the PCP to discharge its duty to review and scrutinise the decisions and actions of the commissioner. We had a wide-ranging debate that examined many possible additional powers. We agreed that the sharpest teeth—or some might argue the only teeth—that the PCP will have is the power to veto the proposed precept and the proposed appointment of a chief constable.
I tabled amendments in Committee to achieve precisely what is now being proposed by the Government. In doing so, I challenged the Minister to reflect on whether any other veto power had such a high threshold of 75%. We argued, with the support of the Local Government Association, that the three-quarters majority required for the veto was too stringent and impractical to provide an effective block on the commissioner. No democratic system places executive power in the hands of an individual without providing suitable and strict checks and balances, and no strong democratic body requires a three-quarters majority to provide such a check on the executive. A veto by a two-thirds majority vote is given to the London Assembly and councils with directly elected mayors in budget matters. That would be strongly preferable and would give suitable strength to the authority of panels. It would align the commissioner model with a tried and tested framework for holding a democratic executive to account.
The move to a two-thirds majority will strengthen local democracy and accountability, and it will be a major step forward. When I made that point in Committee, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) agreed with me, so much so that he was desperate for me to push the matter to a vote, despite the promise of the Minister to reflect on the points raised. However, I took the Minister at his word and I am happy to see these amendments today.
Mike Crockart
No, those are not the matters that the hon. Gentleman pushed to the vote.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) asked the Minister what percentage of amendments moved by Liberal Democrats were withdrawn rather than pressed to a Division. He was told to work it out for himself. I am happy to help him today. It was 100%. And yet, here we are with significant changes to the composition and powers of the police and crime panels. The Minister said in Committee:
“We are all adjusting to coalition politics, but it is interesting that Opposition Members are finding it harder than we are.”––[Official Report, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Public Bill Committee, 8 February 2011; c. 456.]
Seven months on, that does not seem to have changed.
Finally, I would like to consider a missed opportunity that the Government may live to regret, although I hope not. Government Lords amendments 33, 87 and 88 relate to clause 31, which covers the suspension of police and crime commissioners. We discussed this provision in Committee and identified a drafting error, which I am happy to see has been corrected. We also discussed whether the correct threshold had been set for suspension. At present, suspension is possible only when an individual is charged with an offence punishable by a
“term of imprisonment exceeding two years.”
That threshold rules out a number of potential charges which, were they hanging over him, would seem to make it incredible that a police and crime commissioner could continue to hold a chief constable to account. Those charges include assault with intent to resist arrest, racially or religiously aggravated assault, racially or religiously aggravated harassment and a number of others that were outlined in Committee. I am disappointed that the Minister, after reflecting, has not included this change in his amendments.
The Minister did propose that the power for a police and crime commissioner to stand down voluntarily would be introduced. He said that that would provide a better way to deal with such situations. Alas, unless I am looking in the wrong place, that is not in the Bill or in the amendments. That is a missed opportunity, because it leaves the potential for embarrassing situations to arise.
Vernon Coaker
I want to know exactly where the Liberal part of the Government stands on this. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he supports my proposal that the police and crime panel should have the power to veto the dismissal of a chief constable?
Mike Crockart
I will make it very clear that I do not support the hon. Gentleman’s proposal, although there is an outstanding question and some further work is required. Employment law would look on the ability to dismiss someone without an appeal as being dubious at best, so there is possibly a legal aspect to look at. However, when we look at the powers in the Bill on the suspension and removal of chief constables, we see that the situation is not quite as simple as the hon. Gentleman makes out. It is not just a case of the police and crime commissioner wanting to get rid of the chief constable and his being gone the next day. A long, public process—six weeks—is kicked off, involving the panel, notifications and representations.
I do not believe for a second that any police and crime commissioner would set out on such an open and public process without a very strong case for the dismissal of a chief constable. To do so would lay the commissioner open to a very high level of public scrutiny. I cannot see a publicly elected official opening themselves up to that level of scrutiny without sufficient cause. The process that the Bill lays out will effectively stop that situation ever arising.
To conclude, the Bill brings public accountability of the policing function out from the shadows. Community safety, and the fight against crime and disorder, deserve nothing less.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart), who has followed this Bill throughout its passage. He served on the Public Bill Committee, as did other right hon. and hon. Members who are in the Chamber, and he has clearly devoted a huge amount of thought over recent weeks and months to what aspects of the Bill need to be amended. Given that I am arriving at this late stage of the debate, I am grateful for the benefit of his thoughts, just as I am grateful to other hon. Members for their contributions.
My hon. Friend referred to his work with the Plain English Campaign on simplifying the language of financial products and so on. For new Members and perhaps those of us who are less familiar with speaking in debates on Lords amendments, he also pointed out how important it is to ensure that we get our terminology right. In that light, I am rising to speak to amendment (a) to Lords amendment 80, which is in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Other Cornwall Members who are in the Chamber are very sympathetic to the proposal, although their names are not appended to it, and we heard another hon. Member raise this issue at Question Time.
The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), with whom I had the pleasure of spending some time to discuss the Academies Act 2010, said that he did not want to intrude on any private grief in Devon and Cornwall. I can assure him that it is not grief, and nor is it private—we are here discussing the matter in public. It will not come as a surprise to him or anyone else that concerns have been raised in Cornwall, which is represented by a unitary authority that brought together the functions of the previous six district councils and Cornwall county council to form one body. The concern is that, as of right, we would have only one representative on the police and crime panel or crime and police panel—whichever way round it goes.
Dan Rogerson
I defer to the right hon. Gentleman, who has lived and breathed the panels for a long time.
As we have heard, in neighbouring Devon, where they still have district councils, every council will get representation on the panel, as I understand it, regardless of the huge disparities in population between some of the smaller district councils in Devon and the Cornish unitary authority and the unitary authorities in Torbay and Plymouth—the major city on our peninsula. The message coming strongly from members of the public and elected representatives—in the form of Cornwall councillors—is that they are deeply dissatisfied that this issue has not been resolved to the point where they feel that all areas are getting equal representation. I am sympathetic to that.
The Minister has set out, very helpfully, the possibility of using co-option. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) said, that has been pressed for a while, and I am delighted that the Government have responded by allowing this flexibility so that local circumstances can be accommodated. We are familiar with the police authority model—I accept that it is a different type of body—under which geographical areas are represented. We want to ensure a range of views on those bodies, and co-option has been used to ensure that people from different backgrounds, for example, are represented on those organisations. That is important. Before the census this year, people in Cornwall pressed for the opportunity to recognise their Cornish identity and for it to be enumerated in the census. I was delighted when a friend of mine sent me a picture of her son’s data-monitoring form in Hertfordshire, where they were able to circle “White, Cornish”.
I am departing from the point a little, but I am merely trying to make the point that those of us in Cornwall who are proud of our Cornish identity would not want to feel that we were being given less of an opportunity to put our point across than our neighbours in the most westerly English county, Devon. Amendment (a) would give a bit more of a steer on how the power of co-option could be used to ensure that such concerns are dealt with. I do not think that the amendment goes far enough to reassure everybody in Cornwall that there is equality of opportunity in seeking representation on the panel, but given where we are in the passage of the Bill, it is as far as we can go while still being in order, given what is in Lords amendment 80.
I want to ask the Minister about the Secretary of State’s discretion to approve or not to approve the pattern of co-option that members of a panel put to her. Clearly she could decide to reject a series of proposed co-options on the basis that they did not reflect adequately the geographical make-up of that policing area. The Minister pointed that out, helpfully, although I hope that it would not be necessary. As the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) said, we would hope that the members of the panel who were there as of right would seek automatically to use the power of co-option constructively to secure proper representation. Hypothetically, however, should they not do so but instead seek further to entrench the position of their communities with regard to the make-up of the panel, it would be reassuring to know that the Secretary of State could have regard to the need to secure equality and therefore reject the co-options.
However, it occurs to me that were such a panel happy not to alter the geographic balance, it might simply not put forward any co-options at all. That is the fear, although we are dealing with a hypothetical situation, and I imagine—indeed, I hope—that, as the hon. Lady said, those appointed under the Bill as it stands would not seek to do that, but would listen to our debate today and to the debate out there in the community, and would reassure people by using the power of co-option in the way that the Minister has suggested would be helpful. Therefore, my question for the Minister is: if those panels decided not to go down the co-option route, what message could be sent to say that the Secretary of State would be looking to them to act in that way? What discussions might the local authorities have among themselves prior to the constitution of the panel to address some of those concerns?
Sarah Newton
My hon. Friend is making a comprehensive and thorough argument for the depth of feeling of people in Cornwall. He is getting to the essence of the issue, which is that we would prefer to have our positions in Cornwall by right, along with our colleagues from Devon and the Isles of Scilly. Therefore, our great desire is to have it made crystal clear this evening—so far we have been unable to achieve this—that we will have our positions by right and that the Secretary of State will make every effort to ensure that we truly are represented fairly on that panel.
Dan Rogerson
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She is absolutely right, and that is the reassurance that people in Cornwall are looking for. Our amendment (a) to Lords amendment 80 is an attempt again to put on record the strength of feeling and the concerns that exist.
There is a wider point, which is that occasionally there are anomalies in legislation—this has applied to Governments historically—which, by their nature, will not apply to the vast majority of cases and are therefore not felt to be at the heart of what that piece of legislation is trying to do. However, as we—I hope—move as a country down the route of localism, where different authorities perhaps decide to take on different responsibilities and powers, it is important that we should have different ways of working locally and that legislation be drafted to take account of that. Perhaps that could be done through secondary legislation, to address specific examples such as Cornwall. I appreciate that there is a concern about time—the Minister will want to move towards the elections for police commissioners, and therefore the appointment of panels—but where only one or two specific areas are affected, following them up through such legislation might be a better approach. It might be too late to do that in this legislation, given how it is drafted, but the message for the Government generally is that, as we have different systems in different parts of the country, we should take the opportunity to pick that up and deal with them separately without holding back the overall thrust of legislation as it applies to the country as a whole.
I am grateful to the Minister for responding to that concern—he has corresponded with people back in Cornwall about the issue. However, I seek a reassurance from him that should the panel not to seek to co-opt, there will be a direction from the Secretary of State or some discussion with the local authorities involved to ensure that the debates that have taken place outside and inside this House—those that we have had this evening, as well as over previous months, in other stages of the Bill’s progress—are taken into account, so that people are reassured and we can proceed to a panel in which people can have every confidence.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) and for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart). I wish to speak to Lords amendments 69 and 98. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West is leaving the Chamber, but I would just like to tell him that I enjoyed his contributions in Committee, and that when I was on a Home Affairs Committee trip to Turkey, I spent several long bus journeys reading his voluminous contributions, including those on Lords amendment 68. He put the case for the panel being able to veto certain mechanisms with a two-thirds, rather than three-quarters, majority. I was persuaded by his arguments, and I welcome the fact that Ministers have now adopted those proposals.
Nick Herbert
We have had a good debate and a rather more technical one on this group of amendments. The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) began by setting out the reasons for his amendment that was intended to achieve a veto over the dismissal of chief constables on the part of the panel. I addressed the issue when I first spoke to this group, so I shall not detain the House by repeating all those arguments, except to say that I think there is a distinction between the area of the appointment of the chief constable and that of dismissal.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is process around dismissal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) pointed out very well. We are introducing further safeguards in regulations, and we have given a stronger role to the inspectorate of constabulary. The exercise of the power of dismissal is not untrammelled: proper safeguards are in place. However, giving a panel of appointees the power of veto over a dismissal that would be merited under the existing arrangements and through proper process, and allowing them to insist that the chief constable remain in office when the police and crime commissioner legitimately wished that chief constable removed, would be a recipe for complete deadlock in local policing. That is one reason why it would be inappropriate to extend the veto in that regard. I fear that we will simply disagree on the matter, but I agree about the principle that there should be proper process around dismissal.
Vernon Coaker
Should the Government find out that there was a problem with the process in due course, would primary legislation be required to change it, or could it be changed through an order-making power or a process other than primary legislation?
Nick Herbert
We are putting in place regulations in relation to the procedures for when a police and crime commissioner wishes to dismiss a chief constable. We are discussing that with the Police Advisory Board. There is an order-making power.
Vernon Coaker
Is the Minister saying that, if the Government were to decide in due course that a veto power with respect to dismissal was appropriate, primary legislation would not be required to introduce it?
Nick Herbert
To clarify the matter for the hon. Gentleman, the procedures do not extend to the power of the panel. If we wanted to give the panel the power of a veto, that would have to be determined by primary legislation. The matter must, therefore, be settled now. I have set out the Government’s case fully, but it seems that he disagrees with us.
Mark Reckless
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that what he is saying would apply also to my point? Although the Localism Bill contains mechanisms for a referendum, were we to want to use that to settle a dispute between the panel and the commissioner, the provision would have to be on the face of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill or, perhaps better, the Localism Bill, for the panel rather than the Secretary of State to have that power. Without that, we are left solely with the “have regard” formulation.
Nick Herbert
I hope to be able to answer my hon. Friend’s question in a moment.
I had already sought to addressthe issue of the position of Cornwall as a unitary authority, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) raised very well with his amendment. I hope that my earlier comments about the power under the Bill will help to answer his concern.
Having spotted that the amendment did not allow the Secretary of State to impose unilaterally members who had not been proposed by the police and crime panel, the hon. Gentleman raised the interesting question of what would happen if the panel did not propose any co-opted members. He was right to suggest that we would not have the power of direction, but discussions would of course take place, and I have already indicated that we would be unhappy if a proposal for additional members of the Devon and Cornwall police and crime panel did not reflect geographical balance. We would certainly seek meetings with the relevant local authorities to discuss the issue.
Mark Reckless
There are two potential issues in the Secretary of State’s involvement. One of them is to do with setting an excessive precept level in respect of the Localism Bill, and the other arises when a panel vetoes and the commissioner “has regard to” that, and the panel and the commissioner have a dispute. My concern is that unless the commissioner or panel make a decision—although I cannot see how that can happen given the reference to “have regard”—these regulations will lead to an appeal to the Secretary of State, who will then in some respect have even greater central power than under the current system.
Nick Herbert
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s point to the extent that there are two checks in this process: the check that is provided by the police and crime panel, thereby giving a voice to local authorities in this matter, with every local authority in the policing area represented on the panel; and the check that is provided ultimately by the people, triggered by the Secretary of State suggesting that there may be an excessive precept and substituting, effectively, a democratic lock for an administrative lock. My hon. Friend is right that two procedures are riding side by side in this respect, and we have to work out how they fit together. We hope to achieve that through the regulations. We are, effectively, following the proposals on the democratic lock set out in the Localism Bill, but I repeat that I would be very happy to have a meeting with my hon. Friend to discuss how these regulations will be shaped and how we might establish procedures that are workable and that ensure policing does not grind to a halt if there is a dispute. I hope that what I have said reassures my hon. Friend in the interim, and I look forward to having those discussions with him.
I think I have now responded to all the issues raised in what has been a useful, if somewhat technical, debate.
Lords amendment 5 agreed to.
Lords amendments 7 to 42 agreed to.
Lords amendment 43 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) and (b) made in lieu of Lords amendment 43.
Lords amendments 44 to 52, 54, 55, 58 and 60 to 97 agreed to.
Schedule 8
Appointment, Suspension and Removal of Senior Police Officers
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 98.—(Mark Tami.)
Business without Debate
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
petition
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
Order. May I appeal to Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, affording the same courtesy to the hon. Gentleman that they would want to be extended to them in similar circumstances?
Greg Mulholland
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I present a petition on behalf of the Friends of Spring Gardens campaign group, a group in my constituency formed by families, friends and supporters of residents facing the loss of their care home as a result of a raft of care home closures across the city by Leeds city council.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Leeds,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that Leeds City Council should act now to stop the closure of Spring Gardens care home in Otley; notes that the home is the only council-run care home in the Otley catchment area; also notes that most of the residents are in their 80s and 90s and the closure of the home would severely disrupt their lives.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Leeds City Council to take the necessary steps to stop the closure of Spring Gardens care home.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000956]
Swansea Coastguard
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin Caton (Gower) (Lab)
In April, together with five other south Wales MPs, I responded to the original coastguard reform consultation exercise, “Protecting our Seas and Shores in the 21st Century”. In that response we expressed our reservations about the whole approach being proposed and the absence of alternative options. We argued that the proposals were so seriously and dangerously flawed that they should be withdrawn to allow proper consideration of a new plan, built on the skills and expertise of our coastguard, that properly rewards them for their work and provides them with adequate equipment and systems to deliver a service fit for the 21st century. That remains my position. I believe strongly that, in Wales, Holyhead, Milford Haven and Swansea should all be kept open as 24-hour coastguard stations.
However, I will not use my time this evening to repeat arguments made in that consultation process and in earlier, more general debates about coastguard reform in this House. Instead, I want to concentrate on the case for the retention of Swansea maritime rescue co-ordination centre, which is based in Mumbles in my constituency. The Swansea centre is by far the busiest on the Welsh coast and, indeed, one of the busiest in the country, dealing with more incidents every year than Holyhead and Milford Haven put together. It is responsible for the whole coast from Carmarthen in west Wales to Gloucester in England and down the Bristol channel on the English side as far as the Cornish border. In doing so, it liaises with six police forces and a large number of other professional and voluntary emergency services. It has a range of expertise and a track record that is second to none. It also provides the base for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s regional business unit, which deals with accounts, surveys and so forth.
In the original consultation document on the reform plans, it was proposed to retain Swansea coastguard, albeit on a daylight hours basis, and close Milford Haven. Then, in July, the Secretary of State for Transport reversed that recommendation in his statement on coastguard modernisation. I do not know whether the Minister has any idea of the alarm and outrage that have been aroused in the Swansea area and spread around the south Wales coast and down the other side of the Bristol channel as a result of the statement.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, as the highest concentrations of incidents are on the Gower and north Devon coasts, it is positively perverse to consider closing Swansea, which is the busiest station with the more detailed knowledge of the greater area?
Martin Caton
I completely agree with my hon. Friend.
People who know the coast and the waters covered by the Swansea centre cannot believe that the Government are proposing that there should be no coastguard station anywhere on the Bristol channel. These people know how dangerous a place the channel can be. It has the second highest tidal range anywhere in the world, which is potentially a fantastic resource for power generation, but also a source of increased risk to people on the sea and the coast. They have seen the increase in shipping traffic in recent years and, even more so, the massive growth in coast and marine leisure activities in the area, which has put more and more demands on our coastguard, but demands that the Swansea station has always been able to respond to.
There is a massive campaign, centred in Swansea, but involving people around the Bristol channel. It is cross-party, involving Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Labour and Plaid Cymru supporters, and many more people of no political affiliation. A “Save Swansea Coastguard” petition has so far attracted more than 100,000 signatures, and I understand that the number of individual responses to the new consultation on the changed recommendation that call for Swansea to be saved will be at least in the hundreds. Today, that campaign brought its message to the House via the River Thames.
In a letter to me on 16 December 2010, the Minister wrote:
“On the basis of an evaluation of the existing sites and the facilities available at them, it is proposed that three of the proposed sub-centres be located at Falmouth, Humber and Swansea.”
This evaluation was on the basis of a location assessment document that provided the criteria for comparing the existing stations. We can only hope that this was a comprehensive piece of work, because it was the basis for deciding which network of centres could best deliver the service on which this country’s marine and coastal safety depends.
I was therefore surprised that the Secretary of State, in announcing the changed proposal, felt able to say:
“In the light of a further review of the potential costs of vacating the existing sites in Swansea and Milford Haven which has shown that there are no financial reasons to favour either location”,
and then go on to say,
“we should retain the coastguard centre at Milford Haven rather than the centre at Swansea.”
I think that that is wrong. The Swansea centre is a freehold building with a long-term ground lease, providing long-term security of tenure. There is virtually no rent. The Milford Haven site is rented at something like £25,000 a year.
Both the Secretary of State and the Minister for Shipping have also maintained that, from an operational point of view, Milford and Swansea are level pegging, but in fact Milford and Swansea have never been equivalent in operational capacity—if an objective judgment is made. One way to make one is to employ the very location impact assessment criteria used by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to choose the best sites for the future coastguard network.
I am grateful to have received from the MCA a copy of the document setting out those criteria. When we study it, we find that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to believe that it was used at all in deciding between Swansea and Milford. One important factor that the MCA highlights is the need to make best use of the agency’s existing property portfolio. It states:
“This is particularly the case where there are other MCA functions currently co-located with an MRCC”.
Swansea shares its centre with the MCA regional business unit and a radio site.
Another criterion to be employed, according to the MCA, is population. It states:
“Sub-centres would most sensibly be located in areas with a reasonably large population and pool of job seekers to facilitate future recruitment”,
and that is significant when considering Milford and Swansea, because in recent years the agency has found it difficult to recruit in Pembrokeshire. In fact, of the past six coastguards appointed to Milford Haven, only two have been from Pembrokeshire; the rest came from other parts of Wales, including Swansea. In addition, the location impact document states that
“it makes sense to have the sub-centres evenly spread.”
Switching from Swansea to Milford, however, makes them less evenly spread.
Finally, the agency states that
“the broad co-location of a co-ordination centre with the volunteers of the coastguard rescue service, other search and rescue partners and local regional resilience fora is a factor in the overall assessment of preferred sub-centre locations”.
Again, Swansea is the better site—even more so because so many Swansea coastguards are also volunteer rescue officers.
So, using the MCA’s own location assessment document, we find that Swansea outscores Milford on just about every criterion. Swansea is by far the better location, but a sensible location assessment process should look at other factors: the quality of communication links by road, rail and air; the comparison of facilities and space at the centres; the comparison of broadband links at the centres; and hotel space availability in case of major incident. Again, Swansea proves the better option by a long way.
I hope that in responding the Minister will be able to tell me whether those MCA criteria, and the other factors that I have suggested, were used in deciding between Swansea and Milford. He should be able to do so, because we know that the decision was made by Ministers, not by the MCA.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable concern of Swansea’s inward investors, not just in tourism but in industries such as wind farms, shipping and ferries, about the risk of removing Swansea? Given the growth of those industries, the value of those investments completely dwarfs the cost savings that the Minister is trying to engineer.
Martin Caton
My hon. Friend makes a very valid point.
As I was saying, this was a ministerial decision. Sir Alan Massey, the chief executive of the agency, told us so when he came to Swansea. He said:
“Ministers have made this judgement based on employment and that's way above my pay grade!”
But that is not exactly what Ministers have done, is it? If Milford and Swansea had been exactly equal, and I believe I have demonstrated that they are clearly not, I suppose that it would have been reasonable to have taken into account comparative unemployment in the two catchment areas. If Ministers had done that, they would have established that unemployment in the Swansea area is worse than in the Milford area, but that is not what they did. Perversely, Ministers decided to look at how many Department for Transport jobs there are in each location.
Mrs Siân C. James (Swansea East) (Lab)
I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the suggestion that there might be too many Department for Transport jobs in Swansea. One implication in the Government’s proposal document was that there would be ample opportunity for coastguard employment in other areas, such as in the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.
Martin Caton
My hon. Friend has a close association with the DVLA, and I know that she knows there is no overlap between its work and that of the coastguard.
So, the Government say that Milford Haven should have the coastguard. What nonsense. Any logical method of deciding the best sites for operational effectiveness appears to have been abandoned and replaced with that strange new criterion, which can only be described as arbitrary at best.
In responding, can the Minister please inform the House whether, when he and the Secretary of State decided to recommend closure of Swansea and retention of Milford Haven, they took into account the quality of road, rail and air communication; available population for recruitment purposes; the fact that Swansea is larger, more flexible, rent free and has a much better broadband link; the fact that the MCA regional business unit is co-located with the MRCC and a radio site in Swansea; and the fact that MRCC Milford Haven is close to a number of sites relating to COMAH—the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999?
If the Minister’s answer to those questions is yes, that prompts the biggest question of all: in that case, how on earth could he and the Secretary of State have come to the recommendation that they did? I am sure that there will be much speculation about that in the weeks and months ahead, but I will not go down that road this evening. Rather, I appeal to the Minister to look at all these factors now and after the consultation period ends, take them all into account and give them their due weight. Maritime and coastal safety demands that we have the best network of maritime resource co-ordination centres that we can achieve, and logic demands that that includes Swansea.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
It is a pleasure to respond to this debate, and a pleasure, at this time of night, to see so many hon. Members in the House to listen to a debate about a very serious subject that the hon. Member for Gower (Martin Caton) knows I take very seriously within my portfolio. Earlier, I apologised to him personally for the fact that my office had not informed him that I would be in his constituency last Tuesday—an error for which I take full responsibility.
When I took up this wonderful ministerial position following the general election and my appointment by the Prime Minister I found many documents on my desk, one of which was about the modernisation of the coastguard. It is not traditional to have a shadow spokesman present in such debates, but the current shadow Minister was the Minister with my portfolio when the original consultation proposals were put on the table. The situation that I inherited in this part of the world was that there were three MRCCs. I have to emphasise to the public that these are co-ordination centres, not the places where the people who physically carry out the rescues are based. I think there has been some confusion about that around the country. The volunteers are certainly not touched by this; in fact, their roles will be enhanced and there will be more equipment and more people to facilitate the work that they do.
I inherited the situation that we would go from having three co-ordination centres in Wales to having one. Nobody disputed that at any time when I went round to each of the coastguard centres. Everybody knew that the coastguard needed to be modernised. That had been the subject of dispute for many years, with huge disruption to a national emergency service. As the hon. Gentleman said, we therefore made the decision to go with the original proposals and we went out to consultation on that basis.
I have said from the outset in all the debates, publicly and in the meetings I have had with hon. Members from various parts of the House and in places that I visited around the country, that we would come out of the consultation with a different set of proposals, because otherwise there would have been no point in having the consultation—it would have been a sham. We have experienced sham consultations in this House over the years—I certainly did as a Back Bencher—and I would not allow that to happen. I was absolutely adamant that we would go out and listen and ensure that we came out of the listening process with a 21st-century emergency service that had a resilience it did not have when we went in, and that we would look carefully at the concerns of the public and, probably more importantly, the coastguard—the experts who are there doing the job day in, day out—about the future requirements.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
I want to draw the Minister’s attention to my constituency, where we have Brean, which is a holiday destination, Berrow, and Burnham-on-Sea. Burnham-on-Sea is unique—it has peculiar tides and very swift and difficult changes on the mudflats, where any number of people and vehicles will become stranded over the summer. I have visited the volunteers who make up the local crews for Burnham-on-Sea coastguard and the Burnham area rescue boat. They have such a hard job to do, and they are very alarmed, as are local people, about the closure of Swansea, which would leave us in Somerset looking to Milford Haven, which is 60 miles to the west.
Mike Penning
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. If she bears with me, I will address those concerns as part of my response to the hon. Member for Gower. More importantly, the concerns were addressed to me only on Tuesday when I was in Swansea, and I will come on to that.
As I was saying, we were determined to come out of the consultation having listened to the concerns of the public, Members of this House and, importantly, the coastguard. When I went around the country, the first station that I went to was Liverpool. Just as on Tuesday, there was a picket. I pay tribute to the picket that happened in Swansea when I was there. As it was described in the press, it was a silent picket. The people were unbelievably generous to me. When I went down to them after I had driven in to explain the process to them, they listened intently and thanked me for coming. That is the response that I have had all around the country.
Martin Caton
My feedback from the Minister’s visit has been very positive. People felt that he was really listening to them. He has just said that meaningful consultation is important. I hope that he will really listen to what the people told him in Swansea, to what I and my colleagues have said tonight and to the submissions that we will all make to the consultation.
Mike Penning
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. As I said to the local journalists, I would not have been there if I was not willing to listen. Having done the first consultation in the way that we did, I would not have gone through this part of the consultation, with the Secretary of State’s permission, if I was not willing to listen, because there would have been absolutely no point.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Will the Minister tell me whether, in the consultation process, any of the voluntary coastguards along the south Wales coast, the north Devon coast and the north Somerset coast have said that they—those who do the job on the ground—feel that Swansea should be closed and that Milford Haven would be more relevant and appropriate? My Porthcawl coastguards are not saying that.
Mike Penning
I will continue to take interventions and am happy to do so all night if colleagues want to intervene, but it will affect how much I can speak and whether I can respond positively to all the comments, which I hope to do. I will answer this intervention. The consultation does not finish until 6 October, so it would be wrong and improper for me to comment on any of the submissions until then. Just as in the first consultation, all the submissions will be published online so that everybody has access to them. That is only right and proper. That is not always the case with consultations that are done around the country, but we said that we would do that and we did it with the initial consultation. The second part is different from the first consultation because it is restricted, which I will come on to, but people will know exactly what the emergency rescue crews are saying and what others are saying.
One of the first things that was said to me in Liverpool was that people had been arguing about this for years and that they knew they had to modernise. The Public and Commercial Services Union, which was involved in the negotiations long before I became the Minister, said that there were issues to do with pay, retention—which I know has been alluded to—and recruitment. One can see why there are problems with recruitment in some areas, considering that the basic starting salary is about £13,500 a year. That makes it hard to recruit good- quality people. As much as we rely on people’s determination to serve their community, they have to pay their mortgages and bills. We said that we would look at that. Right at the end of the meeting in Liverpool, one of the senior coastguards stood up and said to me, “We said years ago that there should be nine stations.”
Most of those who responded to the first consultation did not question me about an individual station. They did not say that I was a nasty, horrible person, that I should not be doing this job or that I was only acting for party political reasons. If people look at the changes around the country, they will see that there are no partisan politics involved at all. If anybody wants to raise that point now, they may do so. There is a smirk on the face of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon). If she wants to show me anywhere in the country where I have used party politics, I will give way to her.
Mike Penning
I thank the hon. Lady for her honesty, but she should take a look at what I did around the country. The Western Isles is a Scottish National party constituency; Holyhead is in, I believe, a Labour constituency; and I have shut Brixham in the west country, which is in a Conservative area. I have taken huge amounts of flack, but people should look around the country before throwing those sorts of accusations at me. I knew the hon. Lady was alluding to those with her smirk, which is why I gave way. I have not taken that approach in any shape or form. If I had done so, why am I looking at Holyhead in the way that I am? The Labour Government were going to close two and leave one in Wales, but I will definitely come out of this procedure with two in Wales, no matter what happens.
Mike Penning
I am not going to give way, because I have exactly five minutes left. I wanted that answer out, because I saw the hon. Lady’s smirk.
Mike Penning
The smirk was not from the hon. Gentleman, and that accusation was not put to me at Swansea at any time when I was there. I was praised at Swansea—they said that all the way through, I had handled the matter in a non-party political way. That is the way I will continue to handle it.
Martin Caton
The Minister has spent most of his time speaking of the original consultation exercise. I have put many questions to him this evening, and as he says, he has only five minutes to respond. Can we get on to the latest consultation exercise and the points that I have made in this debate?
Mr Speaker
Order. For the avoidance of doubt, there are eight minutes remaining.
Mike Penning
We have eight minutes left, and I have taken many interventions. We would have been a lot further on had I not done so, but that would not have been fair to hon. Members.
The hon. Gentleman has made many points, and I will answer as many of them as I can. Many of them were made in the consultation process. Although I am unable to answer all the points today, when the consultation is over we will respond. All the points that the hon. Gentleman has made tonight will be part of the consultation.
I was trying to build a picture of the coastguard around the country and of the people who actually do the job. I have said to myself, and to Sir Alan Massey, the chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, and to my chief coastguard as we have gone around the country, that the Government know that 18 is not the figure that should remain and that the figure should be around about eight or nine. That was put to us in submissions from around the country. In Belfast, it was put to me that there should be eight. I asked the Belfast coastguard, which works very closely with the Swansea coastguard co-ordination centre, why it had chosen in its submission to keep Swansea and not Milford Haven. Everybody who was there will know that Belfast said that its submission was based on the cost of closing Swansea compared with the cost of closing Milford Haven.
To answer one of the points made by the hon. Gentleman, I came back to London and asked for those costs to be analysed. I felt that if we were going to do this right around the country—hon. Members should remember that we had not come to our full conclusions on which stations should stay open and which should close, and whether or not that would mean having part-time, “day manning” stations, or 24-hour stations—I needed to make sure in my own mind, for when I stand before the House and others, that the MCA’s early cost analysis on the choice of Swansea or Milford Haven was right. When the figures came back, I was told that that analysis was not right. I was told that if we were to come out of Swansea completely, it would be a very close fiscal decision between Swansea and Milford Haven.
We then completed the process, Mr Deputy Speaker—
Mike Penning
Sorry, Mr Speaker. We have known each other for many years, and I am sure you will not take offence. Oh, dear.
We looked at the main concerns, which included 24-hour stations and local knowledge. In the Secretary of State’s statement, we accepted those two points. We felt that leaving the station open as what I, as an ex-fireman, would call a “day manning” station was not right and we had to come up with a formula that would allow us to come down to the numbers that we needed to come down to while having the national resilience that we were looking for and a maritime operations centre or headquarters that could feed out in major incidents. So we made two decisions. The first was to come down to the key 24-hour stations and to have one MOC, not two, which actually will give us enough money to keep stations open 24 hours a day.
The second decision was obvious. It was obvious to me when we were doing the work that, if we were worried about topography, as I call it, being an ex-fireman, and local knowledge, which was the general concern, we ought to look at the pairs—or the twins or whatever we want to call them—which cover for each other regularly. That is how they have been structured. We did not have national resilience, which is why the coastguard co-ordination centres were paired off. They covered for each other. Some were paired off quite arbitrarily. For instance, Belfast was paired with the Clyde. But they did it and it worked. We decided that, if those were the criteria for pairing, we would take one of the pairs away. They are in the consultation now because initially the proposals did not include Swansea. However, having decided to move one of the pairs, logically we had to consult on Swansea and Milford Haven, as well as Liverpool and Holyhead—Liverpool was in the consultation with Belfast and the plan had been to close Holyhead—the 24-hour centre in northern Scotland and the Western Isles and the single MOC. That was the basis of the consultation now.
Mike Penning
No, I am not going to give way because I have time issues.
On Milford or Swansea, I have listened carefully to hon. Members’ points, particularly on local knowledge, the skills, the amount of work that the centres cover and so on. I can tell the hon. Member for Gower that, when I was there on Tuesday, the Swansea centre was closed. The co-ordination centre was closed—Milford was covering Swansea that day.
Martin Caton
Had there been an emergency, Swansea would have taken it on because pairing does not work.
Mike Penning
No. From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman says that pairing does not work. He is wrong. It was not open. It was covered by Milford Haven—[Interruption.] It was covered by Milford. That is a fact. No one can argue with that. Had there been an emergency, Milford would have covered it, just as the pairs have covered for each other around the country. [Interruption.] He says, “No, no,” from a sedentary position. I understand his concerns. If I was in his position, I would probably be fighting the same way, but this has to be based on evidence, and the evidence is that these two stations co-ordinate more and work closer together than any other two in the country. That is why Swansea switched off on Tuesday, when I was there, and Milford took control.
Hon. Members have talked about the concerns of constituents around the county, but on that day Milford had control. That is a fact. No one can take that away. Whether or not there was a crisis—[Interruption.] Look, I am an ex-firefighter. If a control centre is open, it is open. If there are appliances, there are appliances. The cover on Tuesday was from Milford, as has been the case on many occasions. I will let the hon. Member for Gower know when that has happened previously.
Mike Penning
I was there. I saw it. Sadly, he did not. The hon. Member for Swansea East (Mrs James) was there. She knows. It is a fact. [Interruption.] It is not rubbish—it is a fact. Sitting there and talking about an emergency service in such a way and just saying “Rubbish” is ludicrous. I know about this. I have visited all these people. Milford covered and does cover on a regular basis. The pairing system works. It is one of the reasons why even the Opposition Front-Bench team have looked at our proposals, which are a million times better than the proposals that they had. Instead of sitting there and saying silly things from a sedentary position, Members should have a proper debate. That is what I have tried to have all the way through. We should try not to be partisan; we should try to be honest about what is available now.
On Tuesday, as on many other occasions, Milford covered while we held the meetings. If Milford goes down, Swansea covers, and vice versa. We are looking at—
Ministerial Correction
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Culture, Media and Sport
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
1. What estimate he has made of the level of revenue and capital funding for sports projects in Nottinghamshire in 2011-12; and if he will make a statement.
[Official Report, 8 September 2011, Vol. 532, c. 527.]
Letter of correction from Hugh Robertson:
An error has been identified in the oral answer given to the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) during Culture, Media and Sport Question Time on 8 September 2011. Our athletics squad won seven medals, not 17 as stated.
The answer given was as follows:
The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)
Before answering, on behalf of the whole House may I congratulate the England and Wales cricket team on becoming the No. 1 test playing nation in the world? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That was a popular one. I also congratulate our rowing and athletics squads on winning 14 and 17 medals respectively at their world championships last weekend, and William Fox-Pitt on a record sixth victory at the Burghley horse trials.
The figures for the 2011-12 funding period are not yet available, but I am pleased to report that Nu2Sport, in conjunction with the university of Nottingham, Nottingham Trent university and Sport Nottinghamshire, secured a grant of just under £250,000 in national lottery funding from Sport England to help more students participate in sport. Nottingham will also benefit from funding invested throughout the country by the national governing bodies of sport. I will write to the hon. Gentleman once the full figures are available.
The correct answer should have been:
The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)
Before answering, on behalf of the whole House may I congratulate the England and Wales cricket team on becoming the No. 1 test playing nation in the world? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That was a popular one. I also congratulate our rowing and athletics squads on winning 14 and seven medals respectively at their world championships last weekend, and William Fox-Pitt on a record sixth victory at the Burghley horse trials.
The figures for the 2011-12 funding period are not yet available, but I am pleased to report that Nu2Sport, in conjunction with the university of Nottingham, Nottingham Trent university and Sport Nottinghamshire, secured a grant of just under £250,000 in national lottery funding from Sport England to help more students participate in sport. Nottingham will also benefit from funding invested throughout the country by the national governing bodies of sport. I will write to the hon. Gentleman once the full figures are available.
Petition
Development (Luton)
Written Ministerial Statements
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
New Waterways Charity
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
On 14 October 2010, the Government announced their intention to move British Waterways in England and Wales from being a public corporation to a new waterways charity—subject to parliamentary approval.
On 30 March 2011, I launched a high-level consultation on this proposal. The consultation closed on 30 June 2011.
Today, I am announcing the publication of the Government’s response to this consultation, alongside a further consultation on the legislation to transfer functions from British Waterways to the new charity, both of which are available at: http://www.defra.gov. uk/consult/.
The Government response confirms our commitment to the creation of a new waterways charity in England and Wales, subject to parliamentary approval. It details the main points raised by stakeholders during the consultation exercise, and the Government’s proposals in the light of those comments. The response has been developed by working closely with the transition trustees of the new charity. Key points addressed in the response include:
Local partnerships will be named “Waterways Partnerships” to reflect their strategic role and size; each partnership will develop a “localism strategy”.
Fair representation of different groups on the council will be prioritised. “Private boaters”, “boating businesses” and “NWC employees” will directly elect their representatives from the outset. We will progress to 50% of the council being directly elected overtime.
In addition to the Waterways Partnerships that cover the waterways in England, and those that cover the waterways straddling England and Wales, there will be a separate All-Wales Partnership, with representation from associated bodies with a Welsh remit.
We are publishing a revised and enhanced draft of the charitable purposes.
More detail is available on how Government will work with the charity to secure and safeguard public benefits, including free pedestrian access to the towpaths, through the charitable purposes. Trust obligations, legislation and Government funding agreement.
The Government believe that the move to civil society will secure the long-term financial sustainability of the waterways. We have already announced plans to transfer all of British Waterways’ property assets to the charity, as an endowment, and to commit to a long-term funding agreement. The length and terms of the agreement will be subject to negotiation and final agreement between Government and the transition trustees, this autumn.
The further consultation on legislation deals with the content of the proposed transfer order under the Public Bodies Bill, which will, subject to parliamentary approval, transfer the functions of British Waterways in England and Wales to the new charity. The document provides further information about the legislation which currently relates to British Waterways, the principles underpinning the functions to be transferred, and proposed amendments to legislation. It invites comments on the proposals specified. Because a full, 12-week consultation has already taken place on the principles of the transfer and this is a more limited consultation, it will take place over six weeks only and will close on 24 October 2011.
EU Foreign Ministers Meeting (Sopot, Poland)
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I attended an informal meeting of EU Foreign Ministers (Gymnich), which was held on 2-3 September in Poland.
The informal format of the Gymnich allows EU Ministers to engage in a free and in-depth discussion on a number of issues. Ministers do not agree any formal written conclusions, in contrast to arrangements in the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) or General Affairs Council (GAC). The next GAC will be held on 12 September. The next FAC is on 10 October.
The following issues were covered at the Gymnich:
Relations with Strategic Partners
Ministers had a broad discussion covering the EU’s relationships with emerging powers. The discussion focused largely, though not exclusively, on relations with India, Brazil and south Africa. This continued a process set in train at last September’s European Council. This is an area where we welcome the external action service’s efforts to define clearer collective EU priorities, common objectives, and methods for using member states’ collective weight to advance our security and prosperity objectives.
Ministers agreed on the importance of the EU’s economic and trade relations with these strategic partners. They also discussed how to enhance our engagement on political and security issues, complementing our national diplomatic efforts. And there was general agreement on the need to use the EU’s collective voice better to influence some of our strategic partners on areas such as human rights.
Middle East Peace Process
The discussion on the middle east peace process focused on EU handling of a possible Palestinian bid for recognition at the United Nations General Assembly. Ministers were joined for part of the session by the Norwegian Foreign Minister in his capacity as chair of the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee.
There was continued broad support for the principles agreed at the FAC on 18 July: the need for a two-state solution; for both sides to resume direct and substantive talks; and support to the High Representative in her efforts through the Quartet to create a credible perspective for the re-launching of the peace process.
Libya
The Gymnich discussion came a day after the Paris conference co-chaired by the Prime Minister and President Sarkozy. Baroness Ashton set out proposed priorities for the EU’s post-conflict assistance. There was general agreement that any potential EU financial and post-conflict stabilisation assistance should respect the need for national transition council ownership and a UN-lead.
Syria
The discussion on Syria took place in the presence of EU candidate countries (Iceland, Montenegro, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), Croatia and Turkey) and focused on EU measures against the regime. On 2 September, the EU agreed a collective ban on imports of Syrian crude oil products. By doing so the EU made it clear that it will continue to increase the pressure on President Assad until he steps aside and allows a transition to a different type of regime. The horrific scenes of brutality throughout Ramadan were unacceptable, and the ban on all EU imports of Syrian crude oil products will help constrict the regime’s funding and reduce its ability to fund the repression of innocent civilians.
Following the Gymnich, I issued a further statement on the issue of oil sanctions. This can be found at: http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=News&id=650796182
Eastern and Southern Neighbourhood
There was a short exchange on the EU’s relations with its eastern European neighbours. On Ukraine, concern was expressed about the trial and subsequent detention of Yuliya Tymoshenko and other opposition leaders. On Belarus, Ministers stressed the need to maintain the EU’s firm position on releasing and rehabilitating all political prisoners. I underlined the importance of progress on implementing the revised European neighbourhood policy. Baroness Ashton and Stefan Fule (Commissioner for Enlargement) reiterated their commitment to deliver results. Finally, Ministers were briefed on preparations for the eastern partnership summit in Warsaw on 29-30 September.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and I will continue to update Parliament on Foreign and General Affairs Councils as and when future meetings are held.
Maritime and Coastguard Agency (Business Plan)
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
I am pleased to announce the publication today of the business plan 2011-15 for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA).
The business plan sets out the services the agency will deliver over the course of this Parliament and the resources they will have available. Alongside the four-year business plan, the agency is also publishing a set of performance indicators for 2011-12 which describes a framework of measures by which the MCA’s performance will be assessed.
Both the business plan and the performance indicators for 2011-12 will be available electronically on the MCA’s website, and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
DWP Administration
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
Following the spending review and development of this coalition Government’s programme for welfare reform, the Department for Work and Pensions has reviewed from first principles its organisational structure and governance to ensure it is best placed for the future.
Subject to the Welfare Reform Bill achieving Royal Assent, universal credit (UC) will, for example, require DWP to deal not only with those out of work—where the existing Jobcentre Plus network and brand is strong and effective—but also to deal with those in employment, which will account for approximately half of the UC caseload in steady state. Starting from 2013, this approach requires a different organisational structure.
Furthermore, a consistent message that work will always pay can also be reinforced by managing claims for disability living allowance (and, in due course, subject to safe passage of legislation, the personal independence payment) for people of working age alongside those for universal credit. This reform will also mean that support for housing costs are incorporated with pension credit, once universal credit is established and local authorities no longer administer housing benefit.
These structural reforms illustrate the extent to which traditional boundaries, within and beyond the DWP, will change. The breadth of the reforms also puts a premium on the flexibility which comes from removing some of those boundaries, as we build a welfare system fit for the future.
At the same time, the Department will deliver a 40% reduction in the cost of the corporate centre, including the centres of Jobcentre Plus and the pension, disability and carer’s service.
Reflecting all of this, the Department will:
bring all of its day-to-day operations under the leadership of a chief operating officer, within a smaller executive team led by the permanent secretary;
make more transparent, and manage as a single entity, the portfolio of reform to which the Government are committed;
and to facilitate this, remove the formal agency status of Jobcentre Plus and the pension, disability and carers service from Monday 3 October.
By creating a single integrated, senior management structure, the Department has been able to reduce the number of senior civil service roles by almost a third since May 2010.
With the departmental board, now chaired by the Secretary of State and with four non-executives all appointed since May 2011 the removal of formal agency status also enables the removal of separate management boards for each agency. The finances of each agency are already consolidated with the Department’s accounts, but the changes will also avoid two sets of subsidiary accounts, each separately prepared and audited.
I would like to put on record my appreciation for the ongoing efforts of DWP’s front line staff. They continue to deliver important services in local communities and will continue to do so with the introduction of universal credit under this new DWP organisational structure.
Current arrangements for parliamentary questions, correspondence and enquiries from Members will continue unaltered as we deepen our commitment to transparency and professional communications in DWP.
Taken together, this new structure will ensure DWP is well placed to deliver reform for a welfare system fit for the 21st century.
Grand Committee
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education Bill
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber, the Member of the Committee who is speaking should stop doing so quickly and we will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Clause 41 : Inspection of further education institutions: exempt institutions
Lord Low of Dalston
“School inspections: designation of teaching school status and special educational needs
The relevant eligibility criteria employed by the National College to determine teaching school status must include an “outstanding” Ofsted rating for any special educational needs work undertaken by that school.”
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, this is a straightforward amendment which I hope the Minister may be willing to accept. The proposed new Clause 42, which I am moving, ensures that schools cannot be designated as teaching schools by the National College for School Leadership unless they have received an outstanding grade for teaching special educational needs.
The schools White Paper, The Importance of Teaching, made it possible for schools to apply for teaching-school status, allowing them to become centres of best teaching practice in their local area. Schools’ ability to apply for teaching-school status was extended to special schools teaching children with predominantly complex special educational needs in the SEN Green Paper, Support and Aspiration: A New Approach to Special Educational Needs and Disability. The eligibility criteria for schools applying for teaching-school status include an Ofsted rating as outstanding for overall effectiveness, teaching and learning and leadership and management. In these days, when so many more children with SEN are educated in mainstream schools, it is hard to see how a school could get a rating of outstanding for overall effectiveness without being able to demonstrate excellence in the teaching of children with SEN. However, given the specialised nature of this work, it would seem sensible to require schools to be able to demonstrate expertise in this area as well as those already listed in the criteria if schools are to be expected to improve teaching in the area of SEN and improve standards and spread best practice.
The Special Educational Consortium is concerned that under the existing eligibility criteria a mainstream school applying for teaching-school status could achieve this without having the necessary expertise in the teaching of children with SEN. This is a concern because many children and young people with special educational needs are now being taught in mainstream educational settings, where it is essential that schools should be able to recognise the particular challenges they face in accessing the mainstream curriculum. Given the importance of the teaching workforce having the skills to work with children with SEN, it is vital that schools be able to demonstrate their excellence in this area as part of the criteria for achieving teaching-school status.
Having an outstanding rating for the SEN element of a school’s work is also important for giving parents and children confidence that the practice being spread through local schools partnerships will help ensure that children with SEN can participate fully in learning. Introducing the additional criterion that schools have an outstanding rating from Ofsted for their SEN teaching will encourage schools considering applying for teaching-school status to address the way they open up the curriculum to children with SEN and, where children are taught in an SEN unit outside the mainstream school, how learning outcomes can be improved. This would help to address a significant barrier across all education settings, and the lack of expertise and understanding around low-incidence impairments such as deaf/blindness where access to communication and other teaching specialisms is necessary if the challenges are to be overcome.
Any sharing of best practice needs to have a well-developed knowledge base to draw on. However, the Special Educational Consortium’s experience is that knowledge of SEN and the added difficulties that learners with special educational needs face is lacking in many local areas. Requiring schools desirous of acquiring teaching-school status to be able to demonstrate expertise in teaching children with SEN could help to address this issue. I beg to move.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. We have seen a great change in the training of teachers in recent years. In the past, teachers typically were trained for three years to their bachelor educational degree, which was a good long grounding. We have seen that period reduced to one year, and more and more teachers are being trained on the job. I welcome the move to more classroom-based learning for teachers but we have to be sure that it is right. There is a risk to that strategy and I look for reassurance from the Minister that teachers will be getting an understanding of SEN in that training. Perhaps I may make a further comment—we should not forget that more and more classroom assistants are those who work one-to-one with children with SEN. They too need the high-quality training.
Baroness Morris of Yardley
My Lords, perhaps I may make a brief comment and ask a question. I have some sympathy with the amendment. When I first saw it I thought that it was perhaps overprescriptive, but having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Low, I have sympathy with it. Throughout the proceedings on the Bill we have understandably heard a lot from the Government about not putting heavy regulatory burdens on schools. Given that that is the direction in which we are going, it is obvious that at some point in the system there should be a fair amount of regulation—otherwise the system collapses and no-one would know what is going on. My understanding from the teaching schools—of which I am a great supporter and I hope that they do very well—is that this is one of those areas where the Government have accepted that there will have to be a lot of monitoring and a fair amount of regulation. You can see that by looking at the criteria for a teaching school. For instance, a head has to have been in post for three years—a matter with which I have always quibbled in my mind. However, I am not going to quibble with it because I accept that this is one of those bits of the education system that the Government really will have to keep their eyes on.
I can therefore see the argument, given that one of the great weaknesses in our education system is the quality of training for SEN that teachers get, that there is never enough time in initial teacher training to do that adequately. It is not properly covered in the induction year—it did not happen when I was in power and there has not been much improvement since. There is a genuine problem and I am persuaded by what the noble Lord says—these are the areas where these institutions need to be properly regulated. Losing this opportunity, which we should seize to raise the standards of teaching those with special needs, would be again to commit the mistake that we have all committed through the years, which is to pass legislation and then in future years see how we can tag SEN on to it. That has been a huge fault of government for decades. We put something in place and a few months later think, “Ah, how can we make this relate to SEN?”.
My question is this—how many schools designated teaching schools have not been awarded an “outstanding” category by Ofsted? What is that overlap, and how many schools not in that category have applied to become teaching schools? Perhaps the Minister can provide a little analysis of the comparison between schools which have been awarded the “outstanding” category as a result of inspections and those that are “outstanding” in SEN.
Lord Elton
My Lords, regarding the legislation passed in the previous Session, which enabled and made necessary the identification of people suffering from dyslexia and that group of disabilities, it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us to what extent the number presenting themselves as suffering from these disabilities has increased. That would give us an idea of the workload.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, again, I rise briefly to support the noble Lord’s amendment. Like my noble friend, when I originally read the amendment, I thought that it was self-evident. However, the more I have looked at it and listened to the debate this afternoon, the more it seems to me that, once all the other elements have been stripped out of the legislation and the provisions, we increasingly rely on Ofsted as the final fallback to guarantee standards.
The noble Lord, Lord Low, is right to say that if we are not careful SEN provision will be swept under the carpet and will not be seen as a major factor in provision within schools. Looking at this issue in the context of some of the other amendments that we will debate this afternoon, with the new emphasis on PRUs and alternative academy provision, if we are not careful there will, whether the Government had intended it or not, be a move to take a lot of pupils with specialist needs out of mainstream education into other provision, and the expertise that goes with it will be lost.
Therefore, the noble Lord’s amendment is helpful. It would be reassuring to have it in the Bill, and it would reassure people who see mainstream schools as having an essential responsibility to provide SEN provision and to make sure that it is high quality and high class. It would also reassure people about the intent in the other sections of the Bill.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
My Lords, I sympathise very much with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Low, but I also sympathise with the tensions expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. There are difficulties here. This is pretty much a sledgehammer amendment and I am not sure that I would want to go that far. However, I invite the Minister to say that he will take away the spirit of the amendment, as well as the comments, and look at how we can best improve the quality of SEN teaching. It is a very tall order to ask any school to be outstanding in all areas that might have to be dealt with under the general heading of SEN, and we might find a more subtle way of inviting them to apply for an outstanding rating in areas where they show expertise.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, what the noble Lord has just said may well be the right approach. However, in the mean time, the important question was that asked by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, regarding number, where there has certainly been an increase. Obviously, as these matters are spread—as they should be, in my view—throughout the education system generally, it is very important that we know that adequate teachers and teaching assistants are trained to see that these children receive the very best education.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, I start by saying that I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord, Low, about how important it is to make sure that teachers have the skills that they need to teach all pupils in the classroom, including, of course, those with special educational needs, and that it is not something that will be swept under the carpet—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch.
In our SEN and disability Green Paper, which we published earlier this year, we set out a broad approach to achieving higher standards in the teaching of special educational needs and disability. Those measures included making the highly successful Achievement for All approach available to all schools; strengthening the coverage of SEN and disability in initial teacher training—in particular, by giving more trainees the opportunity to undertake extended placements in special provision in mainstream and special schools; continuing to fund the training of new SENCOs; establishing scholarship schemes to give experienced teachers and support staff the chance to undertake continuing professional development in SEN; developing advanced training modules in the most prevalent types of SEN, which will support teachers in developing their own knowledge and skills and in supporting other teachers; developing specialist modules in severe learning difficulties, and profound and multiple learning difficulties; and supporting specialist SEN training across clusters of schools. Those are some of the more general measures that we are taking, which I hope will reassure noble Lords. This is an area that we continue to take seriously. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, that this is not something that one wants to see as an add-on; one wants to see it as integral to training.
Alongside those measures, teaching schools will, we hope, play an important role. We announced the first 100 teaching schools this July. The designation criteria did not include a specific requirement in relation to SEN, but they are intended to ensure that each teaching school has the capacity to improve teaching schools in SEN and disability in its area. I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, with the information we have on the teaching schools rated as outstanding. In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, the new inspection framework we are developing with Ofsted will embed the connection between the achievement of different groups of pupils and the school's overall Ofsted judgment. Under that framework, for a school to be outstanding it will need to demonstrate that it is doing well for pupils with special educational needs and other vulnerable groups.
The Earl of Listowel
I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I make one further comment. Within the SEN group, I can see those children with emotional and behavioural difficulties particularly profiting from the Government's strategy to increase classroom-based learning. With those children, it is often the case that they can act out, act aggressively towards a teacher or other pupils. That can give rise to an understandable anger or irritation in the teacher which they may feel very moved to act on, but which will not be a helpful or appropriate reply to the behaviour. On the other hand, some children become very depressed, and it is easy to ignore them. Having an outsider observing the class and seeing how the teacher reacts can be a very helpful method to enable teachers to engage with EBD children and help to include them in the mainstream.
Models such as consultation for school staff, such as has been done for many years by the child and adolescent psychotherapist Emil Jackson in north London, is another way to help staff to think more deeply about their relationships with their pupils, particularly those who are challenging. I hope that the Minister will forgive me for making that additional comment.
Lord Low of Dalston
I am grateful to all those who have spoken in the debate, which has been supportive of the issue I raised. I am therefore glad to have flagged it up, but I am reassured by what the Minister said about the work going on—in particular what he said to the effect that an Ofsted designation of overall effectiveness will increasingly be difficult to achieve without a demonstration of quality or excellence in the field of SEN. I hope that the Minister and the department will continue to make clear to Ofsted that overall effectiveness requires all-round effectiveness but necessarily includes excellence in special educational needs. With the Minister’s reassurance about the work that is going on and the indication that he has given of the work being done to clarify that an Ofsted designation of teaching-school status will increasingly require excellence in special educational needs, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Walmsley and I have tabled this stand part debate in order to explore the many issues associated with the Government’s intention to extend the inspection of independent schools, which is done by the Independent Schools Inspectorate and other independent inspectorates, from inspecting only educational provision to inspecting welfare provision as well. My noble friend is unable to be in her place today so I speak for both of us.
I thank the Minister for his letter to my noble friend of 19 July, in which he refers to Clause 42. He points out that the ISI already inspects the standard of education of Independent Schools Council member schools. When these education inspections were handed over to the ISI, he reminds us in his letter, safeguards were put in place. Ofsted was required to monitor the work of the independent inspectorates and publish an annual report. Clause 42 provides for Ofsted to monitor welfare inspections as it already does for education inspections. The Minister points out in his letter that the ISI has put in a consistently strong performance in those reports to date. Clause 42 also sets out the matters that the Secretary of State will take into account when approving or withdrawing approval from independent inspectorates.
My questions about this are many, and perhaps we can address them one by one. First, there is a matter of principle. The ISI was originally set up to inspect the ISC’s own members. There is nothing wrong with that. Any organisation may legitimately self-inspect in order to achieve higher quality. A public inspection role is something else altogether, though, and to allow the ISI to move from that to the far more rigorous public role of child welfare inspecting and producing reports on which the public are to place reliance is very dubious unless the safeguards are far greater than those that I have heard so far. I remind the Committee that in this context the public have absolutely nothing else upon which to rely.
It is true that Ofsted monitors the work of the independent inspectorates, but the 2009-10 report consisted of nothing more than a letter from Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector to a civil servant in the department in which only one paragraph covered safety and welfare, and even that paragraph makes claims that are totally inadequate.
I turn to the independence of these inspectorates from the schools that they are inspecting, and the undertakings and terms and conditions under which they take over this new responsibility from Ofsted. The Minister explains in his letter that since 2007 the ISI has been a subsidiary company of the Independent Schools Council, with an independent board. However, a quick look at the accounts of the company shows that the finances of the two organisations are completely intertwined. The words used in the accounts to 31 December 2010 are that the “ultimate controlling party” is the ISC. That does not make the ISI independent in any shape or form.
I am encouraged by the Minister's statement in his letter of 19 July that the ISI will become fully independent of the ISC from January 2012. However, I understand that the inspectors carrying out these inspections will still all have to be members of the ISC. They are all, indeed, teachers or former teachers or heads of ISC schools, so exactly the same board will remain in place. Therefore, how the organisation can, in practice, possibly be considered independent, even under these new arrangements, is something that I struggle with.
What then become even more important are the undertakings and terms under which the ISI takes over this duty from Ofsted. When Ofsted took over the inspection of welfare and safeguarding from CSCI, we were assured that it was under the very same conditions under which CSCI operated. Can the Minister assure me that, when the ISI and the other inspectorates take over from Ofsted, they will again operate under the very same conditions and to the same standards? This is very important for the simple reason that none of these organisations is subject to the Freedom of Information Act, and it can be very hard to get out of them any information that they do not wish to give. In earlier years the CSCI inspection reports and, before that, those of county councils, did a good and thorough job—reliable, conscientious and carried out by those with the right skill set and experience. They were good precisely because they contained no element whatever of educational inspection. Welfare was not bolted on to the end of an education report; the two matters are totally different.
I turn now to the stability of the ISI. During the Recess there was considerable reporting of the fact that the Headmasters’ Conference voted to leave the ISC. It takes with it most of the larger and more influential independent schools, and about £600,000 of the ISC’s annual £1.4 million income. The reason given was that some head teachers are unhappy because the ISC has lost its focus on defending the interests of the independent sector. It is perfectly appropriate for a group to have an organisation to protect its interests, but it is not appropriate for the same organisation to be totally in control of the organisation that inspects child welfare in its schools on behalf of the public. However, the exodus from the ISC creates an organisation the stability and financial viability of which are in question. Taking away the subscriptions of the larger schools leaves it with a large number of smaller schools to support and inspect, and a smaller pool of inspectors from which to draw. Let us recall that all ISI inspectors must be from ISC schools under the current rules. Will the Minister assure us that this aspect of its operation, at least, will change if Clause 42 is implemented?
Another matter that the Government are currently considering impinges on this issue. Clause 39 exempts outstanding schools in the maintained sector from educational inspections. Consequently, there is an impending separation of the child welfare school inspection role from the education inspection role. Clearly, welfare inspections will have to continue in those schools that do not have inspections for their education standards. There will be an unavoidable divergence of inspection cycles, which will have the effect of making integrated inspections impossible in the maintained sector. One of the reasons given for Clause 42 in my noble friend’s letter is that it would give independent schools the benefit of a single inspection event. Leaving aside the fact that welfare inspection is not for the benefit of any school but for the safety and protection of vulnerable children, it will be impossible to do a single inspection anyway. Also, there will to be pressure to relieve independent schools of the burden of inspection at all. Are we seriously to entertain the notion that the best of our maintained schools are to be relieved of the burden of the usual inspection cycle but Winchester, Eton, Harrow and Westminster, with their unarguable high education standards, are still to be inspected? It is obvious that they will want to be relieved of the burden as well. Where will this end? You would have the ISC arguing strongly for its schools to be relieved of the very inspection regime that its own inspection arm is charged with carrying out. This has not been thought through.
Finally, although most independent schools care for and protect their pupils very well, as parents would expect, there have been some appalling cases of abuse, which, when they eventually see the light of day, we discover have been going on for a very long time. I have had conversations with some victims of such long-term abuse. That is why my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, and others are very sceptical about the measures in Clause 13 to restrict the reporting of allegations against teachers. It has been far too easy in the past for people to close their eyes to abuse or make it easy for the perpetrator to resign quietly and go somewhere else. I am anxious to ensure that welfare inspections are done rigorously and that vested interests do not get in the way. We must always bear in mind that independent schools are commercial organisations. Even those run by charities make surpluses, which the charities can use for legitimate purposes. Therefore, there is the potential to lose a lot of money if the school is found wanting in the safeguarding department.
Lord Lexden
My Lords, following my noble friend’s powerful speech, I want to make just a few points on inspection arrangements for independent schools. I do so as a former general secretary of the Independent Schools Council. It was during my time that the Independent Schools Inspectorate assumed its early shape, before being put on a firmer basis by the Secretary of State, and being given responsibilities which were clearly delineated, and approved by the Secretary of State, under the Education Act 2002.
One point that I would like to make is that the Independent Schools Council is not quite in the state of flux that my noble friend suggested. The Headmasters’ Conference has had disagreements with the Independent Schools Council, which acts on behalf of a number of independent schools associations. There have been detailed inquiries as to how the Independent Schools Council might operate more effectively in the future. I understand that those negotiations and discussions have reached a satisfactory conclusion, and on that basis the Headmasters’ and Headmistresses’ Conference will be remaining one of the constituent elements of the Independent Schools Council.
There is no doubt at all about the independence with which the ISI operates. This was clearly laid down in the terms of reference that the then Secretary of State gave the ISI in 2002. It is becoming stronger and more manifest next year, as my noble friend mentioned, since the ISI is going to be reconstituted as an independent trust. At no time has the ISC sought to influence, directly or indirectly, the work that independent schools inspectors have done. This has been clearly shown by Ofsted’s monitoring of the education inspections, which has been conducted since 2002 under the terms of reference laid down by the Secretary of State. Not one cause of complaint or censure has ever been laid against the ISI by Ofsted during its monitoring of education inspections. Indeed Ofsted’s report last year praised the “excellent dialogue and communication” with schools, the “clear and authoritative” feedback, the “inspectors’ courtesy and professionalism”, and the “rigorous” checking of schools’ “compliance with the regulations”. I know from my own experience the seriousness with which Ofsted undertakes these duties, which are recorded publicly. Also, there is close Ofsted involvement in the everyday work of the ISI, since representatives of Ofsted—very senior figures indeed—come to the meetings of the committees which oversee the ISI’s work.
As things stand at the moment, independent boarding schools are subject to two separate inspections, causing a great deal of duplication, and of course extra expense. The monitoring arrangements, having worked so well as far as educational inspections are concerned, are now going to be put—and this is a wholly new aspect of things—on a firm, statutory basis as, under Clause 42, the power to inspect welfare arrangements will pass to the Independent Schools Inspectorate as well.
The work done by the ISI is rigorously overseen. High standards have been maintained by the Independent Schools Inspectorate. There is a wide feeling that it is fit to carry out boarding welfare inspections, the quality of its inspectors and the rigour of its work having been clearly supported and underlined by Ofsted. To the extent that there is concern about the ISI’s position, Clause 42 should increase confidence in that it puts into primary legislation a duty on Ofsted to monitor and oversee the ISI’s work. This is something that already works well in practice for the educational aspect of school inspections. The clause will remove any doubt as to Ofsted’s role and the quality assurance and oversight of the ISI’s work, and it should lower costs to schools by substituting two inspectorates with one, with no lowering of regulatory standards. I believe that it is a welcome clause and that it should receive support.
The Earl of Listowel
I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will forgive my ignorance but are these inspections normally announced or are they unannounced?
Lord Lexden
If the noble Earl is asking whether the inspectors arrive without notice, the answer is no. There are cycles in which the inspections take place. The inspectors do not suddenly arrive at schools unannounced.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lady Brinton and Lord Lexden for what they have said, and I hope that some of the concerns that my noble friend Lady Brinton raised have been addressed in the remarks of my noble friend Lord Lexden.
Education inspections in most independent boarding schools are carried out by independent inspectorates. Boarding schools, unlike day schools, are also subject to welfare inspections, which are carried out by Ofsted, as my noble friend set out. Where possible, Ofsted and independent inspectorates carry out joint inspections to minimise disruption to the schools concerned, but there are two separate inspection reports, published on two different websites, and that information is readily available on those websites.
The Secretary of State already has a power to appoint an independent inspectorate to undertake boarding welfare inspections in England. We intend to use this power to appoint the Independent Schools Inspectorate, which will mean that schools affiliated to the Independent Schools Council will be subject to a single inspection, covering both education and boarding welfare, which will be followed by a single published report. However, I stress that there will be two reports—one for education and one for welfare.
The clause replicates the measures that are already in place on education inspections to ensure that any independent inspectorate appointed operates effectively. It allows Ofsted to monitor inspections by independent inspectorates of the welfare of children in independent boarding schools and requires the chief inspector to prepare an annual report on those inspections. It also gives the Secretary of State a power to direct Ofsted to undertake a boarding inspection of any school at any time, including where the boarding provision would normally be inspected by an independent inspectorate. This is the same power as he has in relation to other types of inspection, but in practice we would expect this power to be used only in exceptional cases.
I hope that my noble friend will agree that these measures, when taken together, provide transparency, accountability and confidence in the arrangements for independent inspectorates to carry out welfare inspections in independent boarding schools. I reassure her that welfare inspections will continue in all schools, whether they are outstanding or not.
I also reassure my noble friend that safeguards for welfare inspections will be as robust as they are for education inspections, and that regulations will set out criteria for the appointment of independent inspectorates and for terminating any such appointment, if need be. The criteria in respect of boarding will mirror the criteria for appointment in respect of education.
My noble friend mentioned the HMC vote to leave the ISC. I hope that she has been reassured by the point made by my noble friend Lord Lexden. I suspect that I will not have covered other points in my reply, in which case I will write to my noble friend, but, meanwhile, I hope that she will feel free to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I hear what my noble friend says; I am half comforted by it. As she knows, I edit the Good Schools Guide, and therefore have a long-standing and unhappy relationship with the Independent Schools Council inspection service, which has yet to return even one of my e-mails. Although I agree that it is inspecting much better than it used to, it still seems to take the school’s side rather more often than I find comfortable. I think that, because a lot of the people doing the inspecting suffer the same problem with difficult parents as the people who they are inspecting, they do not pay the attention that they ought to occasional signals of distress and therefore fail to spot underlying problems.
I am very dubious about mixing education and welfare; they are different concerns and different skills. How is a young boy in distress going to talk to someone who appears to be a schoolmaster if he will not talk to his schoolmaster? You need a completely different character, training and skill-set to be a good inspector of welfare—to understand what is going on in a family, if you are in a local authority context, or in a school. I am not anticipating great disaster. Schools are light years away from what they were when I was a child and there is no general problem, but we all know that a lot of girls’ schools have eating disorder problems. There is certainly still bullying in some schools to an unacceptable level. Spotting those things requires someone to go round the school who pupils who have not talked to and who people at the school feel able to take into their confidence. As I said, that is a different character of person. For myself, I would be surprised if the ISC does that well. It may be a long while before we have a problem arising from it, because problems are mercifully rare.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, if I may, I want to ask the Minister a little more about unannounced and announced inspections. If I remember correctly, the Children's Commissioner for England, Professor Al Aynsley-Green, when he was in office, was particularly enthusiastic about his power to make unannounced inspections. Professor Eileen Munro, in her final report on safeguarding children, recently advocated the use of unannounced inspections, principally because they relieved organisations of a bureaucratic burden. She felt that that would be less burdensome to them than announced inspections. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what is the current situation with regard to those two kinds of inspection—announced and unannounced.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I will need to write to the noble Earl on that point, because I do not have the figures for the exact mix between announced and unannounced inspections and how they are carried out.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, I am pleased to hear that the HTC will remain, but the point remains valid that the ISC could be in a state of flux and the financial inspection capability could be affected in future.
I am very grateful to my noble friend for saying that she will come back on detailed points, because there are probably too many to go through this afternoon, but the key things that have come up are the issue of announced and unannounced inspections, which remain a cause for me, and the principle of joining together education and welfare inspections. That remains a difficulty, and I should be grateful if the Minister would look at that again. The other key point that has not been covered is access to information. Having bits of a report somewhere is not the same as freedom of information on the detail of a report. As I mentioned in my speech, many schools in the independent sector would not be happy to have details such as that published and it might be pushed to the back. I am very grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I am sure that the Good Schools Guide would be interested in ensuring that parents have access to information for all the reasons I explained.
Lord Elton
My Lords, will the noble Baroness press the Minister a little more on the necessity of having two different sorts of people doing that kind of inspection?
Baroness Brinton
I am grateful for the intervention of my noble friend Lord Elton. The key point that I was trying to make earlier is that inspections under CSCI were clearly about welfare, as opposed those of the old-style Ofsted—if I can call it that—which were clearly about education. They require different professionals with different attitudes. It might be possible in some circumstances to run the inspections side by side, as has happened in local government, where there has been a plethora of inspections. However, the inspections are not the same, because they look at different things with different people. I should be grateful if the Minister would write to me on that point as well. I shall not continue my opposition to Clause 42 standing part at this stage, but will look forward to the Minister’s responses before Report.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, access to information is crucial. I should like to be assured that all of us sitting around this table will have access to the reply to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I assure the noble Baroness that the reply will go to all Members of the Committee.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, under Clause 43, the Secretary of State will be given new powers to intervene directly and to move quickly—much more swiftly than hitherto—to close schools. In response to that proposed new power, I shall move Amendment 122ZC.
Currently, the Secretary of State can direct the closure of a school only if it has already been categorised by Ofsted in its independent inspection as requiring special measures. Clause 43 will allow the Secretary of State to step in and close schools on the basis not of an independent, standardised assessment but of any judgment that he comes to that that route of closure is required. Under subsection (3), he will be able also to direct a local authority to issue a performance standards and safety warning notice where it has decided against it. Then, when a warning notice has been given for whatever reason, and the school has not complied, the school will automatically become eligible for intervention and it will be open for the Secretary of State to close it.
Closures of schools could therefore be triggered in this way by the Secretary of State, and not on the basis of an independent assessment by Ofsted. That is a serious extension of power. Closing a school is a nuclear option and has serious implications for parents and an area. The provision would also mean a transferring of schools into academy status by diktat of the Secretary of State without the normal processes having been gone through. I shall explain shortly what I mean by that.
Will the Minister set out his thinking on how closures allowed under the clause would take place and how they would contribute to increasing standards and meeting parents’ and pupils’ needs? Under what circumstances would the Secretary of State step in to close a school that was not in special measures rather than, as is the case at the moment, help drive improvements in the school as a first option? How would such closures that the Secretary of State could simply enforce enable a local authority, for instance, to plan strategically to meet pupil place needs?
As noble Lords may gather from our amendment, which is different from those that will be moved by Liberal Democrats, we do not have a particular problem with the power contained in the clause giving the Secretary of State the power to direct a local authority as there may be circumstances in which local authorities are or have been slow to act in relation to schools where improvements are required. However, we do have a problem with the uncircumscribed and unfettered power of the Secretary of State himself to close a school, and there are two reasons for that. First, there is an issue of principle relating to such a serious option in an area; that if a school is not in special measures, it is right that parents, teachers and locally interested parties are able to play a part in determining what happens to it. There ought also to be an independent assessment by Ofsted on the need for that option. Secondly, I question whether the clause is something of a Trojan horse to accelerate the establishment of academies. The clause, coupled with Clause 36 on the establishment of new schools and the presumption in the Bill that any new school will be an academy, will mean that where, outside an Ofsted inspection and the conclusion of special measures, the Secretary of State decides to close a school—he can do so for a whole variety of reasons—the new school that takes its place will, by default, be an academy. It will not have to go through the normal processes that schools are now required to go through to become academies. It is conceivable that even some relatively well-performing schools could be required to close by the Secretary of State.
I would therefore be grateful if, in addition to dealing with the points I raised earlier, the Minister could reassure us on this point. Will he set out the vision for the future education system and say whether the Government see a place for maintained schools in that? Is it the case that this provision and Clause 36, and the presumption that all new schools will be academies, are designed to ensure that the Secretary of State can accelerate the establishment of academies, irrespective of the views of parents and teachers, by closing schools directly himself and then reopening them as academies?
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, I, too, want to speak to Amendments 122A and 122B. Clause 43 gives the Secretary of State powers to intervene and close schools that are in special measures. That widens the powers of intervention to schools causing concern. Subsection (3) strengthens the Secretary of State’s powers so that where a local authority, having been directed to consider set performance standards and to issue a safety warning notice, has decided not to do so, the Secretary of State may direct the local authority to give such a warning notice. If such a warning notice is issued to a school and it fails to comply, it immediately makes itself eligible for intervention. As the noble Baroness explained, that may well mean that it is closed and an academy is opened in its place. Under the Education and Inspections Act 2006, the warning notice gives the school the right to ask the chief inspector whether the warning notice is justified and the chief inspector may confirm it or otherwise.
Our problem with the subsection is the degree to which it removes all discretion from local authorities. The problem is that a local authority is asked to consider whether to give a warning notice and to set performance standards. If, having looked at the school, it decides that other measures might be more appropriate and it therefore does not issue a warning notice or the appropriate performance standard, the Secretary of State may now just peremptorily intervene. At a time when the Government are anxious to try to devolve responsibilities—the Localism Bill is going through the main Chamber today—it is against the whole spirit of localism that the Secretary of State should be given these somewhat draconian powers.
Amendment 122B is to some extent a probing amendment. It suggests that we want to know, if academies fail in the same way as some schools fail, whether they have to obey the same rules as maintained schools have to. Is it appropriate that there should be intervention in exactly the same way and that they might be closed down? If they are closed down, the obvious solution would be for the local authority to have the power to step in and open a maintained school in its place—a sort of quid pro quo for the shutting down of a maintained school and the opening of an academy. Here we would have the equal and opposite effect. We would like to know a little more about what happens if an academy fails.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, none of us wants to see underperforming schools letting down pupils year after year. To answer the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, it is to tackle that entrenched underperformance in certain areas that we are keen to take these measures, which are similar to measures that the previous Government intended to take. We know that out of the 200 worst performing primary schools in the country, over half have been below the floor standard for over 10 years, and 112 of the 200 worst performing primaries are in local authorities that have never issued a warning notice. I know that the previous Government were keen to tackle underperformance, and so are we.
Our starting point would certainly be that underperformance should ideally be addressed by locally developed and agreed solutions, and we are seeing more and more examples of local authorities working with the Government and schools to come up with agreed sponsored-academy solutions. Where there is consistent underperformance, however, and the school and local authority seem unable or unwilling to tackle it, we think that the Secretary of State needs to be able to intervene. This is an urgent and important issue so we intend, subject to the passage of the Bill, to commence the provision on Royal Assent.
The Secretary of State already has a range of intervention powers. Where schools are eligible for intervention—because they have failed to comply with a warning notice or have been judged to require special measures or to require significant improvement by Ofsted—the Secretary of State can appoint additional governors, impose an interim executive board or make an academy order. The Secretary of State can also require the closure of a school in special measures and direct a local authority to consider issuing a warning notice. It is these two powers that the previous Government’s Children, Schools and Families Act sought to extend, and which Clause 43 of this Bill also seeks to extend.
We believe that there is an inconsistency in the current law that means that one intervention option, directing closure, is available only for schools in the Ofsted category of special measures. Where the Secretary of State needs to intervene, he should be able to choose a form of intervention that is most appropriate for the circumstances. If he chooses to direct closure, he has a duty to consult, including with the local authority and the school, and he will have to take account of the views expressed in reaching a fair and reasonable decision.
Warning notices are a well established legal tool for addressing underperformance. They can help schools to recognise and address their problems or, if the school is not capable of addressing the action, they can enable further intervention by either the local authority or the Secretary of State. However, it is the case that local authorities use their power to issue warning notices inconsistently. Two-thirds of them have never issued a warning notice at all. That is why the Secretary of State needs to be able to direct the local authority to issue a warning notice: so that they can be used where they are necessary, as opposed to being dependent on the practice of the local authority. However, we accept that there need to be checks and balances. Therefore, we have included a provision giving the governing body a right to appeal to Ofsted against a direction to issue a warning notice. It would remain the case that the Secretary of State would first have to direct a local authority to consider giving a warning notice. It is only if the local authority decided not to do so that the Secretary of State, having considered the reasons given by the local authority, could then direct it to issue a warning notice, subject to that check of the appeal to Ofsted.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I certainly recognise the concerns about failing schools that have continued to fail children over long periods. However, I am reminded of something that a young man who grew up in a non-functioning family said to me a little while ago. He said, “I have issues of trust”. It is very hard for families who are struggling to trust individuals or institutions. Their relationship with their school can become very important. I can imagine that it might be enormously disruptive to such families to find that their school is being turned upside down. Therefore, I will listen to the response of the noble Baroness. I am reassured to a large degree by what the Minister said, but I say to him and his colleagues that when you bring about these changes, it can be very upsetting for those vulnerable families.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
I thank the Minister for his response and I thank Members of the Committee who have spoken on this subject for their contributions. I absolutely agree with the Minister that underperforming schools cannot be allowed to continue underperforming indefinitely. I feel as passionately about that as he does. So do many Members of the Committee, I suspect. However, the key question is: how effectively can we drive that improvement in performance, particularly when underperformance has been persistent over a period? Sadly, it is also generally the case that underperforming schools are not distributed evenly around the country. They tend to be concentrated in areas where local authorities are weak or where there are endemic problems and so on. There is often a concentration of underperforming schools. That issue needs to be grappled with. The route that the Government are taking is different in some respects from the one that we were proposing. The previous Government wanted powers to direct a local authority to act, but not necessarily the sweeping powers that this Government are taking to allow the Secretary of State to make the judgment directly about closing the school. That is a key difference. I can entertain the possibility that there may be a place for the Secretary of State to have that power but, in deciding this in Committee and on Report, we ought to have a much clearer idea of the criteria that the Secretary of State would use to make the decision for direct closure and the kind of circumstances in which those powers would be used.
There are other powers that it may be more constructive to use. For instance, there are powers to intervene directly with the local authority. As a Minister, I did that in a number of local authority areas in setting up performance management boards. Sometimes it was with representation from a Minister, chaired by a Minister with Department for Education officials with independent representation, with experts, with the chief executive of the local authority, with the director children’s services and with head teachers, charged with driving up performance, not in 10 years but demonstrably in one or two years. That method might not be suitable everywhere, but where it is appropriate it drives up performance in schools without the nuclear option of closing local schools with the uncertainty that that creates for parents.
In that system, if maintained schools improve, they will stay as maintained schools. That is another key difference between our vision and that of the Government; we saw a place for diversity in having schools of high standards both in the maintained sector and, where this was necessary to drive up standards, as academies, with the freedoms that academies have. I do not think that is the case here, and my concern, as I have voiced before, is that the different measures taken together in the Bill will actually enable an acceleration of academies simply by diktat when the Secretary of State closes schools. The schools that will replace those schools will by definition be academies, not maintained schools, so I still have concerns.
I saw the Minister and his officials nodding. It would be helpful if it were possible for him to write to me before Report with some idea of criteria and the circumstances in which these powers to close schools and reopen them as academies would be used, so that we could make a judgment on what is on the Government’s mind on this issue. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, Clause 44 removes the power of the Local Government Ombudsman to hear complaints against schools, a power recently conferred on him by the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. Parents will instead have to complain directly to the Secretary of State, a remedy that is widely perceived to be slow and ineffective. Indeed, when we were discussing the question of complaints to the Secretary of State when dealing with the Academies Bill last year, it was clear that the system was creaking, with the standard time taken to deal with complaints averaging as much as 18 months.
The Local Government Ombudsman has always considered complaints about a wide range of education matters as they relate to local authorities, including concerns about special educational needs. However, until recently the ombudsman was unable to consider complaints about internal school matters. This meant that the complaints process was fragmented, with parents taking their complaint about the local authority to the Local Government Ombudsman but having to take their complaint about the school to the Secretary of State. Parents understandably felt surprised and frustrated when the Local Government Ombudsman was unable to pursue a complaint further once it became a school matter, and would be disappointed when they discovered that their only recourse was to complain to the Secretary of State.
In order to deal with this unsatisfactory state of affairs the last Government, in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, extended the Local Government Ombudsman’s powers to cover complaints from parents and children about a range of non-teaching matters concerning the internal management of schools by governors and head teachers. In April 2010, the Local Government Ombudsman launched a pilot phase of the new school complaints service. These pilots are taking place in 14 local authority areas, and are being used to shape the design and delivery of the new service. The Local Government Ombudsman has also been providing training and information sessions on the new processes, which were due to be in place nationally by this month, September 2011. I understand that the feedback from these pilots has been extremely positive, and indicates a strong level of satisfaction from schools and parents with the conduct and outcomes of the investigations. There have been no challenges by schools to the remedies proposed by the Local Government Ombudsman.
In these circumstances, I am at a loss to understand why the Government want to put the clock back, revert to the previous, fragmentary and unsatisfactory system, and remove the Local Government Ombudsman’s power to investigate complaints about schools as well as local authorities. I am grateful to the Minister for his letter of 8 September, in which he set out the department’s thinking very fully, but I am bound to say that I did not think it altered the case very greatly. Indeed, to my mind, it only underlined the need for a more concerted route for complaints.
I focus my remarks on the impact on children with SEN and disabilities. I recognise that complaints about a school’s failure to deliver the content of a statement of SEN will still be covered by the Local Government Ombudsman. However, I also understand that the most common single school-level issue investigated by the Local Government Ombudsman in the pilots has been bullying, something which will be removed from his purview if this clause goes through. A literature review carried out by the University of Cambridge recently stated that:
“There is a great weight of evidence that confirms that children with SEN and/or disabilities are significantly more likely to be bullied or victimised than their non-disabled peers”.
The Local Government Ombudsman is able to consider policies and practices of schools, and ensure that they are correctly following their own procedures on things like bullying. The Secretary of State has a much weaker set of investigatory powers, which focus only on breaches of the law, which means that he will be unable to go into matters which involve school policy rather than law, such as bullying. I had understood that the Government wanted to ensure that parents of children with SEN and disabilities are not hampered by bureaucracy, and complex processes, when all they want to do is make sure that their child gets the help they need. This is one of the guiding principles underpinning the SEN and disability Green Paper, with a view to making a system which is more user-friendly and works better for parents. I therefore believe the Government should think again about whether the handling of complaints against schools should be taken back into the Department for Education, and particularly whether this is the quickest and most accessible way of ensuring parents get the right support for their child. As the Lamb inquiry stated:
“The Local Government Ombudsman represents the potential for a unified route for individual complaints about SEN at both a school and local authority level, with more appropriate forms of redress available to parents”.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Low, has articulated clear and comprehensive arguments for Clause 42 not standing part of the Bill. I shall make three brief points in support of those arguments.
First, as the noble Lord said, the power of the Secretary of State to intervene in complaints is currently very limited. He is able to address only a very small number of complaints. The 2008 consultation document on complaints made this clear, stating:
“In practice, this means that except where there is a clear breach of a specific duty (for example, a school failing to have a complaints policy or a behaviour policy) there are few occasions when the Secretary of State is empowered to intervene”.
It does not seem very constructive to argue that parents can appeal to the Secretary of State. Let us be clear, we are talking about unresolved complaints. We all agree that complaints should ideally be resolved at the lowest level, with the school, the head teacher or the governors, but where they remain unresolved after going through those processes, it does not seem reasonable to argue that parents can go to the Secretary of State when, in practice, the number and nature of complaints that the Secretary of State can hear in law is very limited. Where would parents with complaints outside that limited ambit go?
Secondly, the Secretary of State does not in practice investigate those complaints in person; they are investigated by civil servants in the department. There is an unhappy record of civil servants making decisions on individual cases whatever their nature. That is understandable because they neither know the detail nor have the local knowledge. We do not see consistency of decision-making across cases which are similar with such a system. It is not good practice for civil servants to make decisions on individual cases, but that is what happens in practice. A recommendation is then made to the Secretary of State, who also lacks any detailed knowledge with which to approve it or not. It is not a very satisfactory system from a parent’s point of view.
Thirdly, because of those deficiencies, an attempt was made, as the noble Lord, Lord Low, outlined, to see whether there was a better way. A pilot was launched whereby parents were able to take unresolved complaints to the Local Government Ombudsman. This started only a little more than a year ago—in April last year. We may well hear from the Government that take-up has been low. The scheme has not been very well publicised and, as the noble Lord, Lord Low, said, we have had little information on its impact—anecdotal evidence shows that it has been rather positive. We need clearer and more reliable information about the impact of the system, particularly parents’ and schools’ views. It seems premature to abandon that new method before we are clear whether it offers a more effective, more efficient and more satisfactory way forward.
If Clause 44 were to stand part of the Bill, we would be left with a very unsatisfactory situation. It was because of the problems with the system of parents going to the Secretary of State that there was an attempt to find another route. We should surely see whether the other system can be made to work more effectively from parents’ and schools’ point of view before we abandon it.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I found the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, immensely persuasive. Bullying in schools has been a problem without a solution for a long time, as I am sure my noble friend Lord Elton would agree. It is very hard for a parent who has gone through the procedures outlined by my noble friend in his response to the noble Lord, Lord Low, and not achieved any success to be stuck in a position where their child continues to be bullied and there is nothing more that they can do about it. There is, in effect, nowhere else for them to turn. The experiment started by the previous Government of giving this responsibility to the Local Government Ombudsman must be worth pursuing and evaluating.
I have recent experience of trying out both the department and the ombudsman with a complaint, although not in this area. Someone who lived in Lambeth was referred to me because he had been unable to find a school place for his child. Lambeth had failed in its duty to the extent that, when this man went to the appeal tribunal for places at a couple of schools, Lambeth said, “You don’t need to bother. We’ve found him somewhere”, which turned out not to be true. Not only had Lambeth not found him somewhere but it destroyed the chance that he had of getting his child into a school. I have talked to the department about that. It has been perfectly courteous but ineffective. When I discovered that this was something that the Local Government Ombudsman could take up, I referred my contact to it and it has been wonderful. It immediately put someone on the case and gave him someone to talk to day to day. He feels totally cared for and supported. It is a completely different experience from dealing with a government department. That is no surprise; government departments are not set up to do this. I did not know that the Local Government Ombudsman was as good as this but it has clearly developed an extremely good service.
The other difficulty that I have come across recently is rather from the other side of the fence. I shall read something that was written to me by a local authority that was trying to deal with academies in its area:
“I am concerned that academies may not be complying in full with the provisions of the Pupil Registration Regulations. Some academies have withdrawn from Education Welfare Services, rather preferring to address matters of non attendance ‘in house’, however in certain circumstances they should, in accordance with the Pupil Registration Regulations, inform the Local Authority. For example, when a child has had 10 days or more continuous absence, and in other matters that are of concern to those in the Local Authority charged with safeguarding the welfare of children.
In addition, I would like to seek some clarity with regard to Free Schools and their obligations in keeping pupil registers, publishing attendance policies and advising other agencies when there appear to be concerns”.
Communication between schools and the welfare authorities is vital. If a local authority feels that a school may not be complying with its obligations, what is it supposed to do? Is it supposed to write to the Secretary of State, who is then supposed to chase individual academies? This is not the business of a government department, particularly when there is an agency that apparently does these things so well.
Home education is the other area in which I come across this. There are many people for whom home education is a choice. They prefer to look after their own children and educate them in their own way. However, there is also a large number of people who have been forced into it and have, particularly if their child has SEN, come to the end of their tether with the non-compliance of schools and local authorities in dealing with their children’s problems. To date there has been no good place for them to go. If the Local Government Ombudsman is to offer that sort of resource, it will be enormously appreciated. I could understand abandoning it because it had proved ineffective but to abandon it now is a great mistake.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, persuasively supports the persuasive case made by the noble Lord, Lord Low. I shall put two quick questions to the Minister. One concerns the admissions of looked-after children. I have been very grateful to him for the constant reassurance that these children will continue to feature at the top of the admissions criteria. However, who will enforce that duty on academies? Who will check that that happens, particularly in this case? I can see that there may be a virtue in this strong local ombudsman, who could take up cases of failure to meet this requirement.
Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, emphasised the value of local ombudsmen’s local knowledge. I join her in saying that I have great respect for the men and women of the Civil Service. However, there are tasks which they are very well suited to do and tasks which they may not be so well suited to do. Therefore, I ask my noble friend Lord Low whether he can produce a little more information about the professional background of local ombudsmen. Perhaps that is something that we can discuss outwith the Chamber.
I think, for example, about the success of the Youth Justice Board. In recent years, I have seen great improvements in an area where in the past there has been a lot of difficulty in dealing with children involved with the criminal justice system. The board consists of, for example, the director of the Children’s Society and a judge from a youth court. There is a great pool of expertise at the top of the organisation and it draws in experts throughout the organisation. There is a lot to be said for choosing experts as advocates, thereby improving outcomes for children. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
My Lords, Whitehall is a long way from Walsall, and the Secretary of State for Education, who sits on one of the peaks in Whitehall, is even further from the parent in the small primary school in Walsall. I think that it is a step too far to assume that the route for dealing with problems of this kind must inevitably flow through the Secretary of State’s office. I support the amendment.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I very much support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Low. Indeed, it is strongly reinforced by other experts in the field. It is clearly unacceptable for there not to be any method of redress for parents of children who are not having their needs met. Children taken into care have been given a lot of attention and it very much looks as though they will be a high priority for school placements and so on. That is right and proper because they are firmly the responsibility of the state. However, that does not mean that there should not be an equal method of appeal for those who fall into a lesser category of concern.
I am very impressed by the Local Government Ombudsman, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has clearly been. I am certainly not going to complain because it is part of a government department, but it is equally important that it has local knowledge and can understand local situations.
Therefore, I hope that we shall hear that the Minister has a very definite concern about what he has heard and that he will be taking away the whole matter and coming back with something more positive on Report.
Lord Elton
Because my noble friend Lord Lucas is praying in aid, I think I should say that I found his speech persuasive. I was expecting the Minister to remind us that in effect the Secretary of State is no such person and that, when a complaint is made to him, someone quite different, more junior and perhaps more approachable manifests himself or herself. However, if that is not how the system works and if the only way to get a personal, sympathetic hearing is through the local ombudsman, I am very interested in hearing it.
For years I have been concerned about bullying in schools and about the extent to which the psychology of it is not understood. I know of children who do not feel that they can report that they are being bullied for a variety of reasons, one of which is that they think they should not be in that position. They think that they will be letting their parents down and they do not tell them about it at all. So when they go to the parent and the parent cannot get an answer, and the great strong arm of mother or father is unable to protect the child, a further blow is given to that child’s confidence and its very home base is under threat. I was somewhat moved by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Low, and was greatly concerned by what my noble friend said. I hope that the Minister will be able to give substantial reassurance on this issue before we get to Report.
Baroness Benjamin
My Lords, I should like to bring in the point of view of parents because many of them do not know who to complain to. I recently came across a case of a mother whose son was excluded. He was bullied at school and the SEN provision at that school was not particularly good, but because he was bullied he responded and got excluded. The mother thought that he was being treated unfairly but did not know who she should complain to. She wrote to her MP and me, and I could not tell her the best route to take. We therefore have to consider educating parents on who they need to complain to, and I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Low.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Low, for tabling the amendment and for enabling us to have this conversation. My noble friend Lady Benjamin ended on a good point because getting a perfect complaints system that is able perfectly to deliver everything for everyone is an extremely tall order, but I am sure that there is more that we can do in terms of people being aware of the routes of recourse. One of the challenges for the Government and the department in thinking how to take this forward is making sure that there is clarity about the routes of redress and about the way that different routes of redress fit together, because confusion is part of the issue and my noble friend is right to say that it is not a sensible way forward to expect a parent who is concerned about their children to know how a complaints service works in every regard. I will therefore certainly reflect on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, has talked about the peaks of Whitehall and the Secretary of State sitting on his peak. It is worth emphasising that what we are talking about is returning to the situation that existed until April 2010. It is not therefore the case that we are proposing a leap into unknown territory and are striking out in some unknown way. The situation that we are seeking to return to is one that obtained until April 2010. Until then the Secretary of State had always considered unresolved complaints and, of course, the point was made that the Secretary of State is, in such cases, a manner of speaking and it is officials who consider the complaints on his behalf.
The LGO service was, as has been pointed out, established in only 14 local authority areas. My first point is that the vast majority of parents and pupils will see no change to the current arrangements in their areas. The Government are very grateful for the work of the Local Government Ombudsman in the 14 local authorities in which the schools complaints service has been operating. It is clear that the intention behind the creation of the service was a good one, but we are not convinced that the LGO school complaints service is the right way to ensure that issues that cannot be resolved locally between parents and schools are settled as swiftly as possible—and speed is obviously one of the important issues here. The LGO service is a good service, but is expensive, relatively speaking, and was described by the Association of School and College Leaders as being a sledgehammer to crack a nut—that was its phrase, not mine. We believe it is preferable to return to a system in which complaints about schools which cannot be resolved locally come to the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord, Lord Low, spoke particularly about special educational needs complaints. I agree with him that the present system and arrangements are far from clear. That is in part due to the complex nature of the current system, which, as he will know, the Green Paper is seeking to address. Parents do have a number of routes of complaint in relation to the SEN assessment and statementing process, depending on the precise nature of their complaint and the remedy they seek. He argued that it would be preferable for all complaints relating to SEN in schools and local authorities to go to the Local Government Ombudsman. However, I think it is fair to say that there may be complaints for which the power of the Secretary of State to direct compliance with legal duties can provide a swifter and more effective remedy for a parent who is frustrated by the failure of a school or local authority to take action. It is the case that intervention by officials in the department can be the prompt that resolves a difficult situation. Appeals about SEN assessment and statementing can also go to the First-tier Tribunal, which will remain. I think that it is hard, under the current arrangements, for there to be a single route of complaint. I accept that what is needed is clear information for parents on which route is most appropriate. Parents certainly want clarity. The department should work closely with the sector over the coming months to look at how the process for considering complaints about SEN provision works coherently for parents.
I accept that noble Lords have concerns about the capacity and capability of the department to provide a first-class complaint-handling service for parents. There was also a point raised about the YPLA. My honourable friend the Minister of State for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning has made a commitment that the department will publish a set of standards on the timescales, clarity, transparency and accessibility of its consideration of complaints. With this in mind the department has started work to review the way that complaints are considered and to establish appropriate safeguards. The policy statement on Clause 44 that we circulated on 12 July outlines the draft standards that the department is developing, and I would welcome views on those standards from noble Lords. Through that work, we will ensure that the department has processes in place to consider complaints on behalf of the Secretary of State to the high standards that parents rightly expect.
Given the particular concerns relating to special educational needs complaints, officials recently met both the Special Educational Consortium and the National Deaf Children’s Society, which has been mentioned this afternoon, and will be meeting them again with the Local Government Ombudsman. Alongside the measures in the SEN and disability Green Paper to make the SEN system less adversarial, I am keen that the department should continue to work closely with interested parties in developing an improved service for this group of parents. I would like to extend an offer to the noble Lord, Lord Low, to discuss the improvements that we are seeking to make.
There was a specific question from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about the admissions arrangements for looked-after children. Complaints about admissions policies will go to the adjudicator. We are proposing to extend the groups of those that can complain. In terms of the refusal of a place to an individual child, there are the local admissions appeal panels. If there is further information I can send him, I will.
I recognise the views that have been expressed this afternoon, and I do think that this is an important area. I hope that I have provided the noble Earl, and other noble Lords, with some reassurance about the importance we attach to this, and at the moment I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Low, to withdraw his opposition to the clause.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port
Before the Minister sits down, may I probe a little further? He says that, in so far as 14 areas are currently exposed to the new method that has been applied since April 2010, most parents will not notice any difference. Of course they will not; there are only 14 areas where the trial is being implemented. The more important point is what results are coming out of that trial. From what the noble Lord, Lord Low, was telling us, there are quite important, positive and affirmative messages about the success of this new system that should, if the logic were applied, be made available to the whole country instead of just 14 areas. Certainly, proper time for evaluation is necessary before taking a draconian measure of this kind, which subverts something that has been argued for and put in place and is being accepted as a reasonable way forward—especially by a Government who tell us time and again that they want smaller government and for fewer things to happen from Whitehall rather than more.
I have one further thing to say. The Minister introduced one word in his summing up that has not been mentioned at all in the debate apart from in his speech. We have all talked about the arguments and argued the case, reason has been invoked and we have appealed to experience and the history of this problem as it moves forward, but I want the Minister to give me an assurance regarding the word that he introduced: finance. Is it for financial reasons that we are moving from one system to another? Is that the driving force that would stop something so logical, appropriate and appreciated from taking place?
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I was waiting to see if my noble friend wanted to take advantage of a chance to reply. He has not yet convinced me with his arguments. We have had an experiment running, and if we are to terminate it we ought at least to be allowed to see the results so far. It really ought to be up to the Government to provide them to us, and I very much hope that between now and Report we will have the chance to see a narrative, if not an evaluation, of what has been achieved so far.
These are long-standing problems, particularly when it comes to bullying, SEN and children getting into home education when they do not really want to be there. I am conscious that this has happened over a long period and in quite a high volume without any indication that the current methods, which we are to go back to, have provided an adequate answer. What was proposed by the previous Government and is now being trialled is a transfer from one set of officials who are not specialised and have limited powers to another set of officials who are specialised and have better powers. That seems to be worth trying. That is not to say that this is something that should not be done by Government; rather, it is to say that if we do it in a slightly different way, it could be done better.
I am conscious of the suffering that is caused by the current system and its inadequacies, and I do not want to go back to it. I do not mind going back to it if the system being trialled turns out to be no better and more expensive, but we ought to know what the evaluation is.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, the Minister has asked me to withdraw my amendment and my opposition to Clause 44 stand part. I will do that for the moment but a number of points have been made around the Committee to which we may want to return on Report, if it has not been possible for the Minister to give us greater satisfaction on them. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on all sides of the Committee.
I shall clarify a couple of points. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, for making the point that we are talking here about unresolved complaints—complaints that have not been able to be resolved at local level. We all agree that complaints should be resolved at the lowest level possible, and it is only the unresolved ones that we are talking about referring to either the ombudsman or the Secretary of State.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked me to say a bit more about the Local Government Ombudsman. I cannot say an awful lot, but I imagine that his office is staffed by people who are versed in the law, administration and local government. That is what I would expect.
Like others, I am bound to say that I have not been completely persuaded by the Minister’s arguments. As the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, pointed out, the desire to bring everything back to the Secretary of State comes rather oddly from a Government who preach so much localism but practise so much centralism. That we are merely returning to the situation as it was before 2010 may very well be true, but it was the pre-2010 situation which was found to be unsatisfactory. That is why the move to the Local Government Ombudsman was made.
It may be that, because the pilots have operated only in 14 areas, the great majority of people have not seen the benefits of the ombudsman’s style of hearing complaints, but those who have not known anything better and are still mired in the pre-2010 situation might be pleased to experience the service that is offered under the 14 pilots.
Ministers have told us that bringing the investigation of complaints back to the Secretary of State would enable a quick resolution, but, as I said when opposing the clause, it has not been everybody’s experience that the procedure of the Secretary of State’s office has been all that expeditious in the past. It is clear that a lot of work still needs to be done before that route is fit for purpose.
It would be best if the Government were to put this on hold. If they can satisfy us by giving us the results of the evaluation before Report, that would be very helpful. If that is not possible, I would ask that the matter be taken back until there can be a proper evaluation. We might then be able to consider it again in future when another education Bill comes before the House.
The Minister kindly invited me to discuss the matter further with him, which I am happy to do. I would be very happy to join the discussions that he is having with the Special Educational Consortium and the National Deaf Children’s Society if that would help to see whether we can clarify the procedures at least in relation to children with special educational needs in the context of the implementation of the Green Paper.
Although, as I have indicated, there are a number of unresolved issues here to which we may wish to return on Report, I no longer wish for now to oppose that the clause stand part of the Bill. I do so in the hope that the matter can be progressed on the basis of further discussions between now and Report or, if not then, when the Bill comes back before us on Report.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I hope that we can deal with this quickly. This clause amends Section 456 of the Education Act 1996, on the regulation of permitted charges, to achieve two objectives—first, to allow a charge for the cost of buildings and accommodation when a school provides an optional extra, and, secondly, to make an exception for early years provision whereby a charge can be made only for teaching staff engaged under contracts for services and allow a charge to be made for employed staff. It is a rather technical issue.
I have a number of concerns about the way in which these provisions might operate. I am very grateful to the Minister for two letters that he sent me, on 21 June and 20 July this year, clarifying the way in which the Government envisage these measures operating. The assurances depend to a large extent on the regulations behind the provisions, which cannot be made totally clear to me today, but I should be grateful if the Minister could put the position on record in her reply, which would at least give me and other Members some assurance about the operation of these measures.
Without delaying the Committee further I ask the Minister, first, to confirm that through regulations the measures will not enable schools to delay entry into the reception class, keep children in nursery classes longer, and therefore charge. Secondly, can she confirm that the measures will not enable schools to charge for any child in reception class, even if they are still aged four? Thirdly, will the measures enable charging only for teaching staff over and above the free entitlement? Fourthly, can the Minister also assure me that there will be some protection for the additional free hours that many local authorities currently provide for disadvantaged and vulnerable children; and, fifthly, that there will be some attempt to specify some concept of reasonableness in the charges that schools can make and how the regulations might define how the charges to parents may be made up so that they are reasonable? If we can get those assurances on record today, I am sure that it will take us forward.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, many schools provide high-quality early education provided by parents that is good for getting children ready for school. However, schools can currently effectively offer only the free entitlement—the 15 hours a week, 38 weeks a year—that all three and four year-old children are entitled to. This is because they cannot charge for extra early years education that they provide during school hours for three and four year-old pupils over and above the 15-hours’ free entitlement.
The previous Government took a power in the Childcare Act 2006 to make regulations enabling schools to charge for additional hours that they might wish to offer parents. The Bill, therefore, does not seek a power for schools to charge. It enables schools to reflect the costs of their provision in that charge. It is, in effect, a technical clause. It is about ensuring that charges for optional extras can include a proportion of building and accommodation costs and, for early years provision, the time of qualified teachers.
Why are we proposing this change? Because making school-based early years provision sustainable will create greater choice for parents about the type, quality and flexibility of early years provision that they can take up for their child. We want to enable parents to take up provision above their free entitlement in the maintained sector, if they wish to, as they already can in private, voluntary and independent providers.
Enabling schools to charge appropriately will help them to remain financially viable, but I stress that schools will not be permitted to make a profit from charging and will be able to charge only up to the costs of delivering the provision. I reassure the noble Baroness that that will of course be a reasonable charge and it must be within boundaries.
Furthermore, it will not be permissible in any way for schools to charge for early education that is part of the free entitlement, including—I reassure the noble Baroness on this point, too—the new entitlement for disadvantaged two year-olds, or for reception provision. The Government remain committed to reception classes being free, with full-time provision of 25 hours a week from the September after the child turns four. The noble Baroness referred to the letters from my noble friend the Minister of 21 June and 20 July, which we hope will have given her further reassurances on those points.
There is no ability for schools to charge for education during school hours for pupils of compulsory school age, and there is no ability for them to charge for hours provided to parents for free under the early years entitlement—a measure which the noble Baroness introduced and which we have extended in this Bill. We are committed to ensuring that reception provision is free, and there will be no ability to hold children up in nursery classes, as she feared. Through the Bill, we want to ensure that schools can charge for additional, optional provision in a way that enables them to cover their costs and provides greater choice of provision for the parent and a consistent and high-quality early education for the child.
If the noble Baroness raised other points which I have not covered, I will of course write to her, but I hope that, with those reassurances, she will feel happy to withdraw her objection to the clause standing part of the Bill.
The Earl of Listowel
I thank the noble Baroness for raising this issue, as it has given us an opportunity to learn more about the Government’s intentions. I warmly welcome the purpose of the clause, which is to allow an extended offer of high-quality early years care in nurseries attached to schools. We all know how important high-quality early years care is in regard to outcomes for children, so this is welcome news. Particularly in nurseries attached to schools one finds a high level of stability in the staff, with turnover being only about 4 or 5 per cent, compared with in the region of 15 per cent in some day centres. That is also very welcome.
I also thank the noble Baroness and the Minister for their correspondence on early years, which I appreciated.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 122BZB, 122BZC and 122BAA. These four amendments fall into two groups, which are about linked but separate issues. I shall start by speaking to Amendments 122BZA and 122BAA and shall then move on to the other two. Both these amendments propose that we do not delete the duty on further education colleges and sixth-form colleges to promote the well-being of their local area.
I have put forward these amendments because I am currently leading a commission of inquiry promoted by NIACE, the National Institute of Adult and Continuing Education, the AOC, the Association of Colleges, and the 157 Group of large further education colleges to look into the role of colleges in their communities. This follows directly from last November’s two White Papers on skills—Skills for Sustainable Growth and the accompanying strategy document. Both these White Papers proposed a considerable freeing-up of colleges from the micro-management of the Learning and Skills Council, and this is now embodied in many of the amendments to Schedule 12.
The aim is essentially to free colleges to take their own decisions. There is particular emphasis on their working for and in partnership with local employers on the one hand and individual students on the other, and on making sure that they meet the needs of these two groups. However, the White Papers also refer to colleges meeting the needs of their local communities. Implicit in the deregulation is that the needs of employers, individuals and local communities vary from area to area and, therefore, that what is required also varies from area to area. My job in chairing the commission of inquiry is to put a bit of flesh on what the notion of serving the local community might mean for such colleges. We published an interim report in July and our final report is due in November. The outcome of our inquiries has been to highlight the potential of further education colleges to play a vital role within their communities in all kinds of ways.
For example, the provision of youth activities might be seen as important in relation to the riots that we saw this summer. Some colleges link up with local authorities to provide imaginative and extensive youth activities, ranging from sport and motor mechanics to drop-in clubs. These bring young people into the college to see the facilities and use the canteen. They then learn that the college is not such a frightening place. The evaluation of these experiments is that they have been very positive in reducing the number of local NEETs, drug-taking and youth crime. Likewise, in some areas colleges play a major part in outreach activities for ethnic minorities. They provide English classes for speakers of other languages, parenting, home-making and cookery classes, and classes in basic numeracy and literacy. These lead to other college courses and often to higher qualifications, so that many people in these communities move from being dependent on welfare benefits to sometimes quite substantial jobs.
On a different tack, some colleges run consultancies for small and medium-sized businesses, helping them with business planning, financial management and even a limited amount of R&D. The activities vary from community to community, depending on local needs. Many are run in partnership with other organisations. We have coined the phrase “colleges as a dynamic nucleus within their communities”. They are proactive, forming partnerships and companies and leading consortia. The Minister of State for Skills and Further Education, Mr John Hayes, is anxious to see colleges pursue this role, particularly in disadvantaged communities, to provide a focus for regeneration and generate a sense of pride in their local communities. Therefore, from the point of view of my commission, I am very anxious that this duty to promote well-being in a local area should remain. The best of our colleges do it already but it is very useful that there should be a statutory obligation to promote well-being to put pressure on those colleges that do not. I know that the Association of Colleges took the view that any good college would do it. Yes, good colleges do it, but it is those that do not that we want to put pressure on.
I turn now to Amendments 122BZB and 122BZC, which concern a different issue. The passage of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Learning and Children Act 2009, with which many of us around the Table were involved, established sixth-form colleges as separate entities. On examining the Act, the Office for National Statistics decided that both sixth-form colleges and further education colleges had been wrongly classified back in 1992 as being part of the non-profit sector, rather than as public sector institutions, and that the right classification for them was as public sector institutions. The deciding factor was that it is the Secretary of State who ultimately agrees and sets their articles of governance and has the right to dissolve them. If further education colleges are, however, classed as public sector, they will be required to obey all kind of Treasury rules about managing their finances. This effectively stops them from doing all the enterprising things—like setting up subsidiary companies and forming partnerships in their communities—that I would like to see them doing, in order to satisfy my remit in leading this commission, and in order to get things moving after that. The Office for National Statistics is sympathetic to this, and has allowed time for the legislation to be amended in this Bill, so that further educational colleges remain, as they have been, classed as non-profit institutions. The purpose of these two amendments is to have a shot at doing this, by helping to change their status.
Amendment 122BZB is about altering the articles of governance. The present legislation gives the Secretary of State—in the form of the Skills Funding Agency, the appropriate authority—powers to modify the articles of governance. The amendment shifts the ultimate decision-making power to the corporation itself, and makes the SFA’s role merely that of having to be consulted. Likewise, Amendment 122BZC places the ultimate decision on winding up the corporation on the corporation itself, although the Secretary of State, through the SFA, may have considerable influence on that decision, not least in refusing funds.
I am aware that these two amendments are not sufficient in themselves. My aim was to get this issue on to the agenda, because I am anxious that colleges should have the power to go ahead and be entrepreneurial in their own right. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
First, my Lords, we accept the Government amendments which have been tabled. As the Minister set out in his letter to me, they correct what ended up being an unintentional consequence of previous legislation, as it affected voluntary sixth-form colleges. On the presumption that these amendments have been the subject of consultation with the Catholic Education Service, which raised the concerns in the first place, if it is now content with the proposed changes, we echo that contentment.
Secondly, going back to the intent of the changes set out in Schedule 12, I have a number of concerns which I want to share with noble Lords today. First, on the issue of promoting economic and social well-being in their areas, I agree with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp—there is a strong argument for sixth-form and FE colleges to play a role in their wider communities, and to link with local youth services. I was very interested in her concept of colleges as a dynamic nucleus in the community, a concept which I think is worth exploring. As she identified, one of the lessons of the recent riots is surely that those areas with the strongest embedded youth provision, providing positive alternatives to gang culture—something in which colleges can play a part—can be the most resilient to unrest and destruction, as they were over the summer. FE colleges have worked hard in recent years to develop robust partnerships with employers in their areas, knowing the local employment market, and tuning the curriculum offers to the needs of local employers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, says, a number of them already do that, but if we start to remove this provision of promoting economic and social well-being, there is a danger that we will be sending the wrong message: rather than encouraging that development, it will become a licence for colleges to turn inward and insular again, instead of embracing that new role.
Furthermore, on acquiring land and borrowing money by using existing property as collateral, while I would not claim to be an expert on the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, was raising, I do have concerns about some of the provisions set out in Schedule 12. I am concerned about the consequences of some of these new freedoms. It is not absolutely clear to me where the demand for this is coming from. It seems to me that the managers of FE colleges have many skills, but intervening in money markets is probably not one of them. My fear is that some well meaning college leaders will quickly find themselves out of their depth.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Sharp for moving this amendment and for the work that she is doing on leading her commission. She brings a lot of experience to this debate. Central to our reform of the education and skills system, as the Committee know, is our belief that we should trust professionals. That is just as true for colleges as it is for schools. We all know the excellent work done by colleges as independent institutions, and my noble friend gave a number of excellent examples of colleges being dynamic nuclei, as I think the plural is, and being entrepreneurial. We know that last year’s Ofsted annual report showed that sixth-form colleges are the highest performing sector in providing further education, so we want them and FE to have greater freedom to build on their track record and raise achievement still further.
As well as some non-legislative changes that we are making, such as simplifying the 16-to-19 funding system, the Bill aims to remove the kind of unnecessary regulation that we believe holds colleges back from deciding how to manage their own affairs. That includes things like removing the power to direct a college to consider disciplinary action against a member of staff, reducing the restrictions on sixth-form colleges’ ability to form or invest in a company or removing the duty on colleges in England to have regard to guidance on consultation with students and employers.
In response to the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, regarding the capability of FE to manage borrowing and investments, I think that in some ways her questions highlighted a difference between us. Our starting point is that colleges are responsible, high-performing institutions, and we do not think that there is a reason to believe that they will borrow more money just because they no longer need to consult the relevant funding body. We expect them to take steps to ensure that their borrowings are proportionate to their business, as well as affordable. The financial health of a college should be the responsibility of its governing body. However, there are safeguards of the sort that the noble Baroness was seeking. Both the Financial Memorandum and the Financial Planning Handbook set out the mechanisms to ensure the continuing viability of their institutions, the conditions of borrowing, and the controls and monitoring arrangements in place to protect public money and the interests of students.
As my noble friend Lady Sharp argued, colleges make an extremely important contribution to the social and economic needs of their local communities. They do it in many of the ways that she outlined, and they also do it through the education they provide, the skills with which they equip young people, the jobs they create and through their links with local businesses, for example. Therefore, I think that the question is: given that they are doing this, do they need to have a legal duty to do so? The provision to remove the duty has been welcomed by the sector, including the Association of Colleges and the Sixth Form Colleges’ Forum, and we think that it is recognition of the trust that we have placed on the ability of institutions to take well-informed, rational decisions without the need for there to be too much direction from government.
The other amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Sharp raise the question of freedoms that FE colleges have. The intention behind her amendments is to remove the Secretary of State’s powers to modify a further education corporation’s instrument and articles of government and to place a condition on the Secretary of State to secure the consent of the corporation’s governing body before making an order to dissolve the corporation. My noble friend mentioned two phrases to which I always respond in a Pavlovian way. She referred to Treasury rules and wanting to encourage FE colleges to be enterprising. I am sympathetic to the intention behind these amendments as the Government are committed to trying to reduce the level of external control. Her amendments raise an important issue. It is one that I am very happy to take away and consider further before Report. Perhaps we could discuss that further.
So regards the Government’s amendments, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, was kind enough to make the point that in effect we are trying to do what the previous Government attempted, but did not have the opportunity, to do. The aim of the amendments is to reinstate the statutory safeguards relating to voluntary sixth-form colleges. I provided information in the letter that I sent to noble Lords on 13 July. As the noble Baroness said, it was the Government’s view that legislation should reflect the distinct constitutional position of voluntary sixth-form colleges, and they confirmed that they would look to reinstate those protections through legislation. We agree with that view and, through these amendments, we seek to reinstate the statutory position. This includes ensuring consultation with all persons who may appoint or nominate foundation governors before the Secretary of State exercises his intervention powers. It will include consultation with the bishop where the bishop appoints or nominates foundation governors. To answer the noble Baroness’s question, I think that it reflects the concerns of the CES—a point about which she asked me.
So far as concerns the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, moved on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Knight, we are keen to place accountability for student performance and an institution’s own improvement firmly within that institution. Therefore, the Bill seeks to replace the current complex intervention arrangements, which involve both the YPLA and local authorities, with simpler arrangements where the Secretary of State has reserve powers of intervention. We are lucky to have a high performing college sector and we foresee these powers being used very rarely. These arrangements and the role of the Secretary of State have been welcomed by the Association of Colleges.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that the provisions contained in Schedule 12 and proposed in the government amendments are necessary to support the continued success of the college sector. They will ensure that providers are free to deliver high-quality education. They replace the current, complex arrangements for intervention in colleges with reserved powers and ensure that legislation recognises the specific governance and constitutional arrangements of voluntary sixth-form colleges.
As I said, I will pursue further the points made by my noble friend Lady Sharp. With that in mind, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for his sympathetic reply to the amendments. I am sorry that we have not had a little more movement on the amendment concerning well-being. Although in some senses, as my noble friend says, it is unnecessary, because a lot of colleges are doing it and I know that the Association of Colleges and the sixth-form college group welcome that, my point was that it helps to reinforce the issue. However, that is a background issue.
To pursue the other, rather esoteric issue, I know that the team in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is working hard on it, and I hope that we can get some changes to the Bill that will satisfy both the Treasury and the Office for National Statistics. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hill of Oareford
“ In section 33E (principal powers of a sixth form college corporation), in subsection (2), after “subsection (1)” insert “and (in the case of a sixth form college corporation to which section 33J applies) section 33J(1A)”.”
Lord Hill of Oareford
“ (1) Section 33J (special provision for certain institutions) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) A sixth form college corporation to which this section applies may (accordingly) conduct the relevant sixth form college in a way that secures that the established character of the sixth form college is preserved and developed (and, in particular, in a way that is in accordance with any trust deed relating to the college).”
(3) In subsection (3)—
(a) for “reference in subsection (1)(a) to the established character of a sixth form college is” substitute “references in subsections (1)(a) and (1A) to the established character of a sixth form college are”;(b) for “a reference” substitute “references”.”
“(b) for subsection (2) substitute—“(2) An order under subsection (1) may not be made unless—
(a) the Secretary of State has consulted the corporation, and(b) in the case of a sixth form college corporation to which section 33J applies, the trustees of the relevant sixth form college have given their consent.””
“( ) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) In the case of a sixth form college corporation to which section 33J applies, an order under subsection (1) may not be made unless the trustees of the relevant sixth form college have given their consent.””
“( ) In subsection (5), omit “, with the consent of the YPLA”.
( ) After subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) A sixth form college corporation may do the things mentioned in subsection (5) only with the consent of—
(a) the Secretary of State, and(b) in the case of a sixth form college corporation to which section 33J applies, the trustees of the relevant sixth form college.””
“( ) In subsection (1)(b), for “or (6)” substitute “, (6) or (6A)”.”
“( ) In subsection (4), for “subsection (5)” substitute “subsections (5) and (6A)”.”
(a) after “may” insert “(subject to subsection (6A))”;(b) “
“( ) After subsection (6) insert—
“(6A) In the case of a sixth form college corporation to which section 33J applies, any property held by the corporation on trust for the purposes of the relevant sixth form college must be transferred to the trustees of the relevant sixth form college.”
( ) After subsection (7) insert—
“(7A) Subsection (7) does not apply where (by virtue of subsection (6A)) the recipient is the trustees of the relevant sixth form college.””
Lord Hill of Oareford
“(4) Subsections (4A) and (4B) apply to a sixth form college which is specified, or falls within a class specified, in an order under section 33J(2).
(4A) Before doing one or more of the things listed in subsection (6), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the trustees of the sixth form college, and(b) each person or body with power under the college’s instrument of government to appoint or nominate one or more of its foundation governors.(4B) After carrying out a consultation under subsection (4A), the Secretary of State must give the persons and bodies consulted a notice stating—
(a) what the Secretary of State has decided to do;(b) the reasons for the decision.””
Baroness Brinton
“( ) After subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) Notwithstanding subsections (1) to (3), if a pupil registered at a pupil referral unit is also registered at an Academy, the Academy shall pay the local authority which maintains the pupil referral unit the cost of educating the pupil for days when the pupil attends the unit.”.”
Baroness Brinton
The amendment has one simple aim in the extremely complex world of schools funding: to ensure that there is a level playing field concerning exclusions from academies to PRUs. I thank my noble friend Lord Hill for his helpful letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, who, as I mentioned earlier, cannot be in her place today. I and my colleagues are concerned that in the bifurcated schools funding system that academies and free schools are now part, they should not be at any advantage over a community or maintained school, nor should the funding mechanism make it more beneficial for an academy or a free school to exclude a pupil long-term, which would necessitate a move to a PRU. My noble friend's letter is partially helpful, and I am grateful for that. It states:
“PRUs are centrally funded within a local authority's Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). When a maintained school converts to Academy status, no funding for local authority places is deducted from the local authorities DSG and the Academy receives no additional funding for this function. So Academies and maintained schools are in the same position in this respect”.
One reason that we have concerns is that academies have consistently had a higher exclusion rate of pupils than community schools. The figures for 2008-09, published under the Freedom of Information Act earlier this year show that on average academies permanently excluded 82 per cent more students— 3.1 per 1,000 compared to 1.7 per 1,000 for non-academy schools. I know that that figure is beginning to reduce, but there is still more than 50 per cent disparity between academies and the community schools.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, we have three amendments in this group that I should like to address.
First, on the Question that Clause 49 stand part of the Bill, this clause was introduced during Commons Report stage and has not been properly scrutinised. It aims, as I understand it, to give PRUs more autonomy over their budgets and staffing. It also enables a majority of pupils to be referred by schools rather than local authorities. I acknowledge receipt of the Minister’s letter to my noble friend Lady Hughes but, nevertheless, we have a number of concerns that I hope the Minister will be able to address convincingly—particularly regarding the new management and funding arrangements, and whether they will perhaps be perverse incentives for pupils to be kept at PRUs far longer than is in their educational or personal self-interest.
Will the Minister clarify what safeguards will be put in place to stop these autonomous PRUs from keeping hold of the young people for as long as possible, rather than seeking to return them to mainstream education? Secondly, what safeguards will exist to prevent schools from referring to the PRUs children who would not previously have met the criteria for referral by local authority? Does the Minister acknowledge that there was a risk within a federational chain of schools that financial drivers could lead to more pupils being referred to PRUs. Thirdly, to avoid the danger of perverse incentives to keep pupils over-long in PRUs, will the Government ensure that there will be incentives, including financial incentives, for PRUs to help young people back into mainstream education, which I hope is what we should all hope would be their ultimate goal? Finally, can the Minister explain how the funding flows will work, particularly where there is dual registration of a pupil at their old school and the PRU? How will the funding be allocated and who will hold the ultimate responsibility for the expenditure?
We remain concerned that the transfer of power to schools to decide whether pupils should be sent to PRUs will lead them too easily to become dumping grounds for children with behavioural problems or complex disabilities, and we seek reassurance from the Minister that the appropriate checks and balances will be put in place to prevent this happening.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I turn to Amendment 124A. Clause 52, among other things, allows for the creation of alternative provision academies, which are defined as institutions,
“principally concerned with providing full-time or part-time education for children of compulsory school age who, by reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise, may not for any period receive suitable education unless alternative provision is made for them”.
Currently, pupil referral units perform that role, so the Bill effectively allows them to become academies.
Our concerns about these new proposals echo those that we raised in previous debates relating to excluded pupils; for example, the repeal of the duty of schools to enter into behaviour and attendance partnerships and the removal of appeals panels that can reinstate wrongly excluded pupils. They also mirror our concerns regarding Clause 49.
Pupil referral units which become academies could grow more isolated from other schools and be cut off from current partnership working, including with local authorities. I ask the Minister again how he thinks this will help excluded pupils to re-enter mainstream schools as soon as possible.
Our Amendment 124A would provide a fallback position whereby pupils could not stay in alternative provision academies for more than six months. If the Minister is going to argue that a time limit of this kind is overly rigid, what alternative safeguards will he propose to stop children being referred early or inappropriately and returned to the mainstream late? How long will they be left to languish in units because it is financially desirable for the institution concerned that they do so?
A different issue is covered by our Amendment 124C. As it stands, the clause includes a Henry VIII provision which gives the Secretary of State a wide-ranging power to amend by order any legislation passed prior to this legislation to achieve the objective of establishing the two new types of academy; that is, 16-19 academies and alternative provision academies. It appears that the Government have not thought out the necessary consequential amendments for introducing 16-19 academies and are relying on a Henry VIII provision to do so. As I am sure noble Lords around the Room will agree, such powers should only ever be used sparingly and in exceptional circumstances. When does the Minister envisage the provision being used and for what purpose?
The amendment, which would remove the Henry VIII provision, is probing. Colleagues tabled a similar amendment in the Commons but, as the Minister there was unable to give a full account of the reasons for the provision, we have tabled it again here. In the Commons, Nick Gibb explained that the power would be used to make provision for which bits of existing legislation would apply to these new models of academy and which would not. He went on to say:
“How the new educational institutions will fit into the existing legal framework is complex”.—[Official Report, Commons, Education Bill Committee, 5/4/11; col. 893.]
In short, it is not yet clear which legislation will apply to these new types of academy, yet we are being asked to pass the Bill regardless.
Nick Gibb also promised to provide more details of the Government’s proposals as the Bill passed through the House. Since then, we have had a number of government amendments tabled and a letter from our own Minister on the subject. However, as his letter confirms, despite the extra information that the Government are now able to provide, the Henry VIII provision remains necessary for the making of further amendments by order. The letter explaining the government amendments is not an explanation of each amendment but more a background note on the Government’s general approach. This is not the right way to go about making and scrutinising legislation.
If the proposals are too complicated for the Government to bring the details before us now, surely there is a real danger that they will be too complicated to be implemented effectively. We should have the complete legislation before us today so that we have the chance to debate and amend it with the thought and diligence that this Committee has already demonstrated.
I am not sure that the Henry VIII provision was ever intended to provide a way out when the Government had not got all their amendments written in time for the passage of the Bill. I therefore hope that noble Lords will support our amendment to delete the Secretary of State’s powers in Clause 53 to this effect.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, we know that at any one time around 40,000 to 70,000 pupils are in some form of alternative provision. We know that there is an iron-clad correlation between those who are excluded, those who attend alternative provision, those who come into the youth justice system and those who go on to offend and reoffend in their adult lives. No one here accepts that it has to be like that. Alternative provision should provide an opportunity to support more young people to turn their lives around. That is why we are taking a number of steps to help to achieve this, including the changes in Clause 49. The Secretary of State has asked the department’s behaviour adviser, Charlie Taylor, to conduct a review to identify what further changes may be needed.
We are keen to give PRUs more of the freedoms that other schools enjoy to allow the professionals who run them to drive their own improvement. This clause will allow PRUs to manage their own budgets in a similar way to mainstream schools. Through regulations we are also giving PRU management committees powers over staffing similar to those that school governing bodies already have. Professionals working in PRUs have welcomed these changes.
In addition to these freedoms, our exclusions trials, in which schools will retain responsibility for excluded pupils, will assess how a new approach to managing exclusions could contribute to improving standards in alternative provision. I hope that this point answers a number of concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. If schools retain responsibility for the education and outcomes of excluded pupils, PRUs and AP providers will need to be more responsive to demand from schools for high-quality education. That should help to deal with the perception, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that there are perverse incentives. We do not want perverse incentives for schools to exclude. We want, as I know she does, the right kind of provision to be made in a way that is suitable for individual children. By allowing for the creation of alternative provision academies and free schools, we also aim to bring the benefits of the academies and free schools programmes to the alternative provision sector.
Turning to Amendment 124A, I agree with the noble Baroness that returning a child to a mainstream school as soon as possible is, in most cases, the best thing for a pupil attending alternative provision. Like her, I do not want alternative provision to be seen as a dumping ground where children are put out of sight and out of mind. We know that some of the best PRUs have a strong focus on reintegration. They constantly monitor and review when it is appropriate for a pupil to be supported to return to mainstream education. We want to see all AP providers, including alternative provision academies and free schools, learning from this kind of good practice. However, in some cases it is possible that a longer period in alternative provision may be appropriate. For example, continuity can be important at key stage 4. A young person whose education has been disrupted or who has become disengaged might benefit from a longer period in AP, especially if they are responding well to this provision. Therefore, we argue, as the noble Baroness predicted, that professionals managing and delivering alternative provision, including in AP academies and free schools, are best placed to make judgments about the best time for a pupil to return to mainstream education. There should not be an arbitrary cut-off date that cannot take account of individual circumstances or that would trump the judgment of professionals who know the needs of pupils in their care.
My noble friend raised points about funding and her desire to make sure that academies and free schools are funded on a comparable basis. As she pointed out, PRUs are centrally funded within the local authority’s dedicated schools grant. When a maintained school converts to academy status, no funding for PRUs is taken from the local authority’s DSG and the academy receives no additional funding for this function. Therefore, maintained schools and academies are on the same footing in this respect. If a pupil is excluded permanently from a maintained school or an academy, the local authority is responsible for securing suitable education for them. Schools—maintained schools and academies—are responsible for securing full-time education for a pupil from the sixth day of a fixed-term exclusion. Some providers of alternative provision also provide early intervention places for pupils with behavioural issues. Local authorities and schools can agree between them how places in PRUs may be made available for pupils who are the responsibility of schools. This would include if and how the authority would charge schools for places, and we would expect them to do that on an equitable basis for all schools. With regard to safeguards on referrals by schools, I set out the position in detail in my letter of 8 September.
On the government amendments, I recognise the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raised about the powers contained in Clause 53. They allow us to make changes to primary and secondary legislation that we think are needed in consequence of the creation of new types of academy under Clause 52. In the light of the concerns expressed in the other place, we have drafted and tabled as many of the amendments to primary legislation as we can, and I have written to try to explain those amendments in detail.
These are complex legislative issues and I concede that we have not resolved them all. We think that we need to take a residual power to amend primary and secondary legislation by order. The exercise of that power is subject to the affirmative procedure, so both Houses of Parliament would have the chance to debate the legislation when an order was laid. There is a precedent for taking this approach—there is a much broader power to make consequential amendments in Section 265 of the previous Government’s Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009.
In addition, we have tabled minor amendments to Clause 52 of the Bill. Amendments 123A and 123B amend new Section 1A so that an academy school cannot be an alternative provision academy. Further amendments give the Secretary of State flexibility to apply legislation to this diverse sector.
Overall, as is the case for the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, we are keen to ensure that alternative provision meets the needs of the vulnerable children that it serves. It is important that funding should be on an equitable basis. With some of the assurances that I have given about the changes we are making, the funding and the Government’s intentions, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Elton
I ask my noble friend for a little footnote to history. In checking the affirmative order provided for in Clause 74(4), I see that, whereas we have only an affirmative procedure for statutory instruments affecting these changes, the Welsh have opted for their equivalent for the negative procedure. I wondered what the history to that was. I do not want an answer now but, if there is anything of interest in it, I should like to know what it is.
The Earl of Listowel
I thank the Minister briefly for his clear recognition of what happens if we do not get this right: we have children whose parents have not been able to care for them properly, for whatever reason, feeling unwanted in their schools, being put in a place that they feel is like some sort of bin and then ending up in the secure estate. There is a great deal at stake here and getting it right is very complex. Some children benefit from a smaller environment.
One does not want all the worst children in one place; some of them need to be a bit healthier. The last time that I visited a pupil referral unit, there was a fire alarm and we all had to file out to stand outside. It was the third time that day that this had happened, and it was chaos. The staff were good but it was a very difficult environment to work in. I welcome the Minister’s action on this.
I am very pleased that Charlie Taylor, whom we have met and in whom we all have confidence, is taking charge in this area. I wonder whether any noble Lords might be interested in visiting a pupil referral unit with him soon to see what is going on. I certainly would be, and I will get in touch with him about that.
Baroness Brinton
I thank the Minister for his response on the very varied amendments that we have in front of us for PRUs today. I am sorry to say that, with the noise of the helicopters overhead, I was not quite sure whether he had answered the very specific question I raised in my amendment, about the disparity of funding for PRUs in a local authority area where there is a larger number of academies. I accept that he may not have the details to hand, but I would be grateful if he could let me know whether that is something that could be considered. I believe that the figures demonstrate that there is a serious issue there.
I also understand the points he has raised about limiting the time for which a pupil could stay within a PRU. I certainly take the point that there are some times where it needs to be more than just six months, to maintain continuity. I do not know if noble Lords opposite would take the point as well; however, I believe they said that that was as much a probing amendment as anything else, so I hope that will be acceptable. I remain concerned as well about the Henry VIII provision, and hope that some of the detail can be sorted out before this Bill proceeds into an Act. It is important that the Secretary of State—especially as we are talking so much about localism these days—does not reserve a large number of powers to himself or herself.
On that basis, waiting for the response from the Minister on the very specific point that I made, and knowing that the Report stage is coming, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Avebury
“Promotion of education of vulnerable children
The Secretary of State shall issue guidance on how local authorities can promote and improve the education of vulnerable children in their area.”
Lord Avebury
My Lords, this new clause is about the way that local authorities deal with vulnerable children. The group that I am specifically concerned with, as your Lordships may be aware, is that of Gypsies and Travellers. I declare an interest, as president of the Advisory Council on the Education of Romany and other Travellers, ACERT.
Statistics show that GRT children are severely deprived. They are in fact the most vulnerable of any ethnic group by a long way. The National Foundation for Educational Research showed, in a report produced last October for the department, that absence rates in primary schools were between 19 and 24 per cent, compared with the national average of 5 per cent. In secondary schools it was between 23 and 27 per cent, compared with a national average of 7 per cent. There were more than eight permanent exclusions for every thousand GRT boys, compared with less than two per thousand of all boys nationally. The figure for fixed-term exclusions of boys, mainly for persistent disruptive behaviour, was a staggering 25 per cent, compared with a national average of 10 per cent. Some 20 per cent of GRT pupils failed to make the transfer between primary and secondary education. For every 100 GRT pupils in year 6, only half get to year 11, compared with a national average of 92.4 per cent. From the cohort that did get to take GCSEs, the number achieving five A to C grades at that level in 2010 was 8.3 per cent, compared with a national average of 55 per cent.
These appalling figures do not tell the whole story by any means. More than half of all the children belonging to these communities do not identify themselves as such, fearing the discrimination and bullying of which they are unfortunately likely to be victims if they are known to be Gypsies or Travellers. Obviously they do not include, either, the high proportion of children from these communities who are not on school rolls. The children in these two groups are likely to be at the bottom end of the scale of vulnerability, and if they could have been included the record would almost certainly have been worse. Manifestly we have failed to do enough educationally for GRT children in the past, and that is one of the reasons why they are also at the bottom of society in every other respect as well.
Let us next see whether these children are likely to be picked up by the definition of vulnerable children who are covered by the coalition’s statutory framework, as was set out in the Minister’s very helpful letter to me of 31 August, which I hope that some other noble Lords will also have seen.
SEN children are covered by a code of practice that details what should be done to ensure that they get an appropriate education. They will be assessed by a statutory education, health and care plan, which was outlined in the recent Green Paper. A revised legal framework will deal with about 87,000 looked-after children, on which there is also statutory guidance to local authorities. For those looked-after for six months or more, the pupil premium of £430 will chip in.
Children in need—those who are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development, including the disabled—are supported under a general statutory duty laid down in the Children Act 1989. Again, that is reinforced by a range of guidance.
The Minister concludes by saying that he hopes that those statutory frameworks and their associated guidance make clear the importance of local authorities and others with duties to improve the educational outcomes of vulnerable children, but, unfortunately, there are some gaps for GRT children. I shall try to explain why that is so.
Under previous legislation, the Traveller Education Support Service was ring-fenced, but after 2007 the sums previously allocated to that service were subsumed into general grounds aimed at disadvantaged children. Local authorities have therefore been dismantling the TESSs. It is predictable that, with the pressure on educational budgets, they will disappear altogether in a few years, despite their considerable achievements, particularly in getting a higher percentage of GRT children to attend and stay on in schools. The specific expertise that they have amassed over the years will not be inherited by the mechanisms that already exist or are being developed to cope with the needs of the three categories of vulnerable children cited by the Minister in his letter. Nor will the staff concerned with vulnerable children generally be likely to devote the same amount of time and effort to the specific problems affecting the GRT children as TESSs have done.
I now come to the special needs that are not covered by any of the three categories of vulnerable children in the Minister’s definition. There is undoubtedly a much higher proportion of children missing education among GRT communities than in any other sector of the population. Those children are exceptionally vulnerable, as an Ofsted survey in June 2010 concluded. It referred to the former DCSF’s statutory guidance for local authorities on the circumstances in which a child may not be receiving suitable education. They included membership of the GRT ethnic groups. Ofsted looked at 15 authorities, large and small, urban and rural. It found that none of the service departments in the authorities was confident that it was aware of all the children living in its area. The consistent response from officers was, “We don’t know what we don’t know”.
However, in a Times Educational Supplement survey last February, 12,000 children were listed as officially missing, and it was clear that the number would have been much higher if all the authorities had made as much effort as Leicester, which employs a full-time member of staff to trace CME, assisted by 20 educational welfare officers. Martin Narey, the former chief executive of Barnardo’s, said that the situation was deeply troubling. If my noble friend is not prepared to add CME to the categories of vulnerable children, I hope that he can tell your Lordships what alternative solution he has to offer. The Government acknowledge that the current guidance on CME is defective, because they are planning new guidance to be issued by the end of the year, but if that is all that my noble friend has to say on this after the Government have had the devastating Ofsted information for well over a year, I shall be very disappointed.
In the case of GRT children in particular, who must make up a significant element of the TES numbers, in the response by the inner London consortium co-ordinator, Brian Foster, to the Ofsted survey, it was pointed out that the TESSs’ relationship of trust, developed with those communities over time, had made it more likely that they would get information and that their development of a cross-borough database of families minimised the number of unidentified CME. Such arrangements may be discontinued with the disappearance of TESSs and the lack of any local authority responsibility for CME who are not covered by any of the three headings.
One thing that the local authorities covered by the Ofsted survey knew was that excluded pupils’ vulnerability was significantly increased because of their potential exposure to drugs, alcohol, crime, pregnancy or mental health problems. It is not clear whether excluded pupils are included within children in need. Without explicit guidance they may not be covered. Nor are local authorities obliged to keep a register of children in need, as they should be required to do in guidance. Here again, GRT pupils are far more likely to be excluded than any other ethnic group, with over one-fifth of Gypsy or Roma boys and one-quarter of Irish Traveller boys excluded in the course of an academic year. Ideally, CME should be added to the Minister’s three categories of vulnerable children, but if that is unacceptable because it is too broad, a way of picking up some—perhaps most—of the CME would be to add a category of “mobile child”, meaning a child who starts other than at the beginning of their phase. These are defined by authorities such as the London Borough of Hackney as “mid-phase admissions”.
The pupil premium of £430 in the current year does not necessarily cover these children who dip into education from time to time, including not only those of GRT origin but, for example, asylum seekers or the dependent children of migrants coming here for work. The proposal in the schools funding consultation to extend the payment from children currently in receipt of free school meals to those who have done so in the past three or six years would dilute the per capita grant because the total sum available would not be increased. It still does not necessarily cover these mobile children, who are disadvantaged because they are engaging with school for the first time or after an absence.
Some GRT parents say that they electively home educate their children just to give a reason why they are not attending school. It is very doubtful that the parents are competent to teach or that the lessons they give, if any, would enable the children to participate effectively in wider society or to earn a living in any skilled employment. They are likely to remain in the closed communities of their families, cut off from the rest of the population. Graham Badman’s recommendations—that parents should register a child who is to be home educated, submit a yearly statement of their educational approach, intent and planned outcomes, and accept home visits by the local education authority—might have focused more attention on these children and enabled local authorities to offer parents advice and assistance. However, as the Committee will recall, the report stirred up a hornet’s nest among parents who were effectively home educating their children as measured by their outcomes, and it sank without trace. I take it that the Government have no intention of revisiting the question of what to do about EHE, although some of the children ostensibly being home educated—not only those in the GRT communities—may be extremely vulnerable.
A further suggestion would be to add those who cease to attend at any point in their school career, particularly at the point of transfer between primary and secondary school, to the list of vulnerable children. We need to make far greater efforts to improve the attendance of secondary school-age GRT children, considering that one in five drop out at the end of primary school and just over half drop out before school-leaving age. Only 38 per cent of Irish Travellers go all the way through school so the disadvantages that they suffer, and their lack of affinity with the social system, are being transmitted to the next generation.
A final thought that I offer the Minister is that virtual schools should be given a chance to cover children missing education. Local authorities have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of a child looked after by them. By virtue of Section 52 of the Children Act 2004, that includes a duty to promote the child’s educational achievement. Outcomes were driven up by virtual schools for children in care in the pilot authorities, and the idea was rolled out in all but three local authorities by July 2010. If the virtual schools continue to benefit children in care, is it not likely they could do the same for CME?
I am not optimistic that the Minister can give your Lordships much reassurance on this amendment, which asks so little in the face of a task that has been ducked by successive Governments throughout the half-century of my political life. Gypsy, Roma and Travellers belong to a minority that clearly is not popular, as evidenced by the racism in the comments threads of the media whenever they publish articles on the subject. Now, having at least prided ourselves in the past on our human rights and equality law, we are under fire from the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the UN rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing over the inhuman eviction of Travellers from the Dale Farm site, due to start a week today.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on the amendment to which I have put my name, I wish to say how grateful I was to the Minister for rapidly arranging a meeting to amplify the points that he made in his letter to the noble Lord on 25 August. He and his team, in the person of Angela Overington, have been helpful in sending us again the current guidance to local authorities.
The amendment refers to vulnerable children of any kind, so I should make it clear that one group or another is not being singled out. The essential point of any guidance, and the reason why it should be mandatory, is that it must be specific about the different kinds of children who miss out on education and how differently to target them. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said so tellingly, Gypsy and Traveller children are perhaps the most significant of such groups in terms of the extraordinarily high proportion who do not get to school in the first place, especially secondary school, and drop out or are excluded if they are there. As the Minister knows, the Children’s Commissioner is looking at Gypsy and Traveller children as part of her first inquiry into exclusion.
This apparently discriminatory outcome needs specific attention. As long ago as the Plowden report on primary education—is that over 40 years ago?—targeted measures in respect of Gypsy and Traveller children were called for, and they seem to come and go in fits and starts, which do not achieve an acceptable solution. I need hardly describe in this place the importance of school education for finding work, fitting into society and becoming useful, law-abiding citizens, quite apart from self-fulfilment. The Ofsted report, Children Missing from Education, published last August, suggested that local authorities struggle to track pupils who are out of school.
The rapidly disappearing Travellers Education Service had some success. In 1997 it was estimated that only 5 per cent of Gypsy and Traveller children stayed on for key stage 4. The figure now is closer to 50 per cent, but schools that are focused on “the importance of teaching”, which we all support, cannot reasonably be expected also to secure the inclusion of all marginalised children, some newly arrived, some unfamiliar with or fearful or mistrustful of education. If local authorities had the sort of safety-net responsibility that the amendment provides, schools would remain free to concentrate on their core business.
The Minister told us in his letter that local authorities have a statutory duty to ensure the education of some vulnerable children—those with SEN, looked-after children and children in need, which is now a developmental criterion. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out, there is no duty to tackle the missing education of all vulnerable children, which would include Gypsy and Traveller children and others not in the above three classes. The current statutory guidance has a few passing references to Gypsy and Traveller children. Among 26 groups of children who might miss out, it lists mobile children such as those of families in the Army or of Gypsies, Roma and Travellers. However, by no means all Gypsies, Roma and Travellers are mobile, especially Roma. There are some other reasons why Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children who do not live in caravans still do not get schooling.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment and undertake that the accompanying guidance will define vulnerability so as to include Gypsies, Roma and Travellers as a specific group, as they are in law, and set out more developed measures to get them the education to which they have a right.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I support the amendment and pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for their longstanding advocacy for Gypsy and Roma children. I recall the noble Lord tabling a debate on the education of Gypsy and Traveller children 10 years ago.
I am also reminded by this debate that I once taught a nine year-old Traveller boy. What really comes back to me is how enthusiastic and keen he was to be a part of the group and one of the boys. I imagine that many of these young boys and girls want to be a part of a group, and it is tragic that this opportunity to bring them into society is so often lost.
If I understood correctly what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, I was concerned to hear that specialist services for these children may be being lost. Trust is very important. If these services have developed trust with those communities, it is very important to maintain that relationship.
There are also things that schools, if they are well informed, can do. For example, the special experience of Gypsy and Traveller children can be a bonus for the pupils generally. A boy from a Traveller community can talk about the involvement with animals or other activities that his community has and celebrate that with the other children. Alternatively, for example, a head teacher can involve the mother—it would usually be the mother—of a Gypsy or Traveller child. Even if she cannot write, she can help the child with his homework. The head teacher can ask the mother to put a sign by her son’s work to say that that boy sat quietly for half an hour to do his homework. That is her job and she can communicate that to the head teacher. Therefore, it is possible to engage with those parents. It is possible to think about these things in a very constructive way, and I hope that the Minister can give a positive response to the amendment.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
Before the Minister speaks, perhaps I may ask whether he will address a particular point in his summing up. The point raised by my noble friend is very important in the light of the education system—or lack of an education system, if I may put it like that—that will arise if all the Government’s changes go through. The very important question is: who will be responsible for looking after the very small groups of children who are, by definition, not very visible because they are small in number but are none the less, for all kinds of reasons that noble Lords have identified, very disadvantaged when it comes to taking up opportunities for education? Given that local authorities will not have any locus in local areas if the Government’s objective of the majority of schools being academies and free schools comes to fruition, I should be grateful if, in responding, the Minister could say where responsibility will lie for looking at the achievement, or lack of it, of these small groups of children, working with schools in some way but without the power and leverage to do so. Who will ensure that schools do better by these very small groups of children? In the new world that the Government will take us into where academies are going to be everywhere and will not be focused on disadvantaged children, I cannot see where that responsibility will lie and where the leverage with individual schools to do better by these children will come from.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, it is clear from this debate—as has often been the case—that promoting the highest possible quality of education for the most vulnerable children in society is a subject dear to the heart of the Committee. We have set out in our schools White Paper, published last year, and more recently in our Green Paper on special educational needs and disability, our overall plans on how we want to achieve this,. These include the pupil premium, which will deliver an extra £2.5 billion a year by 2014 to support the education of the most disadvantaged children. My letter to my noble friend Lord Avebury on 25 August set out the overall the statutory framework and range of measures in place to support vulnerable children. In response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, the White Paper was absolutely clear that the local authority retains its responsibilities for vulnerable children, and the Bill does not affect its statutory duties in any way.
However, the nub of this debate is around Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children, who are of particular concern to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and to my noble friend Lord Avebury. He is absolutely right that Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils continue to underachieve significantly relative to their peers and are still much more likely to leave school without completing their formal education. This year, under one-quarter of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils achieved level 4 in English and maths at the end of key stage 2, compared with 73 per cent of all pupils. At key stage 4, just 10.8 per cent of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils achieved five or more good GCSEs, including English and mathematics, compared with about 55 per cent of all pupils. These are stark differences. Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils have the worst attendance of any minority ethnic group and there is a marked decline in enrolment between primary and secondary school level, a point that has been made. They have the highest levels of permanent and fixed-term exclusions.
Local authorities have a key role to play in addressing this issue. They are under a statutory duty to ensure that education is available for all children of compulsory school age that is appropriate to their age, ability, aptitudes and any special educational needs they may have. This duty applies regardless of a child’s ethnicity, immigration status, mother tongue or rights of residence in a particular area.
Along with schools and colleges, local authorities have a range of safeguarding duties for vulnerable pupils, as well as duties to establish as far as possible the identities of those children of compulsory school age who are missing education. We are currently revising statutory guidance to clarify how local authorities can best carry out their duties to identify children who are missing education. I say to my noble friend that we expect to strengthen current references to Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils in the revised guidance and I should be happy in due course to share that in draft form with him, the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and anyone else who is interested.
It is also the case that Ministers in my department are working, under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, with a range of government departments to ensure that the range of inequalities faced by the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities are properly addressed. That working group expects to publish before the end of the year a report on how the Government will tackle the issue, including a package of measures designed specifically to raise educational aspirations, attainment and attendance. We are grateful to the work carried out by the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller education stakeholder group, chaired by my noble friend Lord Avebury, for the contributions that it has made so far, and I look forward to working with the group over the coming weeks to develop further plans in that area.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Avebury raised the question of virtual schools. Perhaps my mind was drifting as I listened to the Minister’s reply but I did not hear him address that subject. Virtual schools provide an interesting way of dealing with genuine Traveller education and providing them with a consistent relationship with school that is not disrupted every time they move, and we should look to encourage that. Does the Minister have a view on this?
Lord Hill of Oareford
We are due to address virtual schools later. I think that my noble friend has an amendment on the subject so we can return to it then. I can respond more fully to my noble friend Lord Avebury at that juncture.
Baroness Benjamin
In the Minister’s efforts to address this issue, could he please include parents? Parents are the key to the problem of these children not attending school. They are essential to making this successful. In my experience as a governor and a chair of governors of an academy where we had Gypsy and Roma children, the parents were the stumbling block. If you can get to them, part of this problem will be solved.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. It is good to hear about the work that his department is undertaking. I think that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, talk about the demise of specialist Gypsy, Roma and Traveller education services. Maybe the Minister briefly said something about that at the end of his response but, I am sorry, I did not quite catch it. If he could clarify what is going on with those services, I would be grateful.
I apologise if I misled the Committee in any way by describing myself as “teaching” this boy. I was running workshops in a school environment. I am not a teacher; I should make that quite clear.
Lord Avebury
In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the ring-fenced grant for the Travellers Education Service ceased in 2007, and the equivalent amount of money was made available in the general grant to local authorities for disadvantaged children as a whole. It was from that point onwards that local authorities started to see that there was money that they could use for other purposes and either made officials in the service redundant, in some cases, or did not replace them when they left. There has been a gradual process of running down that, as I said, if it is allowed to continue, will result in the complete disappearance of specific Traveller education services in a few years’ time.
What the noble Earl and my noble friend said about contact with parents is important. It was an essential feature of the Traveller education services; they managed to link the parents, the children and the schools, which is why they were effective. In the absence of these specialist services, I am afraid we will not have that advantage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, also reinforced the point about mobile children. We are talking not simply about those who still live in caravans and are peripatetic—that is a declining number. What I was talking about when I defined what I hoped the Minister would pick up on—the term “mobile child”—was a child who enters at a point other than the beginning of an academic phase and is therefore potentially disadvantaged because he or she has not hitherto received education or has received it very intermittently. If we could add such children to the definitions that were specified in the Minister’s letter, it would go some way towards covering the children about whom we are particularly concerned.
However, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. We acknowledge the benefits of the pupil premium, which will cover many of the GRT minority. We believe that the revision of the guidance on CME will be effective but we have not seen it yet. I am grateful to my noble friend for mentioning the work of the DfE’s stakeholder group, which has a meeting in the coming week at which I am sure we will want to discuss some of the matters that have been covered in today’s debate. We are in the course of responding to the department’s educational funding consultation. That will also have an impact on how we treat this group. I cannot promise that we will not return to this subject on Report. We have not dealt with all the matters that have been raised. Perhaps we shall cover some of them in the later debates, particularly on virtual schools, which have an important role to play here. However, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hill of Oareford
( ) it is not an alternative provision Academy (see section 1C).”
Lord Blackwell
“(c) it is specially organised to make special educational provision for the needs of pupils with high ability or aptitude for learning; or high ability or aptitude in musical, artistic or other specialist skills approved in guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
Lord Blackwell
My Lords, in moving Amendment 124 I shall speak also to Amendments 125 and 139 in the same group. These amendments return to the subject of providing appropriate education to meet the needs of pupils with a high ability or aptitude in learning or other specialist skills. We had a brief debate on this in the last day in Committee before the summer Recess. There was general support on all sides of the Grand Committee for the view that, despite the importance of providing appropriate education for high-ability children, the education system does not do this particularly well at the moment. We could do better.
It is important for several reasons. First, all children deserve the opportunity for educational excellence. It is also important for the national interest. The top few per cent of our children in ability and aptitude are those who go on to be, in many cases, the leaders in business, the arts and the sciences. If we are to compete globally, we cannot afford not to have our most able children educated to the highest international standards for the good of society as a whole.
It is also important for social equity reasons because, at the moment, we have an education system where the most able children from poorer backgrounds are often unable to achieve entry to schools that can meet their expectations, and the better schools in many parts of the country are accessible only to those who can afford to pay for them.
For all those reasons, it is important that we provide for the needs of the most able children. The amendments that we discussed at our last sitting concerned ways of imposing an obligation on schools to meet the needs of high-ability children and the possibility that academies might group together to provide common facilities and classes for groups of high-ability children—were there insufficient numbers in any one school to make that effective on a single-school basis.
My amendments take the same principle a step further by recognising that the needs of those children may be best be met by having an academy, covering an area, which specialises in providing for the needs of high-ability children. If we take a year group in any school of 150 to 200 and the top 5 per cent of the ability range, we are talking about seven to 10 children. Seven or 10 children are not enough to form a class that can devote the appropriate skills and resources to teaching that top-ability range. Academic research suggests that high-ability children perform best when they are taught in peer groups where the class size is 20 or more, but to achieve the appropriate use of resources, you often need a much larger group to devote the specialist teaching from which they can benefit.
The simple notion here is that the academies framework should be flexible enough to allow schools which are specialist academies providing for high-ability and high-aptitude children. They would not be narrowly defined by a local catchment area, because we would not want many of them, but I can imagine major cities or large towns having one or two. That would cope with those of the top few per cent of children who wanted to apply to go to those schools. There would not be a compulsory 11-plus; there would not be compulsory entry; but they would be available for children of high ability who could benefit from them. That would enable children of whatever income level or background to have access to schools that could fulfil their potential.
I stress that I am thinking particularly about children from the less advantaged parts of our cities and country, who are at the moment disadvantaged. They are the children who may have high potential but whose local school is likely to be one of the less-well performing schools just because of the peer group and the circumstances of the school, whereas children of better-off parents may well be able to afford to move to a postcode where the average level of schooling is higher—or, of course, may be able to take advantage of private education. It is the children from poorer backgrounds whom our current system disadvantages, because in many parts of the country there is no provision for high-ability children to have a first-class academic education within a peer group of similarly able and motivated children within the state sector.
It is not just academic provision which is important here. We all know that children need confidence from the support of being in an environment where they are encouraged to raise their aspirations and lift their eyes to what they may achieve. What many of the grammar schools and direct-grant schools provided in the past for many of our generation was the ability for children from those less advantaged backgrounds to mix with children in a peer group that enabled them to realise that their horizons could be wider. They could aspire to reach the top of our professions and businesses, and, indeed, aspire to political careers. It is important that such academies are provided to meet the needs of able children from less privileged backgrounds.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I am sure that all Members of the Committee are considering these issues because they share with me a desire to improve the opportunity of outcomes for all children, including high-ability children. However, there may well be—I think there is—a difference between some Members of the Committee about the most effective ways of doing that. In this sense, Amendment 124D, to which I am speaking, takes the opposite view to that just expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell.
Under the Academies Act 2010, a selective school converting to academy status can maintain its selective admissions policies. Amendment 124D would remove the ability for selective schools to maintain selective policies on conversion. It would require any schools converting to academy status in future to have a comprehensive admissions policy upon that conversion.
I shall to cite three arguments in favour of our amendment. The first is on the basis of some of the evidence from international countries that are performing better than we are in education. Secondly, I wish to raise a point of principle and, thirdly, to look at the practical implications of the Government’s proposals on the issue—and whether as a result of the Bill the current ability of schools to retain selection in moving to academy status would lead to an extension of schools with selection policies. I question whether that is what the Government want.
First, in terms of the evidence, particularly from Finland—one of the highest performing countries on the educational spectrum in the western world—it is interesting that the Minister, following a previous debate, sent me a letter talking about the evidence for reform at some length. He cited Finland and some of the attributes of its system, particularly school autonomy and accountability for performance. However, that letter did not in particular mention the important context of the Finnish system, as well as some other systems—for autonomy and accountability. It is a system that the Finnish Government and people take very seriously, whereby schools are comprehensive and that you can achieve improvements in the context of a system in which schools take from a broad spectrum of pupils and overlay on that system powerful mechanisms for autonomy and accountability. That is what produces the substantial improvements that have been seen in Finland. Therefore, if we are going to use evidence—and I support an evidence-based approach to policy—we ought to take all the evidence we have, including that evidence from Finland.
The second point is one of principle. The idea of a selective academy—not just what the previous Government were trying to achieve but what the current Government profess to want to achieve—is something of a contradiction in terms. Under Labour, academies could select only 10 per cent of their pupils—not on the basis of ability but of aptitude if the academy had a particular specialism. We believe—and in terms of what the Government have said to date, I cannot believe that they would not share this view; but I would welcome any contradiction to that effect—that academies should be comprehensive. If a selective school is to have the freedoms of an academy, it should by definition make a commitment to all the children in the local area and not simply cream off those whom it thinks are the most able. It should be committed to driving up the levels of attainment of all students, which means admitting those children whose backgrounds are such that they have further to go in reaching their potential because of some of the barriers that they face. That is a principle with which some Members of the Committee may not agree, but I put it forward to the Minister as a principle that I thought the Government shared.
The third issue is one of practical implication. Academies are their own admissions authorities. Research in this country has already suggested that, without checks and balances, academies have a greater opportunity covertly to select than perhaps we all would wish. Leaving that point aside, however, there must be concern under the Bill that if selective schools become academies it will lead in practice to an extension of selection. Clause 58 will allow selective schools becoming academies to widen the age range of their intake. This could lead to a state education system which allowed selection at primary as well as secondary level. Under the Government’s draft admissions code, popular selective academies can expand without agreement from the local authority or the Secretary of State. I should like the Minister to comment on whether that means that a selective academy could not only expand in size but also, as has been commented on, establish a cluster school elsewhere which would be managed by the head teacher and senior management team and thereby extend selection to a larger number of pupils.
That is the reason for my amendment. I should be grateful if the Minister could respond to the points that I have raised. First, do the Government want to see an extension of selection, or are they neutral about it? Secondly, do they believe that academies should serve the whole community and, if so, why are selective schools which become academies being allowed to retain selection? Thirdly, does not the Minister share my concern that that provision, together with the two elements of the Bill which I have identified, could—however inadvertently on the Government’s part—lead to an extension of selection? Would the Government be happy if that were the case?
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 126A. The previous Government made a good deal of progress in closing the gap between state and independent schools, to the extent that two or three independent schools crossed back into the state sector. This Government have made considerable further progress in that direction. It is clear that the institution of free schools and the freeing-up of obligations on academies generally will reduce the demand for independent education and bring children back into the state sector. The pressures now imposed by the Office for Fair Access will have a similar effect.
There is a question to be asked of the Opposition. Do they share my ambition to see over time some of the independent sector reabsorbed back into the state sector? If so, how far are they prepared to go to achieve that? It does not seem to be going very far to allow a selective independent school to come back into the state sector as a selective state school.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, we discussed back in July how important it is that schools should be able to meet the needs of the most able children, and we talked then about some of the ways in which that could be done.
I shall try to answer some of the questions put to me about my view of the situation. The current position on the number of schools that may select by ability or aptitude strikes me as being one that we have arrived at in a typically English and messy way over many years. Our position is that it should continue as it is. These amendments seek in different ways to use the process of conversion to academy status as a catalyst for either increasing or decreasing the number of selective schools in the state sector, and the Government are opposed to a move in either direction.
We think that academies, with the freedoms and flexibilities that academy status brings, should be well placed to provide stretching and demanding provision for pupils with a particular ability or a general aptitude for learning. Our policy is to ensure that as many schools as possible are able to take up these freedoms, and that includes grammar schools and independent selective schools. However, we have been clear that we do not intend to increase the number of selective schools in the state system. Therefore, we have been clear that when independent schools convert to academy status, we do not think they should be able to bring their selective admission arrangements with them.
My noble friend Lord Lucas’s amendment would allow independent schools to become academies but continue to charge parents fees, though not, I appreciate, those who could not afford it. However, the principle that state-funded school education should be available free of charge to all children is one with which most noble Lords would agree.
We also know, however, that where there are selective schools in the state system they are often highly valued by local parents and are part of the education landscape, and we are equally clear that that state of affairs should continue. That was the position of the previous Government and it is one that we want to continue, so we do not think that those schools should lose their right to select simply because they become academies.
We support the right of state-funded schools that selected by ability prior to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to continue to do so, but it is not our intention to increase the number of selective schools. However, existing selective maintained schools and academies may expand—as they were permitted to do under the previous Government—where there is demand, where funding is in place and where such proposals have been agreed locally.
Rather ingloriously, perhaps, I find myself arguing for the status quo. I assure the Committee, however, that we are taking steps to ensure that as many children as possible have access to a good local school and that all those schools, whether they are academies or maintained schools, provide a stretching education for all their pupils. As my noble friend Lady Garden said in a previous debate on these issues, these steps include promoting free schools to increase good places, allowing good schools to expand and taking the limit off the published admissions number, freeing head teachers to take decisions on how to spend that money and slimming down the national curriculum so that schools can design a curriculum that best meets their pupils’ needs.
I know that my noble friend Lord Blackwell believes strongly in the case behind the amendments and that his concern is to try to increase social mobility and achievement for children from the poorest backgrounds so that they have the opportunity to flourish in a way that we would want to see. I am aware of his commitment to social mobility and the sense of moral purpose that he brings to this argument, which is not the preserve of one side in this debate. Saying what I have said about the Government’s position of leaving things as they stand and preserving the status quo will disappoint my noble friend. In spite of that, I hope that for the moment he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am not sure that I understand the moral difference between allowing a grammar school to expand and allowing an independent school to join the state sector as a selective school. Both have the effect of increasing the number of selective places in the UK state system. Why is one good and the other bad?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I do not think that it is a point of merit, as it were, and I would not claim that it were. It is a practical point. There are a number of schools in the maintained sector where selection already takes place. We think that it is right that they should be able to become academies and that, as has always been the case, they should be able to expand. The point about independent schools coming into the maintained sector and retaining selective arrangements is that it would increase the number of selective schools in the system. For reasons of practicality rather than anything else, the Government have come to the view that we do not want to increase the number of schools where selection takes place.
Lord Blackwell
My Lords, I thank everyone who contributed. As the Minister suggests, I am not entirely happy with his answer. The status quo may be a pragmatic English outcome but it is difficult to defend a situation where in certain parts of the country grammar schools still exist and children from modest-income or low-income families have the opportunity to get some of the best education on offer, but in large parts of the country there are no grammar schools and children from similar backgrounds do not have that opportunity. Despite all the years of effort to ensure that all schools provide the best education for children of high ability, we know that it is very difficult to get that to work. There are many areas where those children are therefore destined not to fulfil their potential because they do not have access to the kind of education that many of our generation had, and which enabled us to move up the social structure. I find that difficult to accept as a pragmatic outcome, although I understand the reasons for it.
The second reason why this disappoints me is that we might be missing just how important it is to the future prosperity of this country that we educate our top-ability children to their full potential. We will be competing in a world where our brain power and skills are among the main factors that will allow us to prosper. To have a large part of our population without access to the best education and the best opportunities to develop is to throw away our chances of national growth and prosperity. This is not a position that will sustain for very long as a messy compromise. I shall reflect on what the Minister has said before we come back to this on Report, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hill of Oareford
House of Lords
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Public Libraries: Closures
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Borrie
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with local authorities about the closure of public libraries.
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, DCMS officials have had discussions with local council officers from Gloucestershire, Lewisham, Somerset, Brent and the Isle of Wight. They have considered the relevant evidence and circumstances. DCMS officials will continue to monitor changes to these and other library services carefully.
Lord Borrie
I would like to think that the heart of the noble Baroness was in the right place but she has not actually indicated whether, for example, she agrees with me that public libraries are a vital asset for education and recreational purposes. Local authorities should regard them as of great importance, because being local is the essence of the thing. As the author Alan Bennett said the other day, it is no good people having a library if they have to go on an expedition in order to access the books. Does the noble Baroness agree that the public libraries Act imposes a statutory duty on the Secretary of State—and therefore, I suggest, Ministers and not just officials—to ensure that local authorities provide an effective and efficient library service?
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, yes, I read that piece by Alan Bennett, which was absolutely right. The public libraries Act 1964, which the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, mentions, does say that there is a public duty to keep comprehensive and efficient libraries open. Of course, we know how important libraries are because we have the wonderful Library—even though it is private—here in the House of Lords, which is a treasured privilege. Most people understand that libraries are special places and not just facilities. They provide access to considerable electronic information as well as books.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I think it is our side; the Question came from the noble Lord’s side. Can the Minister tell me how many libraries are threatened by closure?
Baroness Rawlings
My noble friend Lady Gardner asks a very good question. Detailed data about the library sector are published annually. Local authorities are in the process of consulting. However, the DCMS monitors proposals as well as any changes that are made to library services from information it has gathered via correspondence and media coverage and from relevant bodies such as the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council.
Lord Peston
My Lords, despite the folly of the Government’s economic policies, we are still a very rich country. Can the noble Baroness explain why we are considering closing any libraries at all since, when most of us were young, we got our education in libraries?
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, the closure of any libraries is a local authority matter. The Secretary of State has the privilege of inquiring into the situation, which is constantly under review. Each case is different and, while some libraries are closing, he is fulfilling his statutory duties.
Lord Tope
My Lords, it is the turn of this side next. I declare my interest as executive councillor responsible for the public library service in the London Borough of Sutton, where no libraries have been proposed for closure. Would the Minister agree that public libraries are an extremely important community resource? In any discussions with library authorities and local authorities, will she urge them first to consider what other facilities can be provided in public libraries? Indeed, will she urge them to consider whether public libraries can be located in other facilities and their services extended far beyond simply the loan of books? These measures should be realised so that libraries are used far more effectively, as a first consideration, as a proper community resource.
Baroness Rawlings
Yet again, I agree with my noble friend Lord Tope. Libraries are a very important resource and could be used for other facilities. Every authority in England is required to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service under the Public Libraries and Museums Act, but it is for each authority to determine at local level how much it spends on libraries and how it manages to deliver that service to meet the needs of its library users, bearing in mind the resources available.
Baroness Bakewell
My Lords, in a recent campaign run by the Evening Standard in London, Nick Clegg declared his absolute support, issuing a rallying cry to parents to read to their children more often. I wonder whether the Minister and the Government realise and appreciate that you cannot read books without libraries. Perhaps there is a division in the coalition on this.
Baroness Rawlings
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, makes a very good point. This is exactly where the big society philosophy is relevant—
Baroness Rawlings
The needs of the community are at the heart of library service provision. We hope that the big society will give citizens more of a role in determining the shape of public service and what it delivers. The ability of libraries to reach out and be involved with communities means that they have a vital role in delivering the big society. The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the importance of reading to children. That is one area that Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall has been promoting extensively.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, as our local library in rural Wiltshire is now significantly kept open by volunteers, would my noble friend like to say something about volunteering?
Baroness Rawlings
My noble friend Lord Brooke raises a valid point, which is very topical at the moment. Over the past 10 years we have seen an increase in the number of people volunteering in libraries. Volunteers regularly help to deliver homework clubs for schoolchildren. They contribute to projects, they digitise items in library collections and they provide buddy support for people new to using computers. It is important to remember that authorities remain accountable to their communities for the changes they make, and that includes the use of volunteers.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
My Lords, the point was made earlier about the need occasionally for other premises where libraries are being closed. We have in Hereford diocese an excellent example, of a library in a church tower. A lift, loos and other facilities are provided. If local authorities have to relocate libraries that are under threat of closure, I would be grateful if the Government would give them every encouragement to look at partnerships in a whole range of ways, including with the churches.
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate makes an extremely good point, which I look forward to taking back to the department.
Airports: Heathrow
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Spicer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they expect Heathrow airport to lose its status as the world’s busiest international airport; if so, to which airport; and when.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, last month the Department for Transport published its UK aviation forecasts to support the development of a new policy framework for UK aviation, which supports economic growth and addresses aviation’s environmental impacts. It is forecast that Heathrow will have 85 million terminal passengers in 2030 compared with 65.7 million in 2010. The department does not forecast demand for airports outside the UK.
Lord Spicer
My Lords, when I was Minister for Aviation, Heathrow was the number one international airport in the world and Gatwick was number four, and together they provided the international crossroads and hub for the whole world. Does my noble friend share my concern—based, if for no other reason, on economic growth—that the pre-eminence of Heathrow should now be challenged by the likes of Schiphol and Frankfurt because of the capacity constraints that have been set on it?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Lord makes, but there are also airports in the Far East which will probably overtake Heathrow eventually. We want to see a successful and competitive aviation industry which supports economic growth and addresses aviation’s environmental impact. Aviation should be able to grow, but to do so it must play its part in delivering our environmental goals and protecting the quality of life of local communities.
Lord Soley
Is not the answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Spicer, really that, in future, South American flights will go to Madrid, Indian and Chinese flights will go to Frankfurt and Schiphol and the rest will go to Paris? If the Government are determined to advertise that Britain is closed for business, I can hardly think of a better deterrent than the current aviation policy, with the possible exception of the reintroduction of biplanes.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord will understand that we cannot arrange for every flight coming into Europe to land at Heathrow.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the recent report by Airport Watch, which demonstrates that Heathrow and London dwarf every European rival in number of flights to the world’s main business destinations. Therefore, would he agree that in order to keep its place, Heathrow should focus on how it treats its passengers and perhaps the UK Border Agency could change its policy so that people with non-UK passports can get through in less than one and a half hours, which was true at terminal 3 two weeks ago?
Earl Attlee
My noble friend makes extremely important points which were all picked up by the South East Airports Taskforce. She mentioned the UK Border Agency. We are aware of scope for improvement and UKBA is working on that. She will also be aware of other things that will be happening as a result of the South East Airports Taskforce’s work, which will improve the experience for passengers.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, would it not be better if we concentrated on service quality at airports and did not go for the busiest? Is the Minister aware that Beijing is soon to have another runway, which will give it a total of 120 million passengers a year, and would it not be much better for the environment if we concentrated policy in this country on the medium and shorter-term passengers being able to travel by high-speed rail and ordinary rail?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the general thrust of what the noble Lord says is very good. Interestingly, I went to Gatwick airport last week and saw the effort being put towards improving the passenger experience. No doubt I shall be going to Heathrow shortly.
Lord Dixon-Smith
My Lords, the present situation in our airports was predicted 45 years ago, I think. There was a very reasonable proposal to put an airport in the Thames estuary, which would remove the constraints that are inevitable anywhere west of London. Perhaps my noble friend might care to comment on that possibility, as it is being raised again. At least, if that strategic decision were taken, there would be the possibility of a long-term solution.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, we welcome all these suggestions. The mayor’s input and suggestions will be considered alongside the many other contributions to the debate about our future airport aviation policy.
Lord Palmer
My Lords, could the noble Earl try to persuade his colleagues in the Treasury to look again at this terrible problem of air passenger duty, which is one of the reasons that Heathrow has lost its premier slot in the world?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord will know that air passenger duty is under review. However, it is a matter for the Treasury, as well as the Department for Transport. We are giving it careful consideration and will make an announcement in due course.
Lord Mawhinney
My noble friend has already made it clear that this Government have made their decision about Heathrow. However, this Government also talk about the need for economic growth as well as environmental sustainability. If the next Government and those after also believe in economic growth, would my noble friend recommend that they build a third runway at Heathrow or a new airport in the estuary?
Lord Davies of Oldham
What is the Government’s transport policy really meant to contribute to economic growth? On rail, it seems a question of asking passengers to pay more; on roads they cut the funding that subsidises the cameras that keep our roads safe; and on aviation they have taken the negative decision against the third runway. What exactly are the Government’s plans for the aviation industry to make a contribution to economic growth?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, we will have to wait and see when the aviation policy framework document is published next year as a draft.
NHS: Cost-effectiveness
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Department of Health will draw attention to the recent report in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine on the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, the department welcomes the report to which the noble Baroness refers, and recognises the significant gains in health achieved by the National Health Service since 1979. However, its evidence is limited and does not support broad generalisations on NHS cost-effectiveness. The NHS can still make major improvements to the health of the nation and must continue to respond to pressures from an ageing population, new technology and rising patient expectations.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. The Government seek to justify the hugely risky reforms of the NHS by saying that our NHS is not fit for purpose in a variety of ways, including not being cost-effective. We all know that improvements can be made—there is no doubt about that at all—but how does the Minister reconcile that with yet another authoritative report in the Royal Society of Medicine journal which says, among other things, that in terms of cost-effectiveness—that is, economic input versus clinical output—the UK NHS is one of the most cost-effective in the world, particularly in reducing mortality rates, and that among other systems, the US healthcare system is one of the least cost-effective?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I must point out one thing about this report: it does not make any claims for how cost-effective our health system was at any given point in time. What it does is measure the improvement in mortality over a period and then assess the cost-effectiveness of that improvement, which is a very different thing. Yes, the NHS has made great strides in improving mortality rates, but that is the only metric that the report deals with. It completely ignores other measures of quality. It is also completely silent about anything that happened after 2005, so recent years are not covered.
Lord Clement-Jones
Is not the really difficult and vital context in which we find ourselves at the moment the fact that we need significantly to improve productivity in the NHS in line with the so-called Nicholson challenge, which was endorsed by both this Government and the previous one? Can the Minister remind us of the record under the previous Government and tell us what he expects to be the outcome of the current health reforms?
Earl Howe
I am grateful to my noble friend. A Written Answer was published in Hansard recently that tracked the changes in productivity of the NHS between 1996 and 2008. He will know if he read it that there was a decrease in productivity over that period of around 3.1 per cent. The pressures on the NHS are increasing. In order for it to respond to the needs of the future, including an ageing population and the cost of new technologies, it needs to adapt to new ways of working that reduce cost pressures while delivering improved outcomes. The measures that are before Parliament seek to do just that.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, can the Minister give an example of any major reorganisation and restructuring that has not cost more money and put the brakes on improvements in the service that were being made, particularly when the Government bringing in to the system such major changes comprise two parties that said that there would be no major reorganisation of the National Health Service were they to be in government?
Lord Patel
Does the Minister agree that improving the quality of healthcare will lead to higher costs?
Earl Howe
No, I do not. There are plenty of examples of quality costing less because the system gets it right first time. We see this time and again, for example in the Quit programme. The simplest example is that if we can treat patients correctly in hospital and keep them in for the shortest amount of time, we save a great deal of money.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
My Lords, on the subject of cost-effectiveness, does my noble friend agree that we are in the middle of the most serious epidemic to afflict this country for 100 years—namely the obesity epidemic? The cure is free: you just have to eat less. Why does the Department of Health insist that exercise is important in this equation?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the department takes its cue from NICE. I am sure that my noble friend will agree that exercise is never irrelevant to the question of obesity. I think that my noble friend's difficulty centres on how relevant it is in relation to reducing calorie intake. No doubt the debate on that will continue.
Baroness Pitkeathley
My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that no system of health, particularly with an ageing population, can be effective and efficient unless we also provide the best possible social care to link with it?
Earl Howe
I agree with the noble Baroness. One of the aims of our reforms is to integrate health and social care in a much more seamless way. There is another element to our reforms, which may have escaped noble Lords' notice. It is our wish to bear down on health inequalities in a much more systematic way than we have done hitherto. Both health and social care have a part to play in that.
Lord Tugendhat
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust. Does my noble friend not agree that whenever an international organisation such as the OECD or the IMF has good words to say about the conduct of the British economy, the Chancellor of the Exchequer always welcomes them and uses them as an argument to support the Government’s economic policy? Would it not be helpful, when other organisations have good words to say about the NHS, for the Government to welcome them with equal fervour? Of course the NHS can improve and must modernise and move with the times; but when significant institutions such as the Commonwealth Fund in America, and the one that has just been quoted, have good words to say about the NHS, surely the Minister should be less carping.
Earl Howe
My Lords, in my opening words I said that we welcomed the report. I stressed that we fully acknowledge the improvements that have been made by the NHS over the past few years, which the report highlights. However, it is limited in its scope. The difficulty with all these reports is comparing like with like, particularly with different health systems. I am not decrying the work that went into the report, but I will say that perhaps some OECD reports take us closer to how well the UK's health system is performing in relation to those of other countries.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, will the Government take a larger look at the scope and permanence of the NHS’s success in recent years? Does the Minister agree that a key factor is the share of GDP devoted to the NHS and the results that it produces? The NHS has consistently produced better results with a much lower share of GDP than some comparative health services, including that of the United States.
Earl Howe
My noble friend is right. There is also another measure that counts—not just the percentage share of GDP, but the absolute amount of money in the health budget that goes into our NHS. As she will know, the amounts of money have increased substantially over recent years. That produces a rather different ratio from the one in the report referred to in the Question.
Autism: Personal Independence Payments
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Touhig
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what impact the assessment criteria for personal independence payments are anticipated to have on the number of people with autism who will claim the allowance, compared with the number of those who claim disability living allowance.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, it is too early to identify what the impact of the personal independence payment will be, as we are still developing the new assessment criteria. We are determined that the personal independence payment will be fairer than the disability living allowance, taking better account of the impact of mental, cognitive and intellectual impairments. The inclusion of activities around communication, planning and following a journey will help assess the impact of autistic spectrum disorders on individuals’ lives.
Lord Touhig
I thank the Minister for his very helpful reply. Is he aware that the way in which the draft assessment criteria for the new personal independence payments are framed, coupled with the 20 per cent cut in spending and a focus on those with the greatest personal care needs, could mean that many people with autism will lose the lifeline currently provided by the existing disability living allowance? Will the Minister say how the Government will ensure that this vulnerable group of people will continue to get the much needed financial support required to give them a good quality of life?
Lord Freud
My Lords, first, I must reinforce the point which I know I have made in the Chamber before; when people talk about cuts, they mean cuts on projections. The actual payments are essentially being held flat in real terms. We have looked at the initial assessments and are currently revising them in the light of our experience and after speaking to many groups, including the National Autistic Society, in order to refine the assessment. We will publish that and our findings in the next couple of months.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, we will all have received numerous representations in the context of the Welfare Reform Bill, which is coming up, from people who are most concerned about the loss or potential loss of the disability living allowance. Will he give an assurance that when this Bill comes into Committee, the Government will seriously consider accepting amendments in order to try to safeguard some of these most vulnerable people and not steamroller the savings that they intend to get from this Bill at the expense of the most vulnerable in our society?
Lord Freud
My Lords, there is no intention of steamrollering people. In fact, one of the things about the personal independence payment is that it is designed to be far more effectively focused at the people who need support, particularly those with learning disabilities and so on. I can absolutely assure noble Lords right around the House that during the process of this Bill I will listen very carefully to people and that good ideas will be gratefully received.
Lord Addington
My Lords, can the Minister give us an assurance that when we go through any form of assessment or process, a great effort is made to get the right information about the individual conditional set of problems? Much of the historical problem here is the fact that if a person did not fit the particular slot or the interviewer did not have enough information, they did not have the freedom—or were not encouraged—to go and find out the best answer.
Lord Freud
My noble friend makes the very good point that there has been continual disappointment in that area of assessment. We are beginning to learn how to do that better. Professor Harrington, in the context of a different assessment—the WCA—is pointing us in the right direction in getting information and support for people when they are being assessed.
Lord Freud
My Lords, clearly this is a different assessment that measures different things. However, we are learning lessons from the WCA, and noble Lords will know that we are making considerable changes to it to make sure that it works as effectively as possible. We also expect to make sure that the personal independence payment is focused on the needs of the individual. The assessment is much more appropriate than the DLA assessment, which is, frankly, subjective and inconsistent and relies much too much on self-assessment.
Lord Kinnock
Would the Minister like to give further attention to the first reply he gave to my noble friend Lord Touhig to the effect that the cuts are cuts in projections and spending is flat? Does that take account of the fact that we now live with the reality of a 5 per cent inflation rate?
Lord Freud
Yes, my Lords. I made absolutely clear in that response that I was talking in real terms, so it takes account of inflation.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, the Minister said that he is in listening mode with the Welfare Reform Bill and is eager to learn lessons. Can he tell me what lessons he will learn from today’s IFS report, which states that when the tax and benefit programme of this Government is analysed the poorest 30 per cent of people are bearing the brunt?
Lord Freud
My Lords, this is a serious recession, and the IFS emphasised how it will impact. One thing we will discuss as we go through the Welfare Reform Bill is the way in which we direct a lot of resource precisely to the poorest people. On a like-for-like basis, the universal credit injects something over £4 billion extra a year to the poorest people, against the current benefit system.
Company Remuneration Bill [HL]
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
International Renewable Energy Agency (Legal Capacities) Order 2011
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That the draft order laid before the House on 7 June be approved.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 7 September.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Carrying on Regulated Activities by Way of Business) (Amendment) Order 2011
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord De Mauley
That the draft order laid before the House on 4 July be approved.
Relevant document: 27th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 7 September.
Localism Bill
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has very kindly added his name to this amendment, tabled in my name. With this group of amendments, we turn to the subject of the mayoral development corporations in London.
Anybody with experience of development corporations, such as the London Docklands Development Corporation and other development corporations outside London, will recognise their hugely important role in urban regeneration in often very run-down areas. One essential characteristic that led to the success of these development corporations, not least the LDDC, was the provision that they had to be planning authorities and therefore had full authority over planning in their areas. In the 1980s this enabled my noble friend Lord Heseltine and my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon to trigger what we must all agree has been the most amazing regeneration of what was then the almost derelict area of London docks. My role came later, as Secretary of State for the Environment, and with my late friend Nicholas Ridley, then Secretary of State for Transport, we were responsible for promoting both London City Airport and the Docklands Light Railway. These have transformed the Docklands area and indeed much of east London. Therefore, it is no surprise that the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, supported by the Greater London Assembly, has persuaded the Government to include mayoral development corporations in the Bill. This is what Chapter 2 of Part 7 of the Bill is all about. As with all those who are concerned with the development and future of London, I warmly welcome most of this chapter but I have a few points to make.
I note in passing that the origin of this suggestion related to the Olympic legacy, for which these clauses will be of great value, but if it had been confined to the Olympic legacy, that would have made the Bill a hybrid bill. Therefore, the Government very wisely accepted that this proposal for development corporations in London should cover the whole of the area. Of course, they may not be confined to single boroughs, and indeed one of the attractions is that they could well cover an area that extends over more than one borough. The combination of this and the fact that they will be planning authorities in their own right has caused some anxieties on the part of the 33 London boroughs and the City of London. I remind the House that I have declared an interest at each stage that I am a joint president of London Councils.
There are two issues: first, whether the London boroughs should be represented on the mayoral development corporation boards, committees and sub-committees; secondly, what appears to be in the Bill an inadequate consultation of the boroughs on the formation and operation of a mayoral development corporation. I tabled the amendments in this group and I very much welcome the support of the Official Opposition in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has indicated, we are pleased to put our name to these amendments. We thank the Government for responding to at least one of the amendments, which means that the noble Lord will not have to introduce that one. The issues, as the noble Lord has explained, seem to be extremely straightforward and clear-cut. The consultation simply seeks for London boroughs parity with what happens to the London Assembly and for them not to have to go through the indirect route for the reasons that the noble Lord has explained and to make sure that there is fair representation. The Government have recognised that there should be representation for the boroughs on MDC boards. It seems a natural and reasonable extension to that that there should be representation on committees and sub-committees. Having said that, I fully support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, as regards the mayoral development areas, reference is made to consultation with a number of bodies, including the Greater London Authority or local councils. But consultation is different in the minds of different people. In local government, we have seen many consultations, the results of which have been ignored. It worries one that a London borough may be only one part of the decision-making process and may only be consulted.
In particular, the government amendment refers to local borough councils having a “relevant” interest if the mayoral development area in any way impinges on the area of that local borough. The boundaries of London boroughs do not fit neatly into developments. For example, the Brent Cross development, which was built more than 30 years ago, is expanding, with which I agree. It is right on the borders of the boroughs of Barnet, Camden, Brent and Harrow. It seems to me that when this situation arises in the future, “relevant” local authorities should be those that have an interest and are affected by the proposed mayoral development areas, and not only those where the mayoral development area would be situated within that local borough. I invite the Minister to consider whether the word “relevant” is correct in this case and whether adjoining local boroughs should also be in some way incorporated in this Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment as a requisite safeguard for the flexibility of the London boroughs; that is, flexibility being within their remit and for their discharge.
Lord True
My Lords, I declare an interest as leader of a London borough. I thank my noble friend the Minister for the moves that have been made to address some of the legitimate concerns put forward at the previous stage. Having said that, my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding eloquently put the case for further consideration of some of the minor details—some of which are not so minor—in clarifying how this will work. Rightly or wrongly, there is suspicion among leaders of London boroughs about the risk of the mayor imposing policies on areas of London. Further safeguards and assurances would be desirable in that respect.
The other brief point I wish to make is that, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin said, recourse to the London Assembly, with all great respect to that body, is not a fully local response. In the Bill we already have to contend with the fact that regional government is continuing in London and that the local element of the Bill is somewhat deficient in London. Geographically elected members of the London Assembly represent quite large areas—less local than London boroughs—and are less urgently concerned through wards with local affairs. The London Assembly Members who are elected under proportional systems do not have that kind of local connection.
I hope that my noble friend, in considering the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, will tell us that he will be able to consider further the noble Lord’s points before the next stage.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, this group of amendments addresses concerns raised about borough councils’ representation on an MDC’s board and committees. I am grateful for all noble Lord’s contributions. We have thought carefully about this and have tabled government amendments.
Amendment 97 would ensure that a borough council, including for this purpose the Common Council of the City of London, whose area forms part of an MDC, will have an automatic seat on the board by requiring that the mayor must exercise his power to appoint members to the MDC so as to secure that the members of an MDC include at least one elected member of each relevant council. Such appointments will still be subject to the same safeguards as other appointments. Amendment 99 would allow the mayor to remove a borough council member from an MDC’s board if that member ceases to be a borough member and the mayor wishes to appoint another member of that borough in the original member’s place. Amendment 102 is a consequential amendment to rules about the validity of proceedings and simply ensures that the absence of at least one elected member of each affected borough council will not affect the validity of an MDC’s proceedings.
Amendment 100 removes the stipulation that the majority of members of a committee or sub-committee of an MDC must be members of the MDC. These are significant concessions. My noble friends have suggested in Amendment 98 that one-sixth of the members must be from the boroughs, but that is not necessary. For example, with the proposed Olympic Park Legacy Corporation the four borough members would be likely to constitute rather more than one-sixth of the board. On that basis I ask my noble friends to withdraw their amendment. The House may recall the amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, tabled for Committee, which was not debated. That sought to provide that an MDC’s committees and sub-committees should not, as is currently the case, require a majority of MDC members. I am delighted to say that we have brought forward Amendment 100, which secures the aims of the noble Baroness.
Amendment 101, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, also relates to membership of committees and sub-committees but seeks to prescribe membership. It states that there should be at least one elected borough representative on both committees and sub-committees from those boroughs whose areas are affected by a designated mayoral development area, and, where those committees are concerned with planning, that at least half of the membership should comprise representatives from affected boroughs. I hope the House will agree that the existing provisions regarding committees and sub-committees, bolstered by Amendment 100, will give an MDC maximum flexibility over the make-up of its committees and sub-committees. I hope that deals with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. For example, an MDC will be able to appoint one or more relevant borough council members to its planning committee and, should it wish to do so, have a majority of non-MDC members on that committee.
I turn now to Amendments 96 and 103 which address a borough’s comments on, first, the proposed designation of a mayoral development area and, secondly, designation of an MPC as the local planning authority. It is clearly right that an affected borough council must be consulted on both these issues, just as it is right to offer the opportunity to the London Assembly, relevant Members of the other place and other statutory consultees as the Bill provides. It is also the case that the mayor will be obliged to consult affected borough councils and other statutory consultees were he to propose that an MDC should offer business rate discounts. The Bill provides that, should comments be made by the London Assembly and the mayor not accept those comments, he is obliged to publish a statement giving reasons for that non-acceptance. Amendments 96 and 103 would extend that requirement to comments of the borough councils. However, there is no need to do this. As I have said, an affected borough council must be consulted by the mayor, so it could make its views known to him by that route. But a borough council could also make representations to its London Assembly constituency member who, in turn, could feed those views to the Assembly as a whole, as a result of which the Assembly could, if it wished, relay those representations and any of its own to the mayor. I suggest that this is a sufficient level of scrutiny.
I would ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments and accept Amendments 97, 99, 100 and 102 in their place.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I am grateful for the care with which my noble friend has replied to the amendments, but I have to say that I am concerned at what he said towards the end of his remarks about the London boroughs having to put their views to Assembly members who, in turn, will put them to the mayor. That is not a proper or, indeed, a dignified treatment of independent elected authorities which have made substantial comments on the mayor’s plans. I really am quite disappointed about that.
I understand the point made by my noble friend on the question of representation, and in particular on the question of numbers. What we are asking for is that they should at least have representation on committees and sub-committees, but all my noble friend has been able to say so far is that it would give maximum flexibility if this were not in the Bill because there is nothing to prevent the mayor making sure that there are such representatives. However, it does not oblige him to do so; the Bill merely says that this can be done. So I have to say that I am a bit disappointed.
I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to look at this again between now and Third Reading. I have to tell him that the boroughs feel strongly about the issue, and I am grateful to my noble friends Lord True and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill for what they said on the issue. The boroughs are concerned because while at the moment no other mayoral development corporations are planned beyond the Olympic Park Legacy Corporation, there will be, so we need to guard against the possibility of there being a serious conflict of interest, and the Bill ought to provide a proper machinery for dealing with that. I hope that I have convinced the House that this is the not the case at the moment.
Obviously I am not going to divide the House, but it does seem to me that I am entitled to ask my noble friend to have another look at this between now and Third Reading, which we shall not have for some weeks yet so there is plenty of time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
“(1A) The Mayor must, subject to sub-paragraph (3), exercise the Mayor’s power under sub-paragraph (1) so as to secure that the members of an MDC include at least one elected member of each relevant London council.
(1B) For the purposes of this Schedule—
(a) “London council” means a London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London, and(b) a London council is “relevant” in relation to an MDC if any part of the MDC’s area is within the council’s area.”
Baroness Hanham
“(ca) the member has since being appointed ceased to be an elected member of a relevant London council and the Mayor wishes to appoint an elected member of that council to be a member of the MDC in the member’s place,”
Baroness Hanham
“(ba) its members not including at least one elected member of each relevant London council,”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
“Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 (c. 39)1A In section 1(4) of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services Act) 1970 (supply of goods and services by local authorities: interpretation) in the definition of “local authority” after “(joint waste authorities)” insert “, a Mayoral development corporation”.”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I shall begin by speaking to government Amendment 107, which is also in the group.
The government amendment seeks to enable the greatest sharing of back-office services across the GLA group. The mayor has an ambitious shared services programme for the GLA group utilising existing powers under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which enables the GLA and its functional bodies to share administrative, professional and technical services with each other.
We are conscious that there are several legislative gaps in the existing legislation, with a number of bodies in the GLA’s ambit not covered, potentially restricting further opportunities for savings and efficiencies. That is why, following discussions with the mayor, we introduce the new amendment as part of the London reform package to extend the powers to three further statutory entities; namely, the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police, the London Transport Users’ Committee and the London Pensions Fund Authority.
The amendment also gives the Secretary of State the power to add other persons or bodies performing public functions in London, other than wholly national bodies, to the list of entities covered by Section 401A, following consultation with the relevant person or body. This will allow the inclusion of unique bodies such as the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority or the Museum of London, if there is an appetite in London for their inclusion. We will be discussing further the extent of any order with the GLA, the boroughs and other relevant partners over the autumn.
Finally, Amendment 104 amends Schedule 22 to classify a mayoral development corporation as a local authority for the purposes of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970. This will allow a mayoral development corporation to share administrative services and supply goods to local authorities on the same basis as other functional bodies, again in support of the mayor’s shared service agenda. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, this is a very interesting pair of amendments. Proposed new paragraph (d) in Amendment 107 is about the London Transport Users’ Committee, which the Minister will be aware that Amendment 108 seeks to merge more closely into the GLA. If Amendment 108 is not carried—and I will certainly oppose it if I can be in the Chamber at the time—who decides whether these administrative sharing arrangements take place? If the London Transport Users’ Committee remains as it is, who decides whether it should merge its administration? Can they resist a request to share or is it a matter of negotiation?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, it seems to me that the concept of sharing back-office and administrative services is entirely reasonable and I can see the benefits that might flow from that. My noble friend raises an interesting question as to how it works and whether there is a discussion or an imposition when new bodies are brought in. I suppose I am a little surprised that there are not the general powers already available for the sharing of these functions but I support the thrust of this.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I assure the noble Lord that we would not be tabling amendments if the power were already in existence—no, it does not exist, which is perhaps surprising to noble Lords, but I hope that with the consent of the House it will in future. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his question and I reassure him that any decision on these fronts has to be mutually agreed. This is really designed to be of advantage to both parties and for the people of London.
Independent Commission on Banking
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement that has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the final report of the Independent Commission on Banking. The report is an impressive piece of work—broad in scope, incisive in its analysis and clear in its recommendations. The commission has done what we asked it to do. It has come up with an answer to the question of how Britain can be the home of successful international banks that lend to families and businesses without exposing British taxpayers to the massive costs of those banks failing. Frankly, it is a question that should have been asked and answered a decade ago.
We should all thank Sir John Vickers and the other members of the commission—Clare Spottiswoode, Martin Taylor, Bill Winters and Martin Wolf—for a job well done. But this commission and this report have not come about by accident. It was set up by this coalition Government to learn the lessons of what went so catastrophically wrong: a decade long debt-fuelled boom that ended in a dramatic financial crisis, a deep recession and a debt overhang that is still holding back our economy; a regulatory system that totally failed to spot enormous imbalances building up and proved incapable of dealing with the crisis when it first broke; and, most importantly in the context of this report, huge global banks that turned out to be “too big to fail”, so that taxpayers were called upon for many billions of pounds in order to prevent a financial meltdown. We still do not know, and may not know for many years, how much of that money will ever be recovered, despite irresponsible promises made at the time that not a penny would be lost.
We are fundamentally changing the system of regulation and tackling the debts but this bailout for banks is the element of the crisis that has, justifiably, caused the most anger. It is an affront both to fairness and to the very principles of a market economy. It is not available to any other sector of the economy, and nor should it be. It breaks the principle that those who take risks should face the consequences of their actions and, as a result, it played an important role in encouraging the excessive risk taking that caused this crisis.
Of course, taxpayer bailouts did not only happen in this country. An international regulatory response to the crisis is now emerging, with the new Basel rules and the anticipated new additional requirements for systemic banks, but here in Britain we cannot rely only on the international reform process to make our banking system safe. The scale of the challenge we face and the risk for our taxpayers is on a different scale from most other countries.
The balance sheet of our banking system is close to 500 per cent of our GDP, compared to just over 100 per cent in the US and around 300 per cent in Germany and France. Only Iceland, Ireland and Switzerland had larger banking systems relative to their GDP, and they have now all taken action that goes well beyond new international standards. As the report says,
‘part of the challenge for reform is to reconcile the UK’s position as an international financial centre with stable banking’.
This is what I have called ‘the British dilemma’—how to remain a successful global centre of finance without asking taxpayers to bear unacceptable risks or put the broader economy at risk. We set up the Banking Commission to help us solve the British dilemma. Let me set out its recommendations and how we propose to respond.
The first proposal is the introduction of a ring-fence around retail banking. The Government have welcomed this recommendation in principle. As the report says,
‘the objective of such a ring-fence would be to isolate those banking activities where continuous provision of service is vital to the economy and to a bank’s customers’.
In other words, the provision of key domestic retail banking services, such as taking deposits from individuals and small businesses or providing them with overdrafts. The central benefit of a ring-fence is not to end large universal banking groups but to make them more easily resolvable in a crisis. The costs should fall on shareholders and the wholesale debt holders, not small depositors or taxpayers. A successful ring-fence will be able to ensure the continuation of vital payment services that are crucial to preventing an economic collapse. This directly addresses the perceived implicit taxpayer guarantee which is at the heart of the too-big-to-fail problem.
The commission has also proposed a more flexible ring-fence. In terms of its scope, it says that,
‘domestic retail banking services should be inside the ring fence, global wholesale/investment banking should be outside, and the provision of straightforward banking services to large domestic non-financial companies can be in or out’.
Many will see this as sensible and it will reduce inefficiencies resulting from any mismatch between customer deposits and business lending within an individual bank.
On the strength—or height, if you like—of the ring-fence, it recommends that the retail subsidiary should have what it calls ‘economic independence’. In other words, it should meet regulatory requirements on a stand-alone basis and its relationships with other parts of the group should be arm’s length and regulated in the same way as relationships with third parties. A great deal of detailed work will now be required to see how that principle can be put into practice.
Secondly, the commission has also made important recommendations to ensure that banks have bigger cushions to withstand losses. These are that the large retail ring-fenced banks should have equity capital of at least 10 per cent. It also recommends that retail and other activities of large UK banking groups should have primary loss-absorbing capacity of at least 17 per cent to 20 per cent, including long-term debt that can be written off, so that, unlike last time, both shareholders and bondholders bear losses, not the taxpayer. Within this, it recommends some regulatory discretion about the composition of this loss-absorbing capacity. Again, many will see that as sensible.
Thirdly, the commission recommends the introduction of depositor preference. I repeat again that the Financial Services Compensation Scheme covers 100 per cent of eligible deposits up to the new European limit of €100,000. The depositor preference proposals would bolster this scheme by ensuring that other bank creditors are subject to losses first when a bank goes bust, minimising the cost to the FSCS and ultimately to the taxpayer.
The fourth set of recommendations relates to competition in the banking sector. They have not got as much attention as the other recommendations, but they are as important to families and businesses. I agree with the commission that the best way to ensure a reliable and affordable supply of lending to our families and businesses is through competition. The collapse of banks such as Bradford & Bingley and the merger of Lloyds and HBOS, welcomed by the previous Government, mean that there is too little competition and switching bank accounts remains difficult. I welcome the recommendations to change this. On the divestment of the Lloyds branches, the commission has said that the key test should be the emergence of a strong and effective new challenger bank. I agree that that would be very much in our country’s interest.
Those are the recommendations. Let me now turn to the implications for the wider economy, the implications for Britain as a global financial centre and the timetable for the Government’s response. The report is clear that the right solution, implemented properly and to the right timetable, will help our economy, not hinder it. Let us remember that the mistakes made by poorly regulated banks ended up costing the economy many many billions of pounds. The commission notes that some of its recommendations could reduce the profitability of some banks’ investment banking operations. That is largely because we would be removing the subsidy that comes from any perceived implicit taxpayer guarantee. We should not confuse the interests of bank shareholders with those of British taxpayers. It is also critical that reforms of this kind do not lead to a worsening of credit conditions in the economy. Indeed, Vickers says:
‘Banks with more robust capital, together with the creation of the ring-fence, would provide a secure and stable framework for the supply of credit to businesses and households in the UK economy’.
Indeed, the commission believes that its proposals could help to rebuild the culture of relationship banking that has been so sadly lost over the past decade and would help banks understand the credit needs of their customers better.
Let me turn to the UK’s role as a global centre for finance and banking. I will be very clear. This Government want Britain and the City of London to be the pre-eminent global centre for banking and finance. We want universal banks headquartered here, with all the advantages that that brings. The Vickers report explicitly addresses this issue, and for those investment banks with credible recovery plans, it has not recommended higher equity requirements than those agreed at an international level. This would mean that the global investment banking operations of UK banks can continue to be as competitive as any in the world. We will continue as a Government to keep the City as a whole internationally competitive, as was clear last week when we welcomed, with the Chinese Government, the development of the offshore renminbi market in London.
Let me end by explaining to the House how we will now take forward the commission’s report. We welcome the recommendations in principle. They would require far-reaching and complex changes. John Vickers is the first to say that they cannot be delivered overnight. The detailed work will start immediately. We will consult on the costs and benefits of the most appropriate way to implement these changes. We will provide a response by the end of this year, so that there is no uncertainty hanging over the industry.
We will legislate in this Parliament to put the needed changes into law. We will consider which changes can be in the existing Financial Services Bill and which will need a new Bill, and we will discuss these changes with international partners to ensure consistency with international agreements and EU law. We will follow the advice of the independent commission and ensure that any changes to the British banking system are fully completed by 2019. This is a sensible timetable that fits with the international regime. As Vickers himself said this morning,
‘short-termism got us into this mess and we need long-termism to build a more stable system for the future’.
The question of how Britain can be the home of successful, global banks that lend to British families and businesses but do not have to be bailed out by British taxpayers should have been answered a decade ago, but it was not even asked—and that failure means this country is still paying the price for that failure. Billions of pounds have been spent and hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost as a result. It is this Government who set up the banking commission—not just to ask the questions but to provide the answers. Today represents a decisive moment when we take a step to a new banking system that works for Britain. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place earlier this afternoon. Of course, we are grateful to all who contributed to the Vickers report, particularly the chairman. After all, this is probably the most important report to come before this Government during their time in office. Therefore, it is important that we recognise the points that the Minister made about the time necessary for full consideration of the important issues involved. However, if we have a clear anxiety about the Government’s response—I recognise that it is an initial response at this stage—it concerns whether it has the urgency which the nation demands. The report proposes significant reforms to an industry that contributed substantially to a huge rise in job losses and caused great uncertainty among our fellow citizens. Hundreds of thousands are seeing their living standards decline. At the root of this is the catastrophe in the financial sector that we have lived through.
Of course, the report is concerned with the UK position, UK banks and the United Kingdom Government’s response and contribution to finding a solution. However, I hope that the Minister will give greater reassurance as regards the urgency of taking the earliest possible action. I am not clear why the Government have not indicated that they look upon the financial legislation before both Houses as a vehicle for at least establishing a basic framework of the response. That would at least translate fine words into early and clear action. That is the very least that we can ask of the Government in response to a situation which has been so catastrophic for our nation.
My second point, in somewhat lower key, concerns the international dimension. Of course, we are concerned about United Kingdom legislation but it is important that the Government, particularly the Chancellor, should recognise that the solution to the financial problems which face banking in this country has to be consonant with the solutions which are put forward and engaged in by all the major economies in the world. That is why it is so important that the Chancellor should recognise the international role which he has to play in respect of the reform of the world’s financial provisions, particularly regulation.
Thirdly, I hope that the Minister will not dwell too much on the past.
Lord Davies of Oldham
We all recognise that the catastrophe which occurred in 2008 was enormously detrimental to the welfare of this country. However, I hope the noble Lord will recognise that it occurred not just in this country but constituted an international financial failure. Regulation failed in the United States of America and other countries. That international dimension is crucial to finding a solution. If the Minister merely looks on this as an opportunity for point scoring and berating the previous Government, that would ill fit the present situation and the problems that we all face, to say nothing of the fact that he would have to quote chapter and verse those senior Conservative politicians who, during the build up to the events of 2007-08, warned of the impending difficulties and demanded tighter and more effective regulation of the City. If evidence of that kind emerges at any stage, I for one would be glad to see it. However, I would be amazed if it existed.
Today’s Statement provides an opportunity to give a brief response to a fundamentally important problem. I am keeping my remarks brief confident in the fact that we shall have another opportunity to debate this matter on Thursday of this week. I hope the Government and the Minister appreciate that we shall have a greater opportunity to deploy our arguments in that debate after we have fully examined the Vickers report and the Government’s initial response to it. I look forward to that debate, as I am sure does the Minister.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I was never a boxer, so I have never understood the concept of leading with the chin, but I really think that we have seen the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, doing exactly that this afternoon. I am pleased that he recognises the importance of this report; but how he has nerve to stand up and tell this Government that we should be addressing the report with urgency, I simply do not know. I do not want to make cheap points this afternoon when there are much more important things to say.
Lord Sassoon
Well, should I or not? Perhaps I will. This is important because it exemplifies what this Government are doing and what the previous Government did not do. There were 18 months between the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the general election in which work such as that which we commissioned could have been commissioned by the previous Government. There were two and a half years after the appalling events following the collapse of Northern Rock in which the previous Government could have looked at the structure of banking, but they did nothing. There were more than 10 years in which they presided over the debt-fuelled boom that led to this disaster that we are now mopping up. So I really do not think that we need lectures about urgency on the follow-up. We are taking the timetable suggested by the independent commission, and that will be our guide.
I apologise if my droning on with a 2,000-word Statement means that not every sentence or paragraph can be picked up. However, as the noble Lord asked about the use of the existing Financial Services Bill and the international dimension, I remind him that both points are addressed in the same paragraph of my right honourable friend’s Statement, which I will read out again:
“We will consider which changes can be in the existing Financial Services Bill and which will need a new Bill, and we will discuss these changes with international partners to ensure consistency with international agreements and EU law”.
So I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, on these two points, which is why my right honourable friend has addressed them in his Statement. I look forward to any more constructive thoughts that he and his noble friends may be able to come up with as we go forward discussing these very important matters.
Lord Newby
My Lords, on these Benches we welcome the report and the Government’s response to it. We also welcome the degree of urgency with which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, wishes the report to be implemented, not least because some of us had to put up with withering scorn from the Labour Benches during the previous Parliament when we suggested exactly the proposals that are now in this report.
The report says that while the full implementation of the proposals might take a number of years, there is much to be gained by moving quickly to set the framework in place so that the banks know what they are up against. The Minister has already mentioned that the Government will look at the extent to which the financial services Bill might be a vehicle for doing that. As we now have a Joint Select Committee on the Bill, of which I have the privilege to be a member under the chairmanship of Peter Lilley MP, would he accept that this offers Parliament a golden opportunity to take evidence quickly on the principal issues that the Vickers report raises and to move with some determination? I am sure that the vast bulk of rule-making that will be required to implement this series of proposals will not need primary legislation but will need FSA regulation or secondary regulation, and that the legislative framework in primary legislation should be relatively short and straightforward.
Lord Sassoon
I am very grateful to my noble friend. We will work as hard and as fast as we can now to take forward consideration of the detail. As I have stressed, we have accepted the recommendations of the report in principle, but there is a lot of potential devil in the detail and we need to do a full cost-benefit assessment. Indeed, we need to work through what would be appropriate to introduce into the financial services Bill and what would need a stand-alone Bill. I have no idea how the committee may want to proceed, but it now has the Vickers report in front of it and we will get on with sorting out all these issues as quickly as possible. However, we should not underestimate the amount of work for officials and the amount of consultation needed to get the detail right.
Lord Barnett
I welcome the Statement and I note that, in its recommendations, the commission talked about the short-term report being dealt with as soon as possible, although it would take until 2019 to deal with the full action that needs to be taken. I would like to clarify this with the noble Lord. He talked about some of the points and he repeated part of the long Statement about what will happen, but could he clarify how soon he expects the banks to be in a position to do the kind of reform recommended in this report, which is so strongly supported by the Chancellor? Is not the real current danger that, if the eurozone banks collapse, as, regretfully, seems all too likely—recently the Chancellor said that that would not just be disastrous for Europe but for us as well—we could be bailing out banks long before 2019, whether we are in the eurozone or not and we may have to bail some out in the very near future? How would that fit in with the reform in the short term that will enable the actions which are strongly recommended by the report to be carried out?
Lord Sassoon
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, for welcoming the Statement. Clearly, there is a series of different sorts of recommendations in the report. Some of them relate to ring-fencing and the adequacy of capital, where the date of 2019 fits in with the move to implementation of Basel III. So there is a clear logic for making sure that the construct that we are putting in place here is targeted at the same date as the related international recommendations in the same area. On the other hand, of course there are recommendations in areas such as competition, connected, for example, with the ongoing disposal of Lloyds branches, where the timetable is rather different and where the commission, quite rightly, is looking to see action on a shorter timescale. We need to look at the pacing of some of the reforms in relation to 2019, that being the date of Basel III implementation, and others in relation to the individual merits of the case. That is the approach we will take.
Lord Higgins
This is certainly a massive and comprehensive report which is rightly welcomed by the Government. I have two questions. First, there is certainly a point of view which says that the right answer is to have complete separation of investment and retail banking. The commission has not come down in favour of that but in favour of ring-fencing. The danger is that there are loopholes in the ring-fence. Could my noble friend say in what circumstances resources might flow from one side of the ring-fence to the other, thereby continuing, albeit perhaps in a more limited form, the dangers which arise if there is a degree of connection between investment and retail banking?
Secondly, as far as timing is concerned, I understand the point my noble friend is making about Basel. However, it has also been suggested that, given the state of the economy, it would be dangerous to implement these changes too quickly, because it would inhibit the continued recovery. Would my noble friend agree that it is right to review that aspect of timing as we go along, and not set in concrete the idea that we should wait until 2019 before going ahead with the ring-fencing proposals?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I regret that I may fail to satisfy my noble friend Lord Higgins in my answers. On his first point about the design of the ring-fence, and whether there are loopholes, the commission has been quite clear in relation to one or two major structural elements of the ring-fence. It has recommended that discretion should be allowed to the banks as to whether the lending business to large industrial companies should be on one side of it or the other. That will be the first of a number of detailed issues that need to be looked at in the design work. I would not wish to pre-empt that work, other than noting that my noble friend’s question of loopholes and how they might come about will be, I am sure, very much in the minds of those doing the detailed work.
On the speed of implementation, I do think it is important—as it was with the Basel III work, and the European directive that flows with it—that the banking industry, taxpayers and all those who deal with the banks have a clear understanding of what the end position will be. There is a separate question as to what the appropriate implementation timetable will be. I am sure that the commissioners thought very carefully about this when they put forward the date of 2019. I repeat that—as my noble friend will know—it is the same date as the Basel implementation. I am sure they thought about that very hard.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my entry on the register as a director of MBNK, which is seeking to establish a new bank.
I congratulate my noble friend and the Chancellor on the way in which they have gripped this difficult subject, by appointing the Vickers commission, which has done an outstanding job. Some of us may not agree with all of the report, but it is a careful and sensible analysis. Some people have argued that this will damage the competitiveness of the City of London, but does my noble friend not agree that the City of London will benefit from having certainty? The fact that the Chancellor has the courage to take this on will help with the process and help our competitiveness.
I suggest that if my noble friend is thinking of giving a Christmas present to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, he might buy him a copy of the right honourable Alistair Darling’s memoirs, in which he will find why it is not a good idea to look to the previous Government’s behaviour in this area. May I remind the House that it was the previous Government who gave Sir Fred Goodwin his knighthood for services to banking?
Lord Sassoon
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Forsyth for welcoming this report. It is a fine piece of work that has been done under a lot of time pressure. The commissioners have developed the analysis very considerably from their interim report, and I share my noble friend’s conclusion that by coming out now with these reforms to strengthen our banking system, we will place our banks and the City of London in an even better position to compete globally, as the Government want them to be able to do.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, I appreciate that it is wholly necessary that there should be an effective firewall between retail and wholesale banking, and that the detail of that remains to be determined. However, perhaps the Minister will accept that the seriousness of the situation is illustrated in this way. Section 6 of the Theft Act 1968 defines theft as occurring in circumstances where a person uses the property of another as if that property were his to dispose of, irrespective of the rights of the other. In that way, the revelations of 2008 show quite clearly that in many instances there was moral theft, if not actual legal left.
Lord Sassoon
I am certainly no lawyer, so whether there was legal theft I will leave to lawyers to sort out. On the question of moral theft, I look to the Bishops’ Benches for guidance. The noble Lord makes the serious point that these events were deeply shocking and needed the sort of serious response that the Government and the commission have given. That is why we will drive through the recommendations that we accepted in principle today.
Baroness Ford
My Lords, I have a slight disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. I particularly welcome the flexibility around the ring-fence, which is a very intelligent response to the dilemma of separation that clearly reflects the reality of modern Treasury management. That is greatly to be welcomed. However, given that a huge component of the problems that we have experienced concerns the misallocation and mispricing of risk, and the failure of regulation, will the Minister say whether, in line with the changes that the commission set out today and that Basel III will introduce, the Government have any proposals for further strengthening the regulatory framework in this country? Banking systems in other countries such as Canada did not fail. I declare an interest: I worked for a Canadian bank in that period. One of the distinguishing features of the Canadian system was the strength of regulation. Are there any plans for further strengthening the regulatory framework in this country?
Lord Sassoon
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for pointing out the good sense with which the commission addressed the question of the ring-fence. Clearly it has thought about the arguments that have been put over recent months. In respect of the failure of regulation, on which I completely agree with her, the overhaul of the regulatory structure, which is coming forward in the financial services Bill, is very significant. It puts the primary responsibility for looking at the risk in the entire system where it ought to be: that is, with the central bank. That is a fundamental change. The new Financial Policy Committee of the Bank of England is up in effective shadow mode, ahead of the legislation going through. It is able to address—and is addressing—risk issues as we speak, and I am sure that it will take note of whether there is anything further in the report that it ought to pick up on.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I join others in welcoming the Government’s enthusiastic acceptance of the report, and particularly of ring-fencing, which is much harder to erode than changes in regulation. However, I am sure that the Minister will agree that those who have suffered the most from the failure of the banks and the depth of the economic crisis that followed have been among the most vulnerable and disadvantaged, along with the smallest businesses. Would he be willing, as he looks to introduce a new bank that will provide more high street competition, to encourage banking services that will address the micro and the very small business, and which will reach out to the economically disadvantaged, who currently get a basic bank account offered with ill grace and very few services?
Lord Sassoon
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Kramer for bringing us back to one of the constituencies most affected by the state of our banking system. That is why I welcome the discussion in the report about issues concerning the ability of individuals to switch accounts. There are important recommendations about the Lloyds Bank disposals, which make the point that this is not just a numbers game, of counting the branches that must be disposed of, but about creating another competitor out there. Therefore the report addresses critical aspects of the challenges that she poses, but in addition—whether it is looking at mutual models, credit unions or all the other aspects of a rich and varied banking system—there are significant other channels which the Government continue to address.
Lord Flight
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register indicating that I am a director of Metro Bank, one of the new banks.
I would like to make three points while generally welcoming the recommendations. First, I remember over 10 years ago, following what I believed then to be the mistaken collapse of Barings, talking to the then Governor of the Bank of England about changes to the lender-of-last-resort doctrine, which had stood this country’s banking system in very good order for nearly 100 years. It changed by it being said that it was available only to larger banks, walking straight into the moral hazard problem whereby very large banks were of the belief that they could not be allowed to fail, which was the case, and smaller banks were not able—if there were a banking run—to get lender-of-last-resort support. That is why a whole lot of them wound up. It is very important in achieving competition that, broadly, the lender-of-last-resort doctrine is restored to what it was.
Secondly, I am slightly worried that increasing banks’ capital may be brought forward too quickly. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the very convincing writings of Professor Tim Congdon to the effect that if we increase capital requirements very speedily, we will end up shrinking the money supply, which is the last thing we want to do when the country is trying to struggle its way out of recession.
Finally, one banking system, Lebanon’s, escaped all the problems because the governor of the central bank of Lebanon had the wisdom to spot what was coming, to warn the banks and to keep them out of it. There is nothing more important than having a really good central bank governor who actually knows what is going on and blows the whistle in good time.
Lord Sassoon
All I can say is that my noble friend Lord Flight makes three important and interesting observations which we need to dwell on as we take all this work forward.
Baroness Noakes
I declare my interest, as recorded in the register, in particular as a director of the Royal Bank of Scotland, although my views are and always have been entirely my own.
My noble friend the Minister will be aware that there remain concerns, not least from organisations such as the CBI, about the impact of these proposals on the availability and cost of lending to smaller businesses. There are also concerns about the impact of the proposals on the strength of our financial services industry, which is and will remain a significant contributor to the economy. I therefore welcome the emphasis in my right honourable friend the Chancellor’s statement on cost-benefit analysis being carried out before implementation. Will my noble friend say a little more about when this cost-benefit analysis will be undertaken?
Lord Sassoon
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Noakes. We will get on with all the consideration of the detailed recommendations and the cost-benefit analysis as soon as possible. I cannot be more specific than that, but as my right honourable friend said, it may be that some things can be brought forward for the financial services Bill, which is an indication of the speed with which we will go at this.
Localism Bill
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:03 - Division on Amendment 109B - Ayes: 137 / Noes: 220 - Amendment 109B disagreed.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
“(3A) Before making or varying a delegation under subsection (1) above, a Minister of the Crown must consult—
(a) each London borough council,(b) the Common Council, and(c) the Assembly.”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, Ministers already have the power to delegate functions to the mayor and the London Development Agency under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. We believe that it is right that Ministers continue to have such a power once the LDA is abolished. Through the London reforms in this Bill, the GLA will be gaining significant new powers and responsibilities, including activities from the LDA, enabling London itself to meet the strategic challenges facing the capital.
There may be instances in future where it makes sense for the mayor to play an active role in the delivery of national programmes, through a power of delegation, to ensure that these programmes can be better tailored to London’s specific circumstances. However, we are conscious of the concerns expressed in the other place about this power and the risk that it could marginalise the role of London boroughs, and of the amendments tabled in Committee by my noble friends Lord True and Lord Jenkin, which we did not have time to discuss. In response to these concerns, we are proposing through government Amendment 105 to require a Minister to consult London boroughs and the London Assembly before the use of this power to delegate functions. This will ensure an opportunity for debate and dialogue within London about the appropriateness of any proposed delegation of a ministerial function to the mayor prior to the delegation being made.
Amendment 106, which was tabled by my noble friend Lord True, would go further than this by requiring a Minister to consult boroughs specifically about whether the function could be more appropriately and effectively conducted at a more local level and then to lay a Statement before Parliament if boroughs believe that they are better placed than the mayor to undertake the function. While I fully understand my noble friend’s reasoning, I do not believe that such detailed stipulation is necessary. It should be readily apparent from the statutory consultation whether boroughs have concerns about the mayor exercising a function that they are better placed to undertake. If the function was of sufficient importance, one could see Members of both Houses wanting to raise the issue with the relevant Minister.
I reassure my noble friend that this Government have striven to ensure broad consensus between the mayor, the Assembly and the boroughs about the future direction of London’s governance and, if I may say so, it is exemplified by the reforms in this Bill. We will continue to do so in future. It is vital that both tiers of London government—the GLA and the boroughs—fully accept each other’s democratic mandate and remit and that there is consensus about any use of this power. I therefore ask my noble friend not to move his Amendment 106 in favour of the Government’s Amendment 105, which I beg to move.
Lord True
My Lords, as the Minister said, I have Amendment 106 in this group. I listened very carefully to what he said and I have had the opportunity of talking about this matter with my noble friend Lady Hanham. None the less, I must press him a little because, as he acknowledged in his remarks, we discussed the matter contained in this amendment earlier today: it is the localist deficit that remains in London as a result of this legislation. I of course acknowledge the good relations between the mayor, the boroughs and the other London institutions, but these good relations are not fixed for all time. My amendment addresses future arrangements and future occasions on which the Government may decide that they wish to delegate functions. I believe that, where possible, a truly localist Government would wish to delegate those functions to the most local level practical and in London, in many cases, that will be London boroughs, although we have heard many times in these debates that Ministers would like powers to be delegated even below the level of boroughs and principal authorities.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I hesitate to trespass on to the territory of the capital but I have a good deal of sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord True. He argues powerfully for greater involvement by the London boroughs and for procedure that would facilitate that and indeed put the onus on the Government to prove their case in terms of delegation.
However, another aspect should be taken into account. The amendment speaks of a requirement to consult,
“each London borough council … the Common Council, and … the Assembly”.
There is, of course, a cross-London body of councils, London Councils. In addition to the individual approaches, which obviously make sense, I would have thought it would be useful for London Councils to express a view as an organisation. The noble Lord is nodding his assent to that. Obviously it would be possible to garner the views of the 30-odd London boroughs, but seeking the view of London Councils itself might facilitate a better dialogue across the capital and, I hope, influence the outcome in directions that might not otherwise arise through separate consultations and responses. I wonder whether, if nothing else is done, London Councils could be added to the list of three given in Amendment 105.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I would like to respond to that briefly. London Councils has made it very clear from the beginning of this Bill that it has been unhappy with the extent to which the regional authority in London—namely, the mayor and the London Assembly—seems to have been more successful in securing powers and opportunities than have London boroughs. Maybe that is their fault, but the fact of the matter is that the point made by my noble friend Lord True is shared by London boroughs as a whole. There needs to be a better balance between the mayor and the boroughs on these sorts of matters. As I have said before, the boroughs are responsible elected authorities and deserve to have a proper consideration on these matters. I hope that the Minister will feel able to give further consideration to this point. Here is another case where the mayor’s lobbying seems to have been more effective than that of the London boroughs. I am not sure whether that is right or justified, but that seems to be what has happened.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, as we have heard, the government amendment requires consultation before there is any delegation or variation of a delegation of ministerial powers to the Mayor of London. This consultation must take place with each London borough, the Common Council of the City of London, and the Assembly. The noble Lord, Lord True, requires consultation on whether the function could be more appropriately conducted at borough level and, if a majority thinks so, an explanation has to be given to Parliament. We obviously support the consultation and the government amendment, but there is no specific guidance in the amendment as to what might result from such consultation. There is no specific requirement to publish the results, produce a response or indeed report to Parliament. Could the Minister give us some more details about these matters? If, for example, the consultation were to be overwhelmingly hostile to the concept, would it still proceed? Can he give us an idea of the type of eligible functions likely to be involved in the sort of delegation contemplated?
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord True, with which, like my noble friend Lord Beecham, I have some sympathy, raises an interesting point about the role of London boroughs and their equivalents under the so-called Core Cities amendments, which we will shortly come to. Should it be accepted at any stage that the boroughs—one or all of them—would be a better destination for such delegation, and what powers in the Bill would allow that to happen?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing all these points to bear on what is actually quite a difficult balancing act, and I think noble Lords will agree. I am not a London person, but I come from a two-tier authority. I live in a county council area and in a district council area, and the responsibilities between those two councils are usually clearly defined by statute. I think the governance of London is more involved. The Government’s policy intention is to try to keep an even balance between the democratic mandate which is vested in the mayor and the London Assembly and the democratic mandate which is vested in the London boroughs. I am sure all noble Lords will agree that keeping that balance right is not easy.
Much of the talk has been about how the consultation might go and the consequences of a consultation where perhaps the proposals do not meet with consensus. These are reasonable challenges. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked whether the joint council body for London would be consulted. It is a matter of fact that it would be consulted; I do not know it is a statutory body as such, but it is clearly a body that would be validly consulted. This would not, however, avoid proper consultation with the individual boroughs. It is very important to place on record that these government amendments seek to enshrine the role of the boroughs themselves. Indeed, they are coloured by the amendment of my noble friend Lord True, which seeks to go further in protecting the interests of the boroughs. I understand that.
I was asked how Parliament would be able to challenge any decisions that might be made in this area. In reality, Ministers are accountable to Parliament and I cannot imagine a decision considered by any noble Lord to be totally unfair or irrational to go unchallenged, either by question or even debate in this House, let alone down the other end where quite a large number of Members represent London constituencies.
Lord Beecham
Does the process envisage delegation being made by order or is it outside that process? If it is by order, would it be by affirmative resolution or by a negative procedure?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
While I await the answer to that part of the process, perhaps I may continue with the process of consultation. It is important to get this on the record too. The consultation exercise will have to be appropriate to the matter in question. The problem with being too prescriptive about the nature of the consultation is that it does not have room for more flexible responses. Consultation should not be a tick-box exercise. It is a proper dialogue. It should not really be about whether it has majority support or not but about what is right, and consensus should be sought across the boroughs and London in the interests of the people of London. In the end, the governance of London is not for the benefit of the mayor, the Assembly or the London boroughs; it is for the people who live there.
In response to my noble friend’s challenging question, the process is outside the statutory instrument process. It is purely an administrative function. However, the decision is still capable of being challenged in Parliament, as I have said, if it is seen to be perverse. There are no immediate plans to use this power, but it is envisaged that it could be used to delegate the administration of some of the national programmes that may be produced on the horizon. That is why it is important to have this capacity and a process whereby there can be discussions across London as to where a national programme might be best delivered.
My noble friend Lord True castigated us, in the nicest possible way, as he would, for not recognising that the Localism Bill is the place where, by empowering local boroughs, we would enhance localism within London. The role of the boroughs is clearly laid down by statute, and they are a very important part of London’s governance. However, London is an exceptional place—it is the capital city of the country—and a number of services are effectively organised across London. The power to delegate arises only when the Secretary of State considers that the functions can be exercised appropriately by the mayor. We say that this provides the sort of comfort which my noble friend seeks. In effect, only a Minister exercising his powers under this clause can do this.
I hope that my noble friend will feel free to withdraw his amendment. I believe that the Government have got the balance on this issue just about right.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Should it be decided at some stage that a delegation of ministerial functions to a borough or a group of boroughs is a preferred route, does the structure of the Bill permit that?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Yes, indeed it does. Functions may well be legislated for in the future that are borough-based and not a matter for the GLA or the mayor.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Can my noble friend point—I am sorry; this may be an unfair question—to a provision under which the mayor can delegate functions to the boroughs? I am not sure that that provision is in the Bill. I am sorry; I perhaps should have given notice of this.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thought the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was asking me whether, in future legislation, responsibilities could be delegated to boroughs.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I have obviously not been clear enough. I was asking whether, if at some point in the future it were decided to delegate responsibilities to a London borough, the Bill, or any other piece of existing legislation, provides authority for that. I think my question is the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin: does the Bill permit that delegation now or at some stage in the future?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Is the noble Lord asking whether this can work the other way around and that powers that are currently vested in the mayor should be delegated to the boroughs?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am sorry; we are getting into a Committee-type exchange. No, it was just that, as I understand it, the Bill permits ministerial functions to be delegated to the mayor, subject now to the consultation that the amendment is focused on. The noble Lord, Lord True, was asking about delegation not to the mayor but to London boroughs. I think the Minister responded that that was not being contemplated. My question is: if the decision were taken tomorrow that it would be more appropriate to delegate some functions from Ministers to London boroughs, does the Bill permit that? Is that in accordance with the Bill?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
“Sharing of administrative etc services by London Authorities
(1) Section 401A of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (sharing of administrative etc services by the Greater London Authority and functional bodies) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (definition of “constituent body”)—
(a) for “constituent body” substitute “relevant London authority”, and(b) at the end of paragraph (b) insert “,(c) the London Pensions Fund Authority,(d) the London Transport Users’ Committee,(e) the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, and(f) such person or body falling within subsection (1A) as the Secretary of State may specify by order.”(3) After that subsection insert—
“(1A) A person or body falls within this subsection if the person or body exercises functions of a public nature in relation only to—(a) Greater London,(b) a part of Greater London, or(c) a part of England including Greater London or a part of Greater London.”(4) In subsection (2) (power of constituent bodies to enter into arrangements for provision of administrative etc services), for “constituent bodies” substitute “relevant London authorities”.
(5) In subsection (3) (arrangements may include discharge of functions by one constituent body on behalf of another)—
(a) for “constituent bodies” substitute “relevant London authorities”, and(b) for “constituent body” substitute “relevant London authority”.(6) In subsection (4) (power of constituent bodies to form joint committees) for “constituent bodies” substitute “relevant London authorities”.
(7) In subsection (5) (joint committee to be treated as separate from constituent bodies for purposes of section)—
(a) for “constituent body” substitute “relevant London authority”, and(b) for “constituent bodies” substitute “relevant London authorities”.(8) After subsection (6) insert—
“(6A) The Secretary of State must consult a person or body before making an order under subsection (1)(f) specifying that person or body.”(9) In section 420(8) of that Act (orders subject to annulment) after the entry for section 395 insert “401A(1)(f);”.”
“London Transport Users’ Committee
(1) On the day appointed for the commencement of this subsection, the body corporate known as the London Transport Users’ Committee that was established under section 247 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended) shall cease to exist.
(2) All statutory powers, duties and responsibilities of the London Transport Users’ Committee shall on the day appointed for the commencement of this subsection vest and devolve in the Greater London Authority and are to be exercised by the London Assembly.
(3) Any appointment to the London Transport Users’ Committee in pursuance of section 247 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended) shall cease to have effect and section 247 of that Act (as amended) shall cease to have effect from the commencement of this subsection.
(4) References in enactments, instruments and other documents to London Transport Users’ Committee shall have effect from the commencement of this subsection as references to the London Assembly.
(5) Section 251 of and Schedule 18 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended) shall cease to have effect from the commencement of this subsection.
(6) Section 248 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended) shall be amended by omitting the words “Authority or” in subsection (1)(a) and by omitting the words “or the Authority” in subsection (3)(b).
(7) Section 249 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended) shall be amended by omitting subsection (3).
(8) Section 250 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended) shall be amended by omitting subsection (1)(a), the words “the Assembly and” in subsection (2) and the words “the Assembly” in subsection (3).
(9) Section 252A of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended) shall be amended by substituting the words “the Committee” for the words “the London Transport Users’ Committee” in subsection (2)(a).
(10) Section 252B of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended) shall be amended by omitting the words “the London Assembly” in subsection (1)(b).”
Lord Tope
Amendment 108 would transfer the purpose and functions of the London Transport Users’ Committee, which operates under the name London TravelWatch and is the body responsible for passenger representation within London, to the London Assembly. The amendment originates from a review conducted last year by the London Assembly, which showed that such a transfer of functions would save up to £1 million per annum of taxpayers’ money. The findings of that review were accepted by all four political parties on the London Assembly. The amendment is therefore supported by all the parties in the London Assembly, the Mayor of London and London Councils, which represents not only the political parties but all 32 London boroughs and the City of London. London TravelWatch was established under the original GLA Act, the purpose of which was to devolve powers and responsibilities to London. That all those elements in London are wholly behind this measure, which saves a significant amount of public money, ought in itself to be enough to persuade the Government to comply with the wishes of London’s elected representatives.
However, I understand that the Government have some concerns. Indeed, during the Recess I had a letter in the name of the noble Baroness the Minister. Let me try to address some of the concerns set out there. Quite rightly, there is a concern to ensure that passenger interests in London are effectively and properly represented by a genuinely independent body. As many of us know, whatever else it is, the structure of London government is unique. The London Assembly is solely a scrutiny body. It has no executive or regulatory powers at all; its function is to scrutinise and hold to account not only the mayor but also the functional bodies. I speak as a member of the London Assembly’s transport committee for some years and I do not think it will surprise anyone to learn that a substantial part of that committee’s work is holding Transport for London and, to a lesser extent, other transport operators in London, to account. It does so very independently because it has no responsibility for TfL—indeed, exactly the opposite. Its members are directly elected by Londoners, as distinct from the members of London TravelWatch, who do an extremely good job but are appointed by the London Assembly. The budget for London Transport—I am sorry, London TravelWatch—is provided by the London Assembly, so again it cannot be argued that the assembly is in some way less independent than the body it appoints and whose budget it provides.
I am sure that again it will come as no surprise to noble Lords to learn that a substantial part of the casework of most London Assembly members, particularly those representing constituencies, is on transport-related issues since they relate to anyone who has to live, work or travel in London. Of course a lot of work for members arises from that, and they are in touch with their constituents on transport issues. Making them officially the passenger representative body can only enhance that and join up the two sides.
The argument was also put that nothing had been said about the workload of the casework. That was because the purpose of this amendment is simply to transfer the function. However, I am sure that if the function were transferred, the wherewithal to carry out that function would follow it. It is not for me to say, but I would assume and expect that the current staff in London Transport—I mean London TravelWatch; I keep making the same mistake—would very likely transfer across under TUPE regulations. That would be a matter for discussion, should this happen. However, without doubt the London Assembly will need to have the capacity to carry out the necessary casework.
Finally, I make a point for serious consideration by the Government. If changes are to be made to London TravelWatch, we need to remember that it was set up under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and that primary legislation will be needed to change that. I suspect that we will not see this or any other Government introducing a London TravelWatch Bill in the near future so some other vehicle will need to be found in order to make whatever the changes may be. I think, and dare I say I hope, that that may be some way off. Therefore the opportunity arises in this Bill to carry out the wishes of all of London’s elected representatives, to save a substantial amount of public money—more necessary than ever at the present time—and, I would venture to suggest, to provide a strong, independent, directly elected and directly accountable passenger representative body. I beg to move.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, I am sure the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for moving this amendment and giving us an opportunity to discuss the case of passenger representation in London. However, it may not surprise him to know that I take considerable exception to the case that he, the mayor and the Greater London Assembly are putting forward because I think it is fundamentally flawed. I am aware that it has come about as a result of the review of London TravelWatch carried out last year by the GLA, which did indeed recommend that it be wound up and its functions folded into the assembly. However, that process was seriously flawed. The assembly consulted a number of stakeholders, but then completely ignored what they said. For example, the Association of Train Operating Companies, ATOC, has written to me and said:
“We firmly believe that the functions of a consumer watchdog, in providing impartial casework and research support, and facilitating the resolution of individual complaints with train companies should be demonstrably independent, not under direct political control.
Assembly Members are keen to point out that taking on London TravelWatch's activities will help them to provide greater scrutiny of the mayor's and GLA's activities. However, we believe the priority for London TravelWatch should be handling disputes from individual passengers as a consumer champion and undertaking independent research, not being sidetracked on to issues of political or electoral interest to Assembly Members. Passengers will not benefit if London TravelWatch becomes merely a means for point-scoring”.
The assembly's review claims—and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has referred to this—that there is scope for substantial savings. The review is vague about where those savings will come from. There does not appear to be any reference to transitional costs or to the cost of the GLA accommodating the staff, although the noble Lord, Lord Tope, did say that a TUPE arrangement may apply, which would undoubtedly have an impact on whatever savings may be possible.
London TravelWatch itself has demonstrated that it can cut its budget by 25 per cent over the next two years, while staying completely independent from politicians and concentrating on its core functions of appeals casework, and policy and investigation. There is a huge danger that the present multimodal work on behalf of the travelling public who use buses, the underground, the Docklands Light Railway, Tramlink, taxis, Dial-a-Ride, and National Rail in and around London would be fragmented if this amendment were adopted. It makes no sense to separate London TravelWatch's rail-related work from its work covering other modes. An example is its excellent, recent report on incomplete Oyster pay, which affects everyone who uses public transport in and around London.
I conclude with one further point: the GLA does not speak for those who are not resident in London. Seventy per cent of all rail journeys begin, end, or pass through London and London TravelWatch's remit extends far beyond the boundaries of Greater London, and includes large chunks of Essex, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Kent, and it is from there that passengers travel into London for work or leisure purposes.
This is a really bad idea, which would lead Londoners to be disadvantaged compared with those outside London, who have independent representation on Passenger Focus, looking after their needs, whether they are rail or bus passengers. It is that independence that is important, and that is why I hope the Government will resist this amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Tope moved the amendment comprehensively and I only want to make two points. The first point, which has been referred to by those who have already spoken in the debate, is that the September 2010 report by the London Assembly was a very substantial document indeed. It was not entered upon lightly and inadvisably. Despite what we have just heard, it was conducted with great thoroughness and we then came to the conclusion that there was no point, if you have an elected assembly already, in having a second, different body dealing with transport. It was a serious piece of work and the degree of support which my noble friend Lord Tope has indicated is sufficient evidence of that.
My second point is that all local authorities are under stringent spending pressures. Here is a proposal which could save up to £1 million a year for London. In the present circumstances, it is rather unwise not to accept that that is something which should be considered very seriously indeed. I understand the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and the case that has been made by London TravelWatch. At the same time, there is here a formidable piece of work. It will save £1 million and the proposals in the report should be accepted. I therefore put my name to this amendment in order to give the House a chance to make that change.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this amendment, but I feel that I must reply to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. Like many here, I have great regard for the individuals at London TravelWatch and the work that they do. However, the very citation from ATOC carries its own message that, of all the groups in London, the train operating companies would prefer the body which they find they can more easily ignore to the one that they must take seriously. That is entirely in character with the functioning of the TOCs and ATOC. It is precisely to have a much bigger impact on behalf of passengers that it makes sense to make this move from TravelWatch, integrating it into the GLA.
I may have misheard the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, but he seemed to suggest that, if there was that integration into the GLA, there would be a fracturing of the transport voice. Yet the GLA is already holding TfL rigorously to account. I was on the board of Transport for London and I can tell your Lordships which body it was afraid of—it was very much the GLA. It is the ability of that body to pound away on behalf of the passenger that would be gained by this shift, so I support this amendment.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I hope that the Government’s reservations, to which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, referred, are indeed strong. This needs to be rejected. I do not want to repeat everything that my noble friend Lord Faulkner said but I would go for the fundamental point. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, since he is a battle-scarred veteran of the Public Bodies Bill, will probably recall my advocacy of separate representation for the consumer interest in publicly provided bodies and in those which are regulated publicly. The Government wisely backed off from including in lists various bodies, including Passenger Focus, which could have been abolished, while for those that they are going to change they have provided an alternative but still independent body, either in another quango or in the third sector. It is a central provision of public services or those that are regarded as public utilities in this country that we have a separate consumer organisation. That applied when we set up the nationalised industries, when we privatised and liberalised those industries and when we passed the Greater London Authority Act to set up that body. It should continue to apply.
I suppose that I should apply two past interests here, both as a consumer champion as chair of Consumer Focus and as the Minister who, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will recall, brought the Greater London Authority Bill through this House. He will also recall that it was the second longest non-financial Bill ever—the absolutely longest, the Government of India Bill in 1935, was never implemented. The implementation of the Greater London Authority Act has left some problems but I do not believe that this is one of them.
It is important that we retain the distinction between the provider, and those who oversee the provider, and the consumer interest. The mayor is responsible for the provision and the London authority for overseeing that provision. In that sense, they are not much different from a private sector board as regards their consumers, so I am afraid that it does not impress me that all parties on the Greater London Assembly welcome and support this move. It is no more impressive to me than if there was a unanimous vote on the board of Thames Water to say that it wished to abolish the Consumer Council for Water, or that Michael O’Leary and the board of Ryanair said that they wished to abolish the Air Transport Users Council or—to go back to my past interests—that the boards of British Gas or npower should say that they wished to abolish Consumer Focus and any successor powers.
We must distinguish between the role of a consumer interest representative and those who are providing, or are part of the governance structure of those who provide, a service. Indeed, in London, predecessor bodies to this go back to the private company of London Transport, through the nationalisation process, through the GLC, through the abolition of the GLC, into the establishment of TfL and through to the London authority and the 1999 Bill. That was sensible. London Assembly members may well have reservations about aspects of this and may well feel that some changes need to be made—that might be right—but this clause does not say that, nor does it say that there should be some rationalisation between the London authority and Passenger Focus.
It might be conceivable that the transfer of this body into Passenger Focus was a rational move; I do not personally think so, but it would still provide an independent consumer voice focus. Actually, however, for the reasons that my noble friend points out, London is unique in this response. London is the only city in this country where the vast majority of people go to work by public transport. TfL has responsibilities way beyond the bus and train area—for roads, taxis and so on. As has also been pointed out, people outside London, and therefore with no voice in the election of GLA members, have an interest in this. So there is no principled argument that would call for the abolition of this body. I would be prepared to consider, and I suspect that the Government would be prepared to consider, something less than that, which allowed for easier changes, but the straight abolition of an independent consumer voice in the most complex, most difficult and in many respects most integrated transport system in the whole country would be a seriously retrograde move and I hope that the Minister will soundly reject it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 108, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, is an interesting amendment, on which I look forward to the response of the noble Earl. As a Londoner, I always thought that the London Transport Users’ Committee did quite a good job standing up for Londoners and, as my noble friend Lord Whitty said, for people travelling through London who have no vote in the GLA or any other elections in London. Having proper GLA input into what goes on in London transport is obviously very important. It has not happened in the past and that is very regrettable. What worries me, though, is where people will go to have their voice heard if this body is abolished. I know that the body is appointed by the London authority. I have some concerns, as a south Londoner, that there is very little experience of south London on the board. That needs to be addressed in the next round of appointments. One member may have been to Putney once or twice, but there is very little involvement in south London.
Another thing that worries me is the performance of London Underground. Noble Lords may not be aware that since April this year performance statistics have ceased to be published, so we have no idea what is going on in London Underground. I think we all know that it is getting worse, for sure, and this is something that needs to be addressed by both the users committee and the London authority pressing the mayor to release those figures again and to say why they have been stopped.
In conclusion, I am not against reform at all, but we need to hear more about how this will improve the situation. We in London all find that things are getting much worse, so we need to hear more about improvements. This may be something for the future, but not now.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I should explain that our official Front Bench position is that we support the amendment, which means that, should it be put to a vote, I, at least, will be obliged to vote in favour. I am not sure how many of my colleagues behind me would follow me into the same Lobby. Our position was formulated because of strong support from the GLA, but I take it as implicit in my mandate that supporting the amendment would be conditional on the Government being able to answer a lot of the very robust challenges that have come, particularly, from this side of the House during this debate.
My noble friend Lord Whitty spoke about the importance of preserving a strong consumer interest. Points were also made by my noble friend Lord Faulkner about whether this will benefit passengers, some of whom do not live in London and are not London voters. Indeed, it covers rail travel from such places as Luton. If we were to separate rail from other modes of travel, how would that work? I understand the thrust of the movers of the amendment, but these are questions that need to be satisfied before it could proceed. Perhaps in responding the Government can confirm that there was overwhelming support for the proposition among transport operators and rail user groups. Will the Government let us know, for the record, whether any alternatives to transfer to the GLA have been considered and on what basis they were rejected?
The Government have acknowledged the considerable amount of casework undertaken by London TravelWatch and are presumably satisfied that this could be handled under the proposed new arrangements. The London Assembly review of TravelWatch, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, spoke, recommended that the reorganisation be folded into the assembly but with rail functions distributed between the assembly and the national independent passenger watchdog Passenger Focus. Have the Government undertaken an analysis and will they support that as an appropriate way forward?
I look forward to the Minister's reply and hope that he can dig me out of my dilemma on this issue. Powerful issues have been raised that need to be answered before the proposition can and should proceed, much as we love the thrust of it. In particular, there is a mood that the status quo should not necessarily be accepted. There may be ways in which it can be improved and cost savings may be generated. I would be interested in the Minister's views on that as well.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, Amendment 108 would abolish the London Transport Users’ Committee and transfer its functions to the London Assembly. My officials assured me that this would be an easy amendment to deal with—even I would be able to deal with it. The reality is that I find myself in the middle of a pretty vigorous debate. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, also finds himself in an interesting position.
I regret we did not have time to discuss this amendment in Committee when it was tabled by the noble Lords. As my noble friend Lady Hanham indicated in her subsequent letter, the Government believe that it is inappropriate—at this stage through this Bill—for the London Transport Users’ Committee, which is the independent transport users watchdog for London, to be transferred to the London Assembly.
Among other things, the committee undertakes an important and impartial complaints ombudsman role on behalf of London transport users in and around London, and it is vital that any change to the current arrangements ensures that complaints continue to be dealt with in a genuinely independent manner. In particular, there is an EU requirement which mandates the designation of an independent body for complaints for rail transport users. So there is an important question that needs to be resolved about how far the assembly can be sufficiently independent for the purposes of this EU legislation, given its party-political membership, its role in scrutinising the work of the mayor and TfL and its influence over the strategic direction of transport policy in London—especially when this Bill will allow it to reject the mayor’s transport strategy.
Indeed, if the Government had proposed such an amendment, there would have been concerns from many noble Lords about the lack of independent safeguards in the legislation. Therefore, as we have heard from our debate this evening, there are still some important questions that need to be resolved before we can consider legislating for any new arrangements. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, asked me a few more and I do not know the answers, which is why we cannot support the amendments.
However, as I am sure that noble Lords will agree, it is entirely right during a time of fiscal constraint for the London Assembly to consider ways to achieve best value for taxpayers’ money from the London Travel Users’ Committee that it oversees. The Department for Transport has already undertaken a review of Passenger Focus, the national rail passenger watchdog, which will deliver significant savings, and DfT will work with the committee, the assembly and other partners to explore ways to deliver an efficient and effective ombudsman function for London transport users.
On this basis, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tope
I think that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for his more measured support for the amendment. I am less grateful to him for tempting me to call a vote just to see what happens. We will have to see about that. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for putting the case from London TravelWatch. I have seen its briefing. It is not surprising that the body which is proposed for abolition is less keen on its own abolition. That is entirely understandable. I hope that I did not say or imply that there is something wrong with the way in which it does its job. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, gave us a brief history of it all. Back in the 1970s, I was a member of its predecessor body. I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding us of the many happy hours that we spent discussing the GLA Act, as it became.
A number of points have been made, and I am not going to spend a long time answering them all. We are referring to the abolition of London TravelWatch. Let us be clear: the body that we are talking about may be subsumed in the London Assembly but we are certainly not talking about abolishing the function and representative role of the passenger interest. It is very important that we understand there is no suggestion of that. On the contrary, there is a belief, perhaps not shared by all, that that passenger interest would be enhanced by being represented by people who have been elected. I accept that they are not elected by everybody who ever travels on transport within London; I do not think that will ever be the case. However, I am a little puzzled that members of the Labour Party should say that, because a body is popularly elected, it is therefore not independent. I find that a rather strange argument and one that is difficult to follow. I made very clear—I know this from my eight years’ experience of serving on the London Assembly—that this is an independent body. It has no executive functions and does not always love the mayor. None of the members always loves the mayor, whoever the mayor may be. It has no executive responsibility at all for TfL. Indeed, an enormous amount of its time is taken up questioning—sometimes vigorously, as my noble friend Lady Kramer said—and calling to account the principal transport provider within London and, indeed, the train operating companies that appear for questioning. Therefore, there is a vigorous representation of passenger interest on the part of those people whom most of the passengers—but not all—will have elected as their representatives.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, referred to himself as a south Londoner. I am more south London than him, certainly in geographical terms, but I share his interest in that regard. That situation would be corrected if it were the London Assembly because, whatever I personally may think of the inadequate electoral system by which that body is elected, it represents the whole of London.
Tempting though the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is, I will not press the amendment to a Division. The Minister need not comment on this point now but I believe that discussions are going on about introducing changes regarding greater involvement with Passenger Focus. I hope the Government will ensure to the best of their ability that the London Assembly—I mean the London Assembly, not the GLA, which might well mean the mayor instead—is directly involved in all those discussions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Kramer
“Transport for London: Rail Authority for London
(1) Section 196 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (power of Greater London Authority to give instructions or guidance to Franchising Director) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for “The Authority may give instructions or guidance to” substitute “Transport for London shall be”.
(3) Omit subsections (2) to (4).
(4) In subsection (5)—
(a) in the opening words, omit from “give” to the end;(b) in paragraph (a), for “prevent or seriously hinder him from complying” substitute “fail to comply”;(c) omit paragraph (b) (but not the “or” following it).(5) In subsection (6), for “the Authority” (in both places) substitute “Transport for London”.
(6) In subsection (7), for “instructions or guidance may be given” substitute “the Franchising Director shall act”.
(7) In subsection (8), for “the Authority” (in both places) substitute “Transport for London”.
(8) Omit subsection (9).
(9) For the title substitute “Transport for London to be the Franchising Director”.”
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, this amendment follows on nicely from the previous amendment. It also illustrates the general confusion over the structure of transport in the London area. The purpose of the amendment is to remove from the Department for Transport the responsibility for rail franchising within the inner suburban area of London and transfer it to Transport for London. It is wholly within the spirit of the Bill to take from the centre and give to a regional or more local body powers that it can exercise more effectively and more efficiently for the benefit, in this case, of passengers.
Noble Lords will know that at present Transport for London effectively either manages or in some way regulates the Tube, the Docklands Light Railway, bus services, river transport services and taxi services, but when it comes to rail, it has only a very limited purview. It directly manages London Overground, which is one very minor line, and it will have oversight of Crossrail once it is completed. However, when it comes to the inner suburban rail services that criss-cross much of the London area, Transport for London’s role is extremely limited. The Department for Transport lets and manages the franchises and Transport for London can simply specify and pay for either an increment to that service or—terrible bureaucratic word—a decrement to that service. Essentially, the consequence of that has not been very beneficial to passengers.
I would argue that London is different from much of the rest of the country when it comes to rail. Fourteen per cent of Londoners use the National Rail network to commute daily to work. Indeed, outside of London proper, in the south-east and east of London there are many more who use that rail network to commute to work within the London area. That makes it distinctly different from any other part of the country. There are 10 train operating companies, so it is a highly fragmented service. Demand in the area is so inelastic that the kind of competitive pressures that have effect in the rest of the country are virtually irrelevant when it comes to London, where demand is so high, capacity is constantly at breaking point and there is always a need for additional capacity. So the competitive issue that exists elsewhere is not relevant within London itself.
I said that there were 10 different train operating companies. That means 10 different brandings, 10 different fare structures, 10 different forms of marketing, 10 different commercial strategies and 10 different operating time horizons. As noble Lords will know, the McNulty review recommends that more power should go to the train operating companies and franchises should be longer. So trying to create an integrated London Transport service within this environment, where rail is so fragmented and Transport for London has so little direct power, is very significantly undermined. If your Lordships would like an example of what this does to, as it were, disadvantage passengers, I draw your attention to the Oyster card. I should declare that I am a former member of the board of Transport for London and was very involved with the rail side. Rows went on year after year to try to get any form of Oyster card available on National Rail. Then we got “pay as you go”, which most people have now enjoyed only for the past couple of years. Technically it could have been done very easily, but the issue was never high on the priority list for the Department for Transport, which had to be involved because of the franchising structure. The TOCs saw it as a way to leverage money out of London Transport. The whole process was very much to the disadvantage of passengers. If your Lordships want another quick example, just go down to Waterloo. The next time you are stuck on a train that is slow because there is no space to get into Waterloo station, you will see that there is an empty platform. When Eurostar moved to St Pancras, one of the international platforms was, at great expense to the Government, converted to domestic use. The department has never managed to get its act together to put that into play for passengers. That is another huge, wasted asset. Frankly, this is repeated all over London.
Sometimes I seethe with envy when I talk to transport friends in Berlin as they are able to work with the bus and taxi services so that late-night trains are met by a co-ordinated timetable of buses and taxis, ensuring that train passengers have a seamless journey. The battle in London has been to look at travel as a single journey, whether you use one mode or multiple modes to get to your destination, and to create that kind of integration. It has been phenomenally successful, but leaving out rail makes no sense.
Sometimes people say that people from outside London use the services so they must not be too London biased. We can give them a voice by putting some directors from outside London onto the relevant board within Transport for London. It is also true that the department will continue to have a voice, but the balance needs to be shifted towards an entity which has a genuine interest, in a detailed way, in the quality of service, as Transport for London does.
Lord Spicer
Is the empty platform at Waterloo, which the noble Baroness has been describing, the reason why plays are being put on there now?
Baroness Kramer
Plays are not taking place on the adapted platform but it would be better to use it for a play than nothing at all. It is absolutely ridiculous.
I have two more points to make. Some people say that there must have been a lot of thought about how the franchises should be divided up and a reason for not giving far more influence over the rail franchising process to Transport for London. The rationale was, “We don’t like Ken Livingstone”. When the GLA Bill went through this House, particularly when TfL was under review, there was an attempt to minimise the London influence. We had the disastrous Tube public/private partnership, which was a key part of the structure and which ensured that Transport for London really could not manage the system as a whole.
There was very little appreciation of the benefits of integration. That is one of the other pieces, if you like, which came out of much of that kind of thinking. We have all moved beyond that and recognise the benefits of integration and the benefits of regional management. I argue that at this time, when the transport infrastructure in this area is desperately overstretched, when we really are in a situation of economic recovery in some areas of London and you practically have to strap people to the roofs of transport carriages, we need to maximise the use of that infrastructure. Therefore, the logic is to change the franchising responsibility, which is what this amendment attempts to do.
Lord Berkeley
This is an interesting amendment. I was particularly seized of the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, proposed it because, following the previous amendment and the discussion about London Travel Watch—I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber at that time—I was sent a map of the extent of London Travel Watch, which goes well beyond the GLA boundary in many areas. I do not think it goes all the way out to Banbury but it goes quite a long way in that direction; it also goes a long way west and a long way south. It made me think that if this amendment were accepted, one would end up with the same kind of problem. On the main network, not many trains terminate within the GLA boundary. I believe Croydon must be near the edge—I am no expert on Croydon but perhaps some of my noble friends could confirm that—but I do not think that any services that go through East Croydon terminate there. So there will be a debate between those who want long-distance services as frequently as possible, stopping as infrequently as possible, between Croydon and the centre of London, for example, and those who live within the GLA boundary who want a regular stopping service.
The other problem, which is particularly evident on the lines south of London, is that in many places you can get to two or three different London termini by train. It is a lovely service if it works—it usually does—but it is a very complex network. It compares strongly with the Underground lines which, on the whole—apart from the Northern line—may serve two destinations at each end, but not three or four. I can see a time when Transport for London might say that it would like to rationalise the services south of London, for example, by making them more frequent, but going to fewer destinations, and having cross-platform interchange in some places, because it thought that would be better for its electorate.
I mentioned the question of through-services and the debate regarding them and the shorter-term. There is also the question of access for freight—I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group—although there is not much freight south of the Thames, so we can probably forget about that. However, I also recall a big debate during the many Crossrail debates, because when TfL thought it was in charge of Crossrail and the Great Western, it started off on the basis that it would have the sole use of the slow lines, to Maidenhead or Reading, and all the other trains could have the fast lines. TfL thought that was a brilliant idea, because it would run a very frequent service—there would probably be those lines of heavy cables that you see between London Underground lines—but it completely forgot that those lines are run as a network of four tracks. If anything goes wrong on one track, the trains are immediately switched to the other ones to keep the service going. I did a calculation at the time, which indicated that if Crossrail had got its way the passenger operators would have had to cut their service frequency to places such as Cardiff, Oxford and Bristol by at least 50 per cent, if not more. Only half the freight trains would have gone up that line, and when one of the lines was dug up, they would just have to stop.
That is the logical consequence of splitting responsibilities. There is work to be done with TfL and the Department for Transport to take into account the needs of people who live within the GLA area and then we can have a big debate on how the available capacity is shared out between the department’s view, which is, one hopes, long-distance, and TfL’s, which has a local view. As for giving the train operators—all 10 of them, as the noble Baroness said—more responsibility, I think that is a bit dangerous when so much co-ordination is needed. It is a debate that we need to have. I am not sure whether this is the right amendment, but I think it is very useful to be having this discussion.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, I was tempted to speak by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, as she was tempted to speak by me on the previous amendment. I have a great deal of sympathy with the points she is making. I will start with a correction—also for the noble Lord, Lord Spicer—that it is not only one platform at Waterloo that is out of use; it is platforms 21, 22, 23 and 24. I think I am right in saying that it is 21 and 22 which are being used by the production of “The Railway Children”, which I can recommend unreservedly. I speak as a trustee of the National Rail Museum, as it is very much our play.
Baroness Kramer
Without being a train wonk on this, there is only one platform that has been converted for domestic use. The other platforms could be, but that work has not been done.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is quite correct. As I said, I have a great deal of sympathy with the point she makes but my concern is that the introduction of a new franchising authority, which the amendment proposes, would be in danger of creating greater fragmentation of the railway than we have at present. I agree with her that there are probably too many train operating companies. It is the Government’s intention that franchises should be longer than they have been in the past, and I strongly support that. However, to introduce a new franchising operator could lead to confusion and fragmentation. My noble friend Lord Berkeley refers to services that serve London but go well beyond. The classic example of that is the Thameslink line, which starts in Bedford, goes through Luton and St Albans—none of which is covered by Transport for London or the GLA—and then goes south from Croydon to Brighton.
Services like that need to be looked at in a regional context, and I am not certain that looking at them in a London context would make a great deal of sense. However, I pay tribute to what Transport for London has done in the development of its Overground service. The opening up of the East London line is an extraordinarily successful venture. The trains are very popular and they provide new journey opportunities for people who probably did not make those journeys, or tried to do it by car, or struggled on buses. It deserves to be commended for that.
I agree with my noble friend that it is helpful to have this debate, but this amendment is not quite the way that we should go.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I understand the intention behind my noble friend’s amendment; namely, that the mayor and TfL should have greater control over London’s commuter rail franchises, given their wider transport responsibilities. As my noble friend Lady Hanham said in her letter following the Committee stage, TfL already plays an important role in relation to London’s commuter rail services. It already has, as pointed out by my noble friend, effectively full franchising powers over the London Underground concession, covering a number of key routes across London. It works closely with the Department for Transport in the development of other rail franchises affecting London, with the mayor having the ability to pay for outputs over and above those that the DfT specifies. By the way, I undertake to look up in the dictionary the definition of “decrement”.
The devolution of other London commuter rail franchises to the mayor and TfL is not a straightforward matter. The geography of London’s commuter rail network does not sit well with London’s administrative boundaries, with many lines extending well into neighbouring counties, as pointed out by many noble Lords. Furthermore, capacity on much of the London commuter network is limited, and there are inherent conflicts between London-area and non-London services that need to be balanced in the best interests of all users, and to keep overall costs down.
I am afraid my noble friend did not satisfy me in how the balance would be struck between the needs of commuters who live in London, and who elect the mayor and the Assembly, and those living in Luton, Brighton and Woking, who do not. There is a real question of a democratic accountability deficit if other London commuter rail services are devolved to the mayor, as many commuters do not live in London so do not have the opportunity to participate in the elections.
Nevertheless, the Department for Transport is happy to engage TfL further about the devolution of local rail services, in the context of Sir Roy McNulty’s independent study on rail value for money earlier this year. This study suggested that more local control of rail services could contribute to the development of lower-cost regional railways and, in line with the Government’s localism agenda, we are considering options for more local control of some rail services in other parts of England. We will also continue to encourage operators to work more closely with TfL. The new working arrangements, put in place for the South Central franchise which was let in 2009, appear to be working well.
On this basis, I urge my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I am delighted that I have been able to stir up some debate on this issue and see it get some attention—rather than slip to its usual place at the bottom of everybody’s priority list—because there are some genuine issues here.
I say to those who are concerned about passengers outside the London area that most people have London as their destination and are therefore intensely important to TfL; they are not marginal. Also, most people who come in contribute in some way to London’s economic viability, either through business or entertainment, and so are very much a concern to Transport for London even though they do not actually live within the area. Again, we can also bring in other board members.
I am delighted to have sparked off some of this debate. Given that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
“(2A) An order under subsection (1) or (2) may not be made in respect of—
(a) this Act; or(b) any of the provisions listed in Schedule (Statutory exemptions from section 5: supplemental provision).(2B) The Secretary of State may by order amend Schedule (Statutory exemptions from section 5: supplemental provision) to include additional statutes or Regulations.
(2C) An order made under subsection (2B) is to be made by statutory instrument.
(2D) Before an order may be made under subsection (2B), a draft order must be approved by an affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament.
(2E) Schedule (Statutory exemptions from section 5: supplemental provision) has effect.”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, when we discussed the provision about general competence in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, who is not in his place, chided me for my apparent diffidence in respect of the way in which I moved amendments at the time. I did and do welcome the conferring of the power of general competence that the Bill provides, especially in the light of the general perception in the media by such august bodies as the TaxPayers’ Alliance and even occasional Ministers that “general incompetence” is the term that should be applied to much of local government—something that I certainly refute. However, there are flaws in the Government's proposals and the amendment addresses at least some of them.
The two amendments in this group relate to what can only be described as a dispensing power which the Secretary of State will take to disapply, repeal or amend legislation that he conceives somehow inhibits the exercise of the general power of competence. It is fair to say that in Committee the noble Baroness addressed concerns that had been raised about, for example, the application of human rights legislation on matters of that kind, and indicated that these were not envisaged as being embraced by the Bill. Certainly I accept that point. However, a great many pieces of legislation, on the face of it, appear to fall within the provisions of Clause 5(1) and therefore are subject to amendment, repeal or revocation, in the words of the clause. They extend over a wide area of public policy. A number of them are listed in the proposed new schedule that is the subject of the second amendment in this group. They cover such areas of law as part of the Childcare Act, the Child Poverty Act, the Care Standards Act, disabled persons regulations, carers legislation, parts of the Mental Health Act, the Community Care Act and the Environment Act. The list includes an Act in relation to which I will not declare an interest: the Prevention of Damages by Pests Act.
It is a formidable list of legislative requirements that can, simply by order, be revoked. That raises a significant question about the role of the Executive. It is not clear whether Clause 5(1) requires any such changes to be made by affirmative resolution. Certainly that was the view of the Delegated Powers Committee. Other provisions in the clause are subject to affirmative resolution, or would be subject to it. The noble Baroness indicated in Committee that that was probably the case, and it would appear so. However, it does not necessarily seem to be the case in relation to Clause 5(1). Perhaps the noble Baroness will comment on that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is not seeking to get me out of my job just yet. I thank him for that. There is a little overexcitement about Clause 5(1)—not that the noble Lord ever raises his voice excitedly. However, there are concerns that are not necessary. Amendment 109A would prevent the Secretary of State making any orders under Clause 5(1) and (2). That would mean that he could not even amend the long list of legislation set out in Amendment 119E. However, it would give him order-making powers to add to the legislative list; he would be able to add but not to take away.
The power in Clause 5(1) is a power to remove restrictions and limitations to the legal capacity of local authorities that prevent them exercising the general power of competence. I think that we all want to see them have this general power. The clause must be read in the context of that power, which is a power to do things that an ordinary individual can do. It is not a power to remove any duty or obligation placed on local authorities, such as many of those listed in Amendment 119E, where such duties or obligations do not restrict or limit the capacity of the local authority to do things that the individual can do.
Noble Lords must hang on to the word “individual”; that is the important aspect. We do not consider that Clause 5(1) could be interpreted—the noble Lord addressed this and understands it—as allowing the Secretary of State to amend the requirements of, for example, the Equality Act or the Human Rights Act as they apply to local authorities. These Acts place broad duties on public authorities, including individuals, so they cannot be part and parcel of this power of competence. These Acts are not a restriction or limitation on the legal capacity of the local authority, so the power could not be used in the way suggested for these or any other similar legislation, just as it could not be used to exempt local authorities from prohibitions contained in criminal law.
We have listened to concerns, and amendments were brought forward in the other place, which are now in Clause 6, to place restrictions and limitations on the power in Clause 5(1). We believe these provide additional safeguards so that there can now be no doubt about the scope of the power. It does not permit the removal of essential duties, protections or rights from the Secretary of State. I also confirm that, as part of the consultation required by Clause 5(7), it will be appropriate to consult every person or group of persons, or their representatives, who will be substantially affected by the proposal. The results of any such consultation would have to be presented to Parliament, and then Parliament could veto the order.
The noble Lord asked me whether Parliament would be involved in this. As I said, Clause 5(7) is also modelled on what is in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act. The procedure to be followed would be negative, affirmative or superaffirmative, and that would be ultimately determined by Parliament. This matter has been put to the Delegated Powers Committee, which has no difficulty with that and has expressed itself on side with the procedure.
We believe that these amendments are unnecessary. We are trying to give local authorities as much power as we can, but we realise that some of that is going to come eventually from Parliament. There are restrictions on the powers of the Secretary of State in these procedures. Local authorities are not going to have completely unfettered power with the general power of competence, but it will be much wider than it is at the moment.
I hope that I have answered the noble Lord satisfactorily about the involvement of Parliament if the Secretary of State were to use these powers, so I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beecham
I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I accept that there now appears to be at least a parliamentary procedure here. I still think it is difficult to accept the notion that primary legislation imposing duties that were imposed for a purpose on local authorities and others should be varied or revoked in the way set out in the Bill. Having noted the point about the affirmative procedure, however, I accept her assurances and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham
Amendments 109B and 109C relate to the same provision under the Secretary of State’s powers, but in this case they seek the deletion of the power of the Secretary of State in effect to nullify the power of competence which the Bill purports to represent. This is really quite an exceptional provision and is not at all acceptable. The Secretary of State takes upon himself, having conferred or purported to confer this very broad power, the right to,
“by order make provision preventing local authorities from doing, in exercise of the general power, anything which is specified, or is of a description specified, in the order”,
or, under Clause 5(4), to make that subject to conditions. That is a very far-reaching incursion on the principle that the Bill seeks to advance, and it is simply not acceptable.
Amendment 109C in this group deals with the rather strange phrase, “any necessary protection”, which is contained in the clause and is in no sense defined. It is presumably left to the Secretary of State to determine what a necessary protection is. These are the limits under the power contained in Clause 6. In the absence of any sensible definition, I do not think this is an acceptable power to confer on the Secretary of State. I invite your Lordships to agree that these provisions should be left out of the Bill, and I move Amendment 109B accordingly.
Baroness Hanham
Amendment 109B, as the noble Lord said, would remove subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 5. These subsections provide reserve powers to allow the Secretary of State to prevent authorities from exercising the general power or to set conditions around the use of this power. We believe that these powers provide a necessary and proper safeguard, given the breadth of the new power—to ensure, for example, that risks to both local government finances and the Exchequer are properly managed. The Government have no plans—I think I said this earlier on—to use the powers in subsections (3) and (4). At present, there is nothing in mind; the Secretary of State is not sitting there with great excitement, his pen poised, waiting to take away what he has already given. The Government actually expect them to be used very rarely, if at all. They are, however, an insurance policy. They might, for instance, have to be used to deal with any risks that might arise from authorities’ use of the new general power—I think I said this in Committee—to engage in novel financial transactions using public money. That might require the Secretary of State to step in. The use of the power is subject to consultation and to the affirmative procedure, which would ensure suitable parliamentary scrutiny. I just want to stress that, occasionally in legislation, we need to provide for the very end of the road when something might go wrong, and that is all the clause is for.
Amendment 109C would remove one of the conditions that place restrictions and limitations on the use of Clause 5(1). The provision in question must not remove, as the noble Lord said very clearly in his opening remarks, “any necessary protection”. This condition ensures that protections—which might relate, for example, to the economy, health and safety, civil liberties, the environment or national heritage—are not removed. A similar condition is used in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, so this is not new to legislation. It is quite deliberately wide. Any Secretary of State seeking to make an order under Clause 5(1) must be satisfied that the condition is met and must explain why to Parliament. We believe, therefore, that this and the other conditions in Clause 6 are a useful additional safeguard and should be retained.
Before the noble Lord or others intervene, I will speak to government Amendments 234, 235 and 236, because it might help the debate coming afterwards. Amendment 234 gives effect to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in relation to Clause 5(2). Clause 5(2) is entirely benign; it can be used only to remove wholly overlapped, and therefore unnecessary, powers. It cannot be used to remove duties. The amendment ensures that orders made under Clause 5(2), if not made in conjunction with orders under Clause 5(1) and subject to special procedures set out in Clause 7, will have to be subject to an affirmative procedure. We believe that those safeguards, coupled with the intense level of parliamentary scrutiny provided, give sufficient protection.
Lord Beecham
I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, and I have no difficulty with the government amendments to which she spoke. However, I continue to have difficulty with the response to my amendment. The Secretary of State is clearly not prepared to trust local government with the powers that he is conferring on local government. He retains significant power to override the exercise of the general power which he has purported to confer or to impose conditions, admittedly subject to a parliamentary procedure. The whole case is redolent of the Government simply not being prepared to trust their partner in local government, a point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, when he was castigating me for being insufficiently robust on the previous occasion. I hope I have not failed his test today.
On this and on the previous occasion the Minister referred only to some novel financial practices, as if these were the most likely candidates for the invocation of the powers conferred by the Act. So far as financial practices are concerned, if there is any suggestion that they are likely to damage the finances of the local authority, there are existing mechanisms to deal with that within and outside the authority in the proper financial officer and audit, albeit perhaps not for much longer under the auspices of the Audit Commission. There are perfectly proper safeguards, and the additional powers that the Secretary of State seeks to reserve for himself under this Bill are not needed. I still do not understand what is meant by the “necessary protection” to which Clause 6 refers. Protection from what, against what and to what extent it is necessary are entirely opaque. In these circumstances, I must test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, government Amendments 110, 111 and 113 accept the recommendations of the DPRRC to change the procedures to be followed when making orders relating to the general powers of fire and rescue authorities. Amendments 110 and 111 make orders to expand the scope of an existing order subject to the affirmative procedure, as recommended by the DPRRC.
In response to the amendment tabled on 20 June by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, I said that it was never the Government’s intention to enable charging for all community fire safety or prevention activities and that I would reflect on the best way of achieving that aim. Amendment 113, tabled in respect of England and Wales, retains the existing position that fire and rescue authorities cannot charge for the giving of advice, on request, about preventing fires and means of escape in any premises. The amendment retains the existing ability of fire and rescue authorities to charge for the giving of advice in relation to non-domestic premises unless that advice is requested under Section 6(2)(b) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 which sets out the criteria for fire safety; the noble Baroness will know more about this than I do. Fire and rescue authorities will not be able to charge for the giving of advice in relation to domestic premises in any circumstances. Charging is optional and up to full cost recovery, not for profit. This amendment will replicate existing arrangements on charging for giving advice as set out in the 2004 Act. I await the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I rise to speak to our Amendment 112 and comment on the government amendments in this group.
I welcome the Government’s amendments and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments. I appreciate that it caused some confusion when I first raised this. As the noble Baroness generously said, when she first wrote to me, her officials and government Ministers had understood that the legislation as drafted would not allow for charging. It was completely inadvertent, as she said, and they had not appreciated that a consequence of the Government’s proposals to expand and increase charges would lead to community fire safety being charged for. Indeed, she wrote to me to that effect. I thank her because, when it was recognised that our concerns on this were justified, she raised the matter in the House and immediately wrote to me as well to clarify the position and agreed to bring forward government amendments to correct the error. I am grateful to her for doing that.
I have to say to her that this is a fairly large Bill, about 500 pages long. It is very detailed and quite technical in parts, and some of the discussions we have had have sometimes seemed quite complex. We have concerns that some parts of this Bill may have been rushed through to the House before they were fully and properly drafted. It is to the great credit of the noble Baroness that she has been ready to engage and debate on these issues, and at times has been prepared to concede and bring forward amendments to try to improve this legislation. So I am grateful to her for the amendments she has brought forward today, in so far as they go.
I am sorry to raise the matter in this way, but I am looking at the difference between the amendment in my name and the amendment from the Government, which refers to Section 6(2)(b) of the 2004 Act. Our Amendment 112 would not allow charging for community safety or fire prevention work, whereas the government amendment refers to Section 6(2)(b) of the 2004 Act, which is purely about the fire safety work that a fire authority must undertake as part of its core functions. I entirely agree that that is right and proper in so far as it goes. The last Government recognised that fire safety should be a core function, and therefore placed a duty on fire authorities to undertake fire safety. No fire authority should be allowed to charge for that core function, as the noble Baroness rightly agrees. Where I think there is a grey area—and some clarification on this would be helpful, as this is another unintended consequence—is that many fire authorities have extended this work to the related, but slightly wider, community safety remit.
I have some particular examples of this work, which I am sure the noble Baroness would never want to see lost to the community. For example, my authority in Essex runs a number of courses for young people, such as one called “Firebreak” and another called “Young Firefighters”, and there are similar schemes in other authorities. They do promote fire safety—there are clearly benefits for fire safety—but there are much wider benefits to the individuals taking part and to the community. In Basildon, Essex fire service uses these projects, working with local authorities, councils and other bodies, as part of a team tackling crime and disorder. The fire service is part of the crime and disorder reduction partnerships, and it is very proud of this work. I looked at its website earlier today for examples. It seems to me—the noble Baroness can assure me on this—that from the wording that is taken from the 2006 Act this does not exactly fall under fire safety.
For example, there is a page on the Essex County Fire and Rescue Service website about Darren, 18, of Ashingdon Road in Hawkwell. He has just joined the crew of his local fire station as the newest recruit, and he said:
“It was Firebreak which really showed me what I wanted to do with life and how I could do it. I had got into the wrong crowd and was getting in trouble with the police and then bringing that trouble with me into school and getting into worse trouble”.
His head teacher referred Darren to the “Firebreak” course—it is a long quote but I will read it—and, as Darren says,
“When I got back to school I ditched my mates and really buckled down. Almost straight away I saw my grades improving and my predicted exam results shot up. Firebreak made me realise that there is more to life than getting in trouble and mucking about and gave me something to work towards”.
That is not technically fire safety, but the benefits to the community are enormous. Another person mentioned is Craig, who is 20 and attended this course in 2005. He says:
“I was taking drugs, drinking and stealing cars. Basically I was completely off the rails. Firebreak has changed my life, I no longer drink or take drugs and am now working to become a firefighter myself”.
The Cheshire fire service signs up to missdorothy.com. I do not know whether the noble Baroness is aware of missdorothy.com. When I was Fire Minister I went to see some of the work that it is doing, which is about community safety for younger children. Given the trust placed in firefighters, and their very respected position in the community, they were engaging very young children in community safety. Part of that was about fire safety and being safe, but also about being safe in their broader lives. The Cheshire fire service is also one of the employers involved with the Prince’s Trust programme. I certainly think that nobody in your Lordships’ House would want to lose the fire service’s involvement with the Prince’s Trust. There is a 12-week personal development course, and the fire service is one of the employers doing that.
Devon and Somerset is another authority that has a personal development scheme, also called “Firebreak”, for key stage 4 pupils from 14 to 16. Its website says that it provides a
“themed educational diet designed to complement and enhance the school curriculum. It aims to raise achievement, improve self motivation, increase educational engagement”,
and aims to develop,
“practical skills, life skills, communication skills, team work”.
Looking around the country, I see that Suffolk authority is another one to engage actively with children and young people. One of its objectives is to prevent and reduce fire crime and fire, but it also wants to engage young people, and has professional staff working with the authority, to identify good practice in working with children and young people. East Sussex has a “LIFE” project and Chester has a “Respect” project.
All of those have proven successes in deterring young people not only from a life of crime but from social disorder as well. My fear is, if it was the Government’s intention, which I suggest it probably was not, that these should be charged for—and I think that, under the Government’s amendments, they would be able to be charged for—then those very young people who can benefit most from these courses would not be able to do so.
Another issue is that, if these courses were chargeable, who would pay? In many cases it would be another public authority. What we would be doing is introducing a bureaucracy to move money around the system. So it would be helpful if the Minister, perhaps not today, could reflect on the advice she was initially given that this would not be covered by fire safety. Perhaps there may be some kind of guidance that could be issued. I think that this is the kind of work that so many people in the community benefit from.
In my own authority, at Basildon fire station, Martin Trevillion leads the community safety programme, and it is an exceptional programme. Having spoken to so many young people that have benefitted from it, I would be reluctant for us to lose that programme simply through inadvertent drafting of legislation.
Finally, I want to raise one other issue, which is that of carbon monoxide safety and awareness. I am also not clear that Section 6(2)(b) of the 2004 Act, which talks about advice on how to prevent fires and on means of escape from buildings, would cover carbon monoxide safety. This is a particular issue: there have been a number of deaths and serious injuries due to carbon monoxide, and it is something that fire authorities are able to take on and work with, and I know that some of them already do so. I would not think that the noble Baroness intended that that should be charged for as well.
When at Second Reading I first raised the issue of charging for community safety, it was clear that the Government had not thought about the implications, quite inadvertently, and this had slipped through. The Minister was able to respond to those concerns very positively. I hope she understands that my raising these tonight is in exactly the same tone, as this is a service provided by the fire authorities, working with their community, which we really would be very loath to lose, if they had to charge for it. I ask the Minister—I think she has had time to reflect, or to receive enlightenment on this issue quite soon—even if she cannot give me a full answer today, to reflect on that so some guidance can be issued, because this resource that is provided by our fire and rescue services is very valuable for the community.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I would like to support what my noble friend has said about the problem of charging for fire advice. When I read the second part of Amendment 113—proposed new subsection (5B)—I thought, “Well, any fire authority that is able to charge will probably do so”. Is it really the Government’s intention that small businesses, and particularly charities like the Scouts and others that are not for profit, should have to pay for such advice? My experience with such businesses is that it is very hard to start up anyway. I believe that you have to get fire advice in many cases. Having to pay will make life even more difficult. I can understand why the Government want to allow fire authorities to make such charges but to do that for non-profit organisations seems to be a little hard. Perhaps the Minister could reflect on that and consider whether it could be omitted for charities and non-profit organisations.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am struggling to get a response on both matters. I understand that we are working within the framework of the fire and safety Act, so whatever that includes will be included. I am very reluctant to answer the noble Baroness today. I do not have the answer. It is quite wide in terms of what we are seeking to do. The same applies to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I always hate having to say that I do not know the response to something, but I will have to do so today. If the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will forgive me, I will write to them before Third Reading to make sure that there is a clear understanding of the answer to both questions. My gut feeling is that probably there is wriggle room here for the fire authorities to decide whether or not to charge, but we should be clear about that. I will write and will make sure that that response is in the Library so that we can come back to it before Third Reading, if necessary.
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
“(5A) Subject to subsection (5B), section 18A(1) does not authorise charging for action taken under section 6.
(5B) Subsection (5A) does not prevent charging for the giving of advice, other than advice of the kind mentioned in section 6(2)(b), in relation to premises where a trade, business or other undertaking is carried on (whether for profit or not).”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“CHAPTER 2ATransfer and delegation of functions to certain authoritiesPower to transfer local public functions to permitted authorities
(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision—
(a) transferring a local public function from the public authority whose function it is to a permitted authority;(b) about the discharge of local public functions that are transferred to permitted authorities under this section (including provision enabling the discharge of those functions to be delegated).(2) An order under this section may modify any enactment (whenever passed or made) for the purpose of making the provision mentioned in subsection (1).
(3) The power to modify an enactment in subsection (2) is a power—
(a) to apply that enactment with or without modifications,(b) to extend, disapply or amend that enactment, or(c) to repeal or revoke that enactment with or without savings.(4) An order under this section may disapply, or modify the application of, Chapter 4 of Part 1A of the Local Government Act 2000 (changing local authority governance arrangements) in relation to a county council or district council to which the order transfers a local public function.
(5) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this section unless the Secretary of State considers that it is likely that making the order would—
(a) promote economic development or wealth creation, or(b) increase local accountability in relation to each local public function transferred by the order.(6) For the purposes of subsection (5)(b), in relation to a local public function, local accountability is increased if the exercise of the function becomes more accountable to persons living or working in the area of the permitted authority to which it is transferred.
(7) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this section unless the Secretary of State considers that the local public function transferred by the order can appropriately be exercised by the permitted authority to which it is transferred.
(8) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this section transferring a local public function to a permitted authority unless the authority has consented to the transfer.
(9) Before making an order under this section, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 114, I shall speak to the other amendments in this group. Given that they each also bear the names of the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I have some expectation that they may be acceptable to your Lordships. The Bill currently includes provisions which enable the Secretary of State by order to transfer a local public service function from any person to its elected mayor. In Committee, we sought to amend that by widening its application to local authorities that operated a leader and cabinet executive model of governance. That amendment was eventually withdrawn.
Additionally, in Committee, we tabled amendments which were prompted by the Core Cities group. These amendments sought equivalent opportunities for the transfer and delegation of functions as were provided to the Mayor of London under the Bill. It was suggested that this approach had cross-party support among the Core Cities group, growing support from the Members of Parliament of the core cities and support from Ministers. In the event, these amendments were not moved on the final day in Committee. Over the Recess, the Government have taken the issue forward with the Core Cities group, hence the amendments today. They also cover the original proposals for transfers to mayors which are replaced.
Amendment 114 provides for the transfer of local public functions from a public authority to a permitted authority. A public function is a function of a public authority. A permitted authority includes a county council in England, a district council and an economic prosperity board. The transfer is achieved by an order of the Secretary of State and may not be made unless it considered that the order would promote economic development or wealth creation, or increase local accountability in relation to each local public function. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that the permitted authority can exercise the function appropriately and has consented to the transfer.
Amendment 115 permits the delegation to a permitted authority of a Minister’s eligible functions, mirroring the provisions of Clause 210, which cover such delegation to the Mayor of London, and on which we touched on earlier amendments. Amendment 116 allows the Secretary of State to make a scheme for the transfer of property rights or liabilities to give effect to a transfer of functions and a delegation of a Minister’s eligible functions or their revocation.
Amendment 117 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to consider any proposals for the exercise of these powers which come from a permitted authority and to establish criteria by which they must be considered. Amendment 118 crucially sets out a robust super-affirmative procedure for any order which seeks to transfer functions to a permitted authority. Amendment 119 covers definitions. Amendments 151, 161, 163 and 241 are consequential.
Core Cities is a network of the local authorities of England’s eight largest city economies outside London. It includes Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield. The cities drive their local economic areas and make a significant contribution to the national economy. They work in partnership with government to influence policy and to develop new ideas based on knowledge of what works on the ground to improve economic performance and reduce dependency. The Core Cities group has a track record of more than 15 years led by city leaders across all parties.
The powers in this amendment could be available to anywhere that meets the criteria. However, England’s core cities are the main drivers of the country’s economy outside London and the south-east. Together, their primary urban areas deliver 27 per cent of the national economy, more than London, and contain 16 million residents. The role of cities is central to delivering national economic outcomes, reducing dependency on public spending, and in driving growth, productivity and tax revenues. Supporting growth in the core cities is vital to rebalance the UK economy.
With more decentralised arrangements for governance and public finance, these cities would be able to deliver greater economic outcomes for the UK. Recent independent economic forecasts commissioned by Core Cities have demonstrated that the local enterprise partnership areas, given greater control over the drives of growth, are capable of delivering an additional 1 million jobs and £44 billion economic output over the next decade.
The Bill offers an opportunity through these amendments to create a binding narrative around other localist and decentralising policy, enabling this Government to deliver a distinctive set of urban policies and a legacy of empowered cities driving private sector growth and jobs. The Bill proposes to transfer powers from the London Development Agency and the Homes and Communities Agency to the Mayor of London, and makes provision for further ministerial delegation. Other major economic areas need the same opportunity to be able to drive growth and prosperity for their business and residents, and for the wider economy. The country needs London to do well but, to create an equitable and multicentred national economic strategy, the same chance needs to be given to other areas that are capable of growing employment. England needs a London-plus national economic policy.
It is the intention of the Core Cities group to seek these powers for its members but it will not be restricted to the core cities and their urban areas. Any economic area that fulfils the eligibility criteria could be able to request these delegations. The overarching aim of the amendment is to drive economic growth and productivity, and reduce dependency. Now is a critical moment for economic recovery and we need to boost local investment and investor confidence. This amendment would support private sector growth and jobs; create new opportunities for efficiency, innovative finance and investment; enable distinctive urban policy and a legacy of empowered cities; ensure continued buying from private sector partners on LEPs; support the implementation of a local government resource review and further incentivise local authorities and their partners; support the implementation of enterprise zones; clarify existing routes of delegation; support double devolution to local communities; support the wider restructuring of subnational economic development architecture; create a route to delegate to further emerging governance structures; and be a significant—I suggest popular—and symbolic step towards decentralisation and localism. I beg to move.
Lord Tope
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for moving the amendment. As he rightly said, my noble friend Lord Shipley has added his name to it and was hoping and expecting to be here to speak in support of it. He has been in Manchester all day on government business. I have just heard that he has only just got on a train in Manchester, so I suspect that he will not be here in time to contribute to this debate. However, I have a fairly good idea of what he would have said had he been here, and I speak on his behalf. As someone who has been a London councillor all his adult life, I must say that I had not expected to be speaking on behalf of Core Cities. It is a rare privilege and something I do enthusiastically because I very much support these amendments.
Both this Government and the previous Administration have made firm commitments to devolution and decentralisation. The Bill now offers an opportunity to hand decision-making powers from central to local government, working in partnership with the private sector. The Government’s stated aim is to rebalance the economy, focusing on the whole of our national economic system as well as London and the south-east, enabling other places to develop their economies to boost national growth and productivity.
Devolution has happened at different speeds in different geographies. London will receive further powers through the Bill, and the devolved Assemblies already have powers that are not available directly to cities in England. Without further decentralisation there is a risk that England’s core cities, which generate 27 per cent of England’s GVA—my noble friend Lord Shipley points out that that is more than London—and other towns and cities will be unable to perform to their full potential and support nationwide growth and enterprise. Recent independent forecasts by Oxford Economics demonstrate that the core cities’ eight local enterprise partnership areas are capable of delivering an additional 1 million jobs and £44 billion GVA over the next decade, given the tools to do so.
This enabling amendment creates a route to these tools to ministerial delegation and the transfer of public service functions for economic development and wealth creation to single and combined authorities in England. Any such actions would be subject to competency tests, including strong local governance and private sector buy-in, evidence that growth can be delivered and sound arrangements to work across administrative boundaries.
The potential of the amendment would be open to any place, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has said, that can demonstrate that it can pass the competency tests that the Government will set out. It will ensure that local areas have the powers and financial autonomy to deliver local solutions to their challenges, and that further legislation will not be needed to pass these powers to cities’ civic and business leaders. Any major transfers will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
The amendment would support private sector growth and new opportunities for investment, ensure continued buy-in from private sector partners on LEPs, support the implementation of policy to incentivise places to deliver growth, support double devolution to local communities, and be a significant step towards decentralisation.
As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has said, these amendments enjoy support from at least three sides of the House and, I hope, passive support from the fourth. Therefore, I am very pleased to be able to support them.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, having heard the case in favour of these amendments, I am not in the least surprised that my noble friend on the Front Bench has added her name to them. My only comment is to say how much has changed since I was in charge of local authorities back in the 1980s. It is a change that is entirely welcome. This is a far more positive approach than anything I had to deal with at that time. Perhaps a veil might be drawn over that period; it was a very unhappy period for much of local government. I thoroughly support these clauses and I congratulate the core cities on the work they have done to bring all this forward.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, I am very impressed with the way the amendment was moved and by the universal support that there seems to be in the House on this. I do not want to be a wet blanket but I am slightly concerned about the sweeping powers that will be given to the Minister, and I should like to feel satisfied that the super-affirmative resolution that was referred to will come into force and work. It is very important, particularly as over the years we will get changes of government. The provision is universally approved of, and when I hear my noble friend Lord Jenkin, who has vast experience in this field, favouring it, then I can do nothing but agree.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord McKenzie on moving the amendment, working very hard to ensure that it is in an acceptable form and persuading the Minister that it represents the right policy. I must congratulate the Minister and the Government on making the most significant concession, if you will, that we have had so far in terms of the Bill. This is the most localist part of the entire Bill, and the Minister and her colleagues deserve to be congratulated on that. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, also should be congratulated. We have had an almost biblical experience tonight. The voice was the voice of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, but the words were the words of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley—however, they were none the less persuasive for that.
Incidentally, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has done well to be in Manchester today. Were he travelling down by the east coast main line this afternoon he would not get here. I understand that winds have blown down trees on the east coast line and things are massively disrupted. Perhaps one day somebody will do something about the rail network and make sure that these incidents are less apt to cause damage.
However, I must say in reference to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that it was my pleasure to work with him, up to a point, when he chaired the Inner City Partnership committee as Secretary of State in Newcastle and Gateshead in the 1980s. I was then the leader of the council, a position that I relinquished—not before time, many people thought—some 17 years ago. It would have been helpful to have had the kind of powers conferred by this amendment—assuming it is passed, as I take it it will be—on local government.
As some of your Lordships will be aware, I am not an enthusiast for elected mayors by any means. I am therefore glad that the original restriction has been abandoned because it seems to me important that councils with the more conventional model of leader and executive should have this opportunity. Indeed, they have earned this opportunity. I refer particularly to the leader of Manchester City Council and his authority, which has blazed a trail in terms of urban regeneration and activities, not just for its authority but as one of the leading authorities in the Greater Manchester area of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, which now has parliamentary authority for a unique structure so far in terms of English local government.
Certainly the conferment of these wider powers is very welcome, particularly as I fear that some of the other changes in government policy will have an adverse effect on what everybody intends to happen, which is that the economic prosperity of these areas should be reinforced and, we hope, expanded.
I think that the Government erred in dismantling the regional structures, acknowledging that much of the work has to be at the sub-regional level, and therefore led by local authorities, in particular by the core cities. The disappearance, certainly in the north-east region of the Regional Development Agency has not been helpful. LEPs may be working in some places, but I do not think that they necessarily fill the gap. While I cannot speak for other parts of the country, certainly in the north-east I am bound to say with regret that an outbreak of parochialism, if not tribalism, is actually diminishing the capacity of what is a fairly compact region to deal with these issues. One hopes that the conferment of powers under this Bill will to a degree remedy that deficiency, but it is not axiomatic that authorities which are not so far being regarded as core cities will either seek these powers or use them in a collaborative way.
Later in the Bill we will talk about the duty to co-operate. It is a political duty rather than a legal one at the moment, so it remains to be seen how, in terms of planning, that duty can be strengthened. If the good intentions of this amendment are to be implemented, that will require a more constructive attitude on the part of some authorities than has been evident in the recent past. However, more than that is needed; it also requires a buy-in from a range of government departments and agencies. The Department for Communities and Local Government has set out its stall, but it remains to be seen whether other departments will, as it were, shop at that stall. There are some reasons to be concerned about that. One stems from the decision of the Government to abolish the regional offices and take back into Whitehall those civil servants up and down the country who became part of the dialogue between local areas and the Government in Whitehall. In my and others’ view, that local intelligence cannot simply be replaced by people sitting, in the case of Newcastle, in an office nearly 300 miles away, although the distances will differ. These people will not have a day-to-day acquaintance with the needs of an area or with local leaders, whether they be political or business leaders. In the north-east and no doubt elsewhere we found over many years that those who served in the Government offices became powerful and useful advocates for the regions and cities with the main departments in Whitehall. That, I think, is currently missing.
Beyond that, there is the question of what is happening to the community budgets. These are the replacement for the Total Place programme initiated at the suggestion of the Local Government Association, but adopted by the previous Government. The intention has been to pool resources across government departments and work to a common agenda which would differ according to each locality. That is the principle which has been piloted with some success. However, I have been making inquiries through Parliamentary Questions about the degree to which there has in fact been any buy-in by government departments to this agenda. It is totally unclear how much of the expenditure being authorised by departments at the local level has been applied to the concept of the community budgets. Apparently no one is even collating this information, let alone trying to ensure that departments are working with each other and their local partners on this programme. If that is the case for the policy that has been deployed until now, one has to wonder whether other departments will, in practice, fulfil the Government’s intentions—I repeat, I applaud them on adopting the policy set out in the amendment—in terms of the actual devolution of functions. If they are not prepared to co-operate and pool budgets in a joint way, will they seek to devolve functions to and through local government?
One can imagine a range of such functions, not least in the area in which my noble friend will have the good fortune to lead for the Opposition tomorrow and for some time hence, that of welfare reform. There are clear possibilities for much of the work being carried out in terms of employment, benefits and getting people from welfare into work to be done through local government and for responsibilities to be devolved in that respect. I hope that the Government will not simply wait for departments to come forward with proposals, but will positively promote the idea of piloting different approaches and services in authorities with a track record and whose capacity will in any event have to be recognised under the terms of the amendment.
It seems that this amendment has great potential for changing the way we respond to local needs and circumstances in a manner that reflects the strengths and opportunities as well as the weaknesses of a local and regional economy, and indeed those who make the decisions within it. But it needs to be driven across Whitehall. I do not know whether that would be a function of the Minister for Cities. Potentially it might be one, and I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is an unpaid adviser in that department. After spending many years in opposition and a few years in power in Newcastle, he is well qualified to assist the Minister, if that is the position. But again, this really does need to be driven from the top of Government, let alone by the Department for Communities and Local Government, however worthy it is in this respect. It is early days of course, and I do not know whether the Minister will be able to indicate whether there have been any discussions across the departments about how these matters might be progressed. Of course, we have only just had the amendment put before us so these are early days, but it would be reassuring if the Minister could say whether, at the very least, the Secretary of State would seek to work with Cabinet colleagues, the Local Government Association and perhaps a selection of the local authorities to explore in a coherent way how, while allowing for variation and experimentation, the intentions of this very worthy amendment could be implemented. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am delighted to have been able to put my name to these amendments. There is no doubt that the core cities have worked extraordinarily hard to make sure that what they are hoping to achieve is well understood. The amendments were originally moved by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, at the previous stage, and we have worked on them ever since. It is very appropriate that something like this is done on a cross-party basis. As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said, these are big powers that are very localist in nature and will do precisely what local government has wanted for a long time. It is therefore appropriate that they are now being presented in a way that enables us all to join in.
I am grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Tope, and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for all the questions he has asked me. I hope that I shall be able to answer some of them. However, we have learnt from him that the railway line to Newcastle is not operating because of fallen trees. That is useful to know at this stage in case we all suddenly want to run off and go there. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkin for expressing his support. We recognise that things have moved on a long way from the days when he was a very distinguished Secretary of State who was extremely supportive of local government. But I do not think that even he at that stage could have envisaged that we would have been able to do this.
As has been said, the new clauses proposed in the amendments allow for the transfer of public functions and the delegation of ministerial functions to local authorities and other permitted authorities. They combine the amendments that allowed for the transfer and delegation of functions to local authorities as originally tabled by the opposition Front Bench in Committee with a power a transfer functions to elected mayors as set out in new Section 9HA which, as a consequence, we are now withdrawing.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for her reply and all the noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendments. It seems that we have unanimity, I think for the first time during our deliberations. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in particular. As he said, the climate has changed since he was Secretary of State. I remember some of those days with a district authority in Luton. If I except Newcastle, there was the odd Labour-controlled authority in those days to which we, even on these Benches, would not have been overly keen to transfer these sorts of powers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, asked about the superaffirmative procedure. Amendment 118 very clearly sets out that, as the Minister has described, these orders have to go through the superaffirmative process before they can proceed.
My noble friend Lord Beecham made the valid point that the Government have to play their part in all this, because Amendment 117 requires and places an onus on government to respond or to consider proposals that are made to it by core cities or whoever. I should reiterate that credit for this goes to the Core Cities Group. It originated it and raised it with us. I know that it raised it with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for speaking on his behalf today. It is good that the Government took it up over the Recess and knocked it into technical shape so that it works properly. I will not press my luck further. I beg to move.
Amendment 114 agreed.
Amendments 115 to 119 agreed.
Amendment 119A
Earl Attlee
“CHAPTER 2AOther authoritiesIntegrated Transport Authorities
In Part 5 of the Local Transport Act 2008 (integrated transport authorities etc) after section 102A insert—“CHAPTER 4General powers102B Powers of Integrated Transport Authorities
(1) An ITA may do—
(a) anything the ITA considers appropriate for the purposes of the carrying-out of any of the ITA’s functions (the ITA’s “functional purposes”),(b) anything the ITA considers appropriate for purposes incidental to the ITA’s functional purposes,(c) anything the ITA considers appropriate for purposes indirectly incidental to the ITA’s functional purposes through any number of removes,(d) anything the ITA considers to be connected with—(i) any of the ITA’s functions, or(ii) anything the ITA may do under paragraph (a), (b) or (c), and(e) for a commercial purpose anything which the ITA may do under any of paragraphs (a) to (d) otherwise than for a commercial purpose.(2) Where subsection (1) confers power on an ITA to do something, it confers power (subject to section 102C) to do it anywhere in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
(3) An ITA’s power under subsection (1) is in addition to, and is not limited by, the other powers of the ITA.
(4) Subsection (5) applies if there is, in relation to an ITA—
(a) a Passenger Transport Executive established under section 9 of the TA 1968 for the integrated transport area of the ITA, or(b) an executive body established by virtue of section 79(1)(a) or 84(2)(d).(5) The ITA may delegate to the Executive or body the ITA’s function of taking action under subsection (1) (but not the function of determining what action to take).
102C Boundaries of power under section 102B
(1) Section 102B(1) does not enable an ITA to do—
(a) anything which the ITA is unable to do by virtue of a pre-commencement limitation, or (b) anything which the ITA is unable to do by virtue of a post-commencement limitation which is expressed to apply—(i) to the ITA’s power under section 102B(1),(ii) to all of the ITA’s powers, or(iii) to all of the ITA’s powers but with exceptions that do not include the ITA’s power under section 102B(1).(2) If exercise of a pre-commencement power of an ITA is subject to restrictions, those restrictions apply also to exercise of the power conferred on the ITA by section 102B(1) so far as it is overlapped by the pre-commencement power.
(3) Section 102B(1) does not authorise an ITA to borrow money.
(4) Section 102B(1)(a) to (d) do not authorise an ITA to charge a person for anything done by the ITA otherwise than for a commercial purpose (but see section 93 of the Local Government Act 2003 (power of ITAs and other best value authorities to charge for discretionary services)).
(5) Section 102B(1)(e) does not authorise an ITA to do things for a commercial purpose in relation to a person if a statutory provision requires the ITA to do those things in relation to the person.
(6) Where under section 102B(1)(e) an ITA does things for a commercial purpose, it must do them through—
(a) a company within the meaning given by section 1(1) of the Companies Act 2006, or(b) a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 1965 or the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969.(7) In this section—
“post-commencement limitation” means a prohibition, restriction or other limitation imposed by a statutory provision that—
(a) is contained in an Act passed after the end of the Session in which the Localism Act 2011 is passed, or(b) is contained in an instrument made under an Act and comes into force on or after the commencement of section (Integrated Transport Authorities)(1) of that Act;“pre-commencement limitation” means a prohibition, restriction or other limitation imposed by a statutory provision that—
(a) is contained in an Act passed no later than the end of the Session in which the Localism Act 2011 is passed, or(b) is contained in an instrument made under an Act and comes into force before the commencement of section (Integrated Transport Authorities)(1) of that Act;“pre-commencement power” means power conferred by a statutory provision that—
(a) is contained in an Act passed no later than the end of the Session in which the Localism Act 2011 is passed, or(b) is contained in an instrument made under an Act and comes into force before the commencement of section (Integrated Transport Authorities)(1) of that Act;“statutory provision” means a provision of an Act or of an instrument made under an Act.
102D Power to make provision supplemental to section 102B
(1) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument make provision preventing ITAs from doing under section 102B(1) anything which is specified, or is of a description specified, in the order.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide for the exercise by ITAs of power conferred by section 102B(1) to be subject to conditions, whether generally or in relation to doing anything specified, or of a description specified, in the order.
(3) The power under subsection (1) or (2) may be exercised in relation to—
(a) all ITAs,(b) particular ITAs, or(c) particular descriptions of ITAs.(4) Before making an order under subsection (1) or (2) the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) such representatives of ITAs,(b) such representatives of local government, and(c) such other persons (if any),as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to an order under subsection (1) or (2) which is made only for the purpose of amending an earlier such order—
(a) so as to extend the earlier order, or any provision of the earlier order, to a particular ITA or to ITAs of a particular description, or(b) so that the earlier order, or any provision of the earlier order, ceases to apply to a particular ITA or to ITAs of a particular description.(6) Power to make an order under this section includes—
(a) power to make different provision for different cases, circumstances or areas, and(b) power to make incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional or transitory provision or savings.(7) The Secretary of State may not make an order to which subsection (8) applies unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order (whether alone or with other provisions) has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(8) This subsection applies to—
(a) an order under subsection (1), other than one that is made only for the purpose mentioned in subsection (5)(b);(b) an order under subsection (2), other than one that is made only for that purpose or for imposing conditions on the doing of things for a commercial purpose.(9) A statutory instrument that—
(a) contains an order made under this section, and(b) is not subject to any requirement that a draft of the instrument be laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament,is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.””
Earl Attlee
My Lords, in moving Amendment 119A, I shall also speak to Amendments 119B, 119D, 119DA and 119BA, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton. The amendments will allow integrated transport authorities and their executive bodies, passenger transport executives, to properly undertake activities that benefit or contribute to their purposes. The enabling power goes beyond the existing incidental powers and can extend outside their geographical boundaries and immediate hinterland. These bodies are not local authorities and will therefore not have the benefit of the general power of competence that is already contained in the Bill.
The matter was debated in another place and in this House on 20 June. In response to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, the Secretary of State for Transport sought agreement to include suitable provisions in the Localism Bill, and this was given. The amendment provides an appropriate broader general power for integrated transport authorities and their passenger transport executives. For consistency, the power will also be provided to combined authorities and economic prosperity boards.
The main reason why these bodies need such a power is that local authorities using similar powers to the ITA’s existing incidental and well-being powers have been the subject of successful legal challenge. Integrated transport authorities and their passenger transport executives have therefore been unwilling to undertake activities and enterprises that are not expressly prescribed in law. The view that they could be successfully challenged has been supported by legal opinion obtained by the Passenger Transport Executives Group. An example provided by PTEG of the activities that they are seeking to use the new powers for is the provision of back-office functions for transport smart cards, similar to Oyster cards in London, to local authorities not in an ITA area or in another integrated transport authority area. Because providing and charging for such an activity is not expressly permitted by existing legislation, they fear legal challenge.
The potential benefits of integrated transport authorities being able to let their passenger transport executives undertake such operations for others is that they will be able to realise the economies of scale from providing similar services to a number of bodies. The bodies wishing to use these services will also benefit from obtaining the service more cost-effectively from an organisation that is already doing something very similar. The cost savings realised by both provider and client can be passed on to council tax payers. In the case of the service provider, this will be the metropolitan district councils in the area concerned. In the case of the client organisations, this will be either local authorities outside an ITA area or the metropolitan district councils within another ITA area.
The suggested amendment to government Amendment 119B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, is unnecessary because we are satisfied that where it serves some purpose in relation to a body’s function, collective action is already covered in the drafting of the new broader general power to be found in proposed new Clause 102B(1). Noble Lords will be aware that the parliamentary draftsmen undertake their work with great care. We are at one with what powers we want to grant and we should trust the parliamentary draftsmen to get it right on our behalf.
On government Amendment 119D, I have just explained to your Lordships our argument for providing integrated transport authorities and PTEs with wider general powers. This amendment seeks to do the same for combined authorities and economic prosperity boards, which are intended to provide stable governance mechanisms for long-term strategic decision-making on economic issues. In bringing groups of relevant authorities together, both are expected to be based upon meaningful economic geography. Where a combined authority is established for an area, it will be responsible for the transport functions in place of an ITA as well as having economic development and regeneration powers. Currently, one combined authority has been established in Greater Manchester. Economic prosperity boards are similar to combined authorities but without the transport functions. There are presently no economic prosperity boards.
Given that broader powers are being given to integrated transport authorities, it is essential that these powers are also made available to combined authorities and economic prosperity boards to ensure that they can effectively discharge their economic objectives. Indeed, given the close interrelationship between economic development and transport, it would be unreasonable not to confer these broader powers upon both bodies and would undermine their ability to deliver sustainable economic growth. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, this is an interesting group of amendments. The Minister explained their purpose very well, but it seems to me that the pendulum is swinging from local authorities, PTEs and ITAs et cetera getting a bit frightened of what they are allowed to do to something that is beginning to look like a Henry VIII clause in the transport field. That is probably quite a good thing, actually. It seems that they are going to be given powers to do anything. Perhaps the noble Earl could explain whether this could include, in respect of the integrated transport authorities or the passenger transport executives, things such as operating rail franchises if they felt like it. Could they take a bigger role in sponsoring and deciding how the franchises were run, and what would be the extent of their financial commitment to it?
Could those authorities go as far as was recently planned in Merseyside: for Merseytravel to run a vertically integrated railway and take over the infrastructure from Network Rail? It was interesting that that authority had been lobbying to do this for at least five years, if not 10, but then just as the McNulty report, which might have encouraged them to do it, came out it decided that it was not going to do it because it was too risky. However, it is an interesting option that may be open to other authorities. What will they do in running trams and operating buses? The prospect of even better integration between different types of services would be good, if it happened.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I very much endorse my noble friend’s observations but, like him, I also have one or two questions about how things might work. I come from an area that has been well served by a passenger transport authority and executive for many years. We have a pretty good bus system and a metro system, which was initiated by a Conservative Government in the 1970s—ad idem again across the Floor—and extended more recently. It is very successful but its powers in relation to private bus companies are circumscribed. That is a source of frustration, at least to that passenger transport executive, and I wonder whether the Bill will actually open the possibility of a different relationship between the authority and the bus companies. Incidentally, I suppose I ought to declare an interest as the holder of a bus pass and a concessionary metro pass.
I know from my own experiences as a ward councillor, but also from general issues arising from transport, that the feeling is that there is insufficient leverage in the hands of the executive in relation to private contractors. That is one question, and, again, if it is not possible to give an answer immediately, subsequently will be quite satisfactory.
The other issue relates to the Highways Agency. One can well envisage circumstances in which the role of the Highways Agency may be quite important to the transport plans of an executive, and, indeed, to the delivery of transport services. Again, in my experience, it is not always the most amenable government agency that one has to deal with. I know that the experience of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is different—we have had a conversation to that effect—but, certainly, there is at least some potential for a different relationship between an authority with the powers that will conferred on it by this Bill and the Highways Agency.
Going back to where we left the discussion on core cities, the same principle applies. Will there be buy-in not only from the Department for Transport but in particular from that executive agency, which is very influential and needs to co-operate with the body charged with the delivery of local transport? Of course, the Highways Agency does not deal, generally speaking, with the road network in towns and cities. Nevertheless, in a sub-regional area such as Tyne and Wear, Greater Manchester or elsewhere, there is a relationship between their activities and programmes and those of the executive. I wonder whether any enlightenment might be cast upon that issue. Again, I do not necessarily expect a reply off the cuff, and if it is more convenient I would be happy to receive a written communication in due course.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of these amendments, subject to any issues that come out of the very forensic questioning of my noble friends. Amendment 119BA seeks simply to ensure that the powers conferred can be pursued either alone or collectively with one or more ITA. I accept entirely the Minister’s confirmation that it can and that this amendment is not necessary. I am pleased that that is on the record. As the noble Earl said, we moved amendments in Committee to achieve a general power of competence for ITAs similar to that given to fire and rescue authorities in the Bill. These replicated amendments moved by my honourable friend Barbara Keeley in another place. The Minister there explained that these were matters for the Department for Transport and were under consideration. That, indeed, was the response when we debated the amendments in Committee here, but the Government committed to take matters further, which they have done. They have fulfilled their obligation to the House and we are happy to support these amendments.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome to these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked about extension of powers possibly covering rail franchising and Henry VIII powers in this amendment. Primary legislation would be required to allow the ITAs to be involved in franchising outside their area. If such changes are required, the Government will look for a legislative opportunity.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, mentioned the Highways Agency. He will understand that the Highways Agency is concerned with the strategic road network, but I am confident that it will work closely with local authorities. The noble Lord also asked about powers relating to local bus services in ITA areas. ITAs set a broad strategy for public transport, including buses. Most bus services in an ITA area are run on a commercial basis. ITAs are responsible, where they see fit, for topping up—in other words, adding extra services. There are some detailed questions and I will ensure that we get a full answer to all the questions. A copy will of course be placed in the Library. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
“Passenger Transport Executives
(1) In Part 2 of the Transport Act 1968 (integrated transport authorities etc) after section 10 insert—
“10A Further powers of Executives
(1) The Executive of an integrated transport area in England may do—
(a) anything the Executive considers appropriate for the purposes of the carrying-out of any of the Executive’s functions (the Executive’s “functional purposes”),(b) anything the Executive considers appropriate for purposes incidental to the Executive’s functional purposes,(c) anything the Executive considers appropriate for purposes indirectly incidental to the Executive’s functional purposes through any number of removes,(d) anything the Executive considers to be connected with—(i) any of the Executive’s functions, or(ii) anything the Executive may do under paragraph (a), (b) or (c), and(e) for a commercial purpose anything which the Executive may do under any of paragraphs (a) to (d) otherwise than for a commercial purpose.(2) Where subsection (1) confers power on the Executive to do something, it confers power (subject to section 10B) to do it anywhere in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
(3) The Executive’s power under subsection (1) is in addition to, and is not limited by, the other powers of the Executive.
10B Boundaries of power under section 10A
(1) Section 10A(1) does not enable the Executive to do—
(a) anything which the Executive is unable to do by virtue of a pre-commencement limitation, or(b) anything which the Executive is unable to do by virtue of a post-commencement limitation which is expressed to apply—(i) to the Executive’s power under section 10A(1),(ii) to all of the Executive’s powers, or(iii) to all of the Executive’s powers but with exceptions that do not include the Executive’s power under section 10A(1).(2) If exercise of a pre-commencement power of the Executive is subject to restrictions, those restrictions apply also to exercise of the power conferred on the Executive by section 10A(1) so far as it is overlapped by the pre-commencement power.
(3) Section 10A(1) does not authorise the Executive to borrow money.
(4) Section 10A(1)(a) to (d) do not authorise the Executive to charge a person for anything done by the Executive otherwise than for a commercial purpose, but this does not limit any power to charge that the Executive has otherwise than under section 10A(1)(a) to (d).
(5) Section 10A(1)(e) does not authorise the Executive to do things for a commercial purpose in relation to a person if a statutory provision requires the Executive to do those things in relation to the person.
(6) Where under section 10A(1)(e) the Executive does things for a commercial purpose, it must do them through—
(a) a company within the meaning given by section 1(1) of the Companies Act 2006, or(b) a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 1965 or the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. (7) In this section—
“post-commencement limitation” means a prohibition, restriction or other limitation imposed by a statutory provision that—
(a) is contained in an Act passed after the end of the Session in which the Localism Act 2011 is passed, or(b) is contained in an instrument made under an Act and comes into force on or after the commencement of section (Passenger Transport Executives)(1) of that Act;“pre-commencement limitation” means a prohibition, restriction or other limitation imposed by a statutory provision that—
(a) is contained in an Act passed no later than the end of the Session in which the Localism Act 2011 is passed, or(b) is contained in an instrument made under an Act and comes into force before the commencement of section (Passenger Transport Executives)(1) of that Act;“pre-commencement power” means power conferred by a statutory provision that—
(a) is contained in an Act passed no later than the end of the Session in which the Localism Act 2011 is passed, or(b) is contained in an instrument made under an Act and comes into force before the commencement of section (Passenger Transport Executives)(1) of that Act;“statutory provision” means a provision of an Act or of an instrument made under an Act.
10C Power to make provision supplemental to section 10A
(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision preventing the Executive from doing under section 10A(1) anything which is specified, or is of a description specified, in the order.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the exercise by the Executive of power conferred by section 10A(1) to be subject to conditions, whether generally or in relation to doing anything specified, or of a description specified, in the order.
(3) The power under subsection (1) or (2) may be exercised in relation to—
(a) all Executives,(b) particular Executives, or(c) particular descriptions of Executives.(4) Before making an order under subsection (1) or (2) the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) such representatives of Executives,(b) such representatives of local government, and(c) such other persons (if any),as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to an order under subsection (1) or (2) which is made only for the purpose of amending an earlier such order—
(a) so as to extend the earlier order, or any provision of the earlier order, to a particular Executive or to Executives of a particular description, or(b) so that the earlier order, or any provision of the earlier order, ceases to apply to a particular Executive or to Executives of a particular description.(6) Power to make an order under this section includes—
(a) power to make different provision for different cases, circumstances or areas, and(b) power to make incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional or transitory provision or savings.(7) A statutory instrument containing an order to which subsection (8) applies (whether alone or with other provisions) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(8) This subsection applies to—
(a) an order under subsection (1), other than one that is made only for the purpose mentioned in subsection (5)(b); (b) an order under subsection (2), other than one that is made only for that purpose or for imposing conditions on the doing of things for a commercial purpose.(9) A statutory instrument that—
(a) contains an order made under this section, and(b) is not subject to any requirement that a draft of the instrument be laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament,is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”(2) In section 10(1) of the Transport Act 1968 (powers of a Passenger Transport Executive)—
(a) in paragraph (xxvii) (power to invest sums not immediately needed) for “any sums which are not immediately required by them for the purposes of their business” substitute “their money”, and(b) in paragraph (xxviii) (power to turn unneeded resources to account) omit “so far as not required for the purposes of their business”.(3) In section 22 of the Transport Act 1968 (orders under Part 2 of that Act to be subject to annulment) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Subsections (1) and (2) of this section do not apply in relation to orders under section 10C of this Act (but see subsections (7) to (9) of that section).”
(4) In section 93(9) of the Local Government Act 2003 (authorities with power under section 93 to charge for discretionary services) before paragraph (b) insert—
“(ab) the Passenger Transport Executive of an integrated transport area in England;”.(5) In section 95(7) of the Local Government Act 2003 (power to authorise certain authorities to do for commercial purposes things that they can do for non-commercial purposes) in the definition of “relevant authority” before paragraph (b) insert—
“(ab) the Passenger Transport Executive of an integrated transport area in England;”.”
Baroness Hanham
“Economic prosperity boards and combined authorities
(1) In Part 6 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (economic prosperity boards and combined authorities) after section 113 insert—
“General powers of EPBs and combined authorities113A General power of EPB or combined authority
(1) An EPB or combined authority may do—
(a) anything it considers appropriate for the purposes of the carrying-out of any of its functions (its “functional purposes”),(b) anything it considers appropriate for purposes incidental to its functional purposes,(c) anything it considers appropriate for purposes indirectly incidental to its functional purposes through any number of removes,(d) anything it considers to be connected with—(i) any of its functions, or(ii) anything it may do under paragraph (a), (b) or (c), and(e) for a commercial purpose anything which it may do under any of paragraphs (a) to (d) otherwise than for a commercial purpose. (2) Where subsection (1) confers power on an EPB or combined authority to do something, it confers power (subject to section 113B) to do it anywhere in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
(3) Power conferred on an EPB or combined authority by subsection (1) is in addition to, and is not limited by, its other powers.
113B Boundaries of power under section 113A
(1) Section 113A(1) does not enable an EPB or combined authority to do—
(a) anything which it is unable to do by virtue of a pre-commencement limitation, or(b) anything which it is unable to do by virtue of a post-commencement limitation which is expressed to apply—(i) to its power under section 113A(1),(ii) to all of its powers, or(iii) to all of its powers but with exceptions that do not include its power under section 113A(1).(2) If exercise of a pre-commencement power of an EPB or combined authority is subject to restrictions, those restrictions apply also to exercise of the power conferred on it by section 113A(1) so far as that power is overlapped by the pre-commencement power.
(3) Section 113A(1) does not authorise an EPB or combined authority to borrow money.
(4) Section 113A(1)(a) to (d) do not authorise an EPB or combined authority to charge a person for anything done by it otherwise than for a commercial purpose (but see section 93 of the Local Government Act 2003 (power of EPBs, combined authorities and other best value authorities to charge for discretionary services)).
(5) Section 113A(1)(e) does not authorise an EPB or combined authority to do things for a commercial purpose in relation to a person if a statutory provision requires it to do those things in relation to the person.
(6) Where under section 113A(1)(e) an EPB or combined authority does things for a commercial purpose, it must do them through—
(a) a company within the meaning given by section 1(1) of the Companies Act 2006, or(b) a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 1965 or the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969.(7) In this section—
“post-commencement limitation” means a prohibition, restriction or other limitation imposed by a statutory provision that—
(a) is contained in an Act passed after the end of the Session in which the Localism Act 2011 is passed, or(b) is contained in an instrument made under an Act and comes into force on or after the commencement of section (Economic prosperity boards and combined authorities)(1) of that Act;“pre-commencement limitation” means a prohibition, restriction or other limitation imposed by a statutory provision that—
(a) is contained in an Act passed no later than the end of the Session in which the Localism Act 2011 is passed, or(b) is contained in an instrument made under an Act and comes into force before the commencement of section (Economic prosperity boards and combined authorities)(1) of that Act;“pre-commencement power” means power conferred by a statutory provision that—
(a) is contained in an Act passed no later than the end of the Session in which the Localism Act 2011 is passed, or (b) is contained in an instrument made under an Act and comes into force before the commencement of section (Economic prosperity boards and combined authorities)(1) of that Act;“statutory provision” means a provision of an Act or of an instrument made under an Act.
113C Power to make provision supplemental to section 113A
(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision preventing EPBs or combined authorities from doing under section 113A(1) anything which is specified, or is of a description specified, in the order.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the exercise by EPBs or combined authorities of power conferred by section 113A(1) to be subject to conditions, whether generally or in relation to doing anything specified, or of a description specified, in the order.
(3) The power under subsection (1) or (2) may be exercised in relation to—
(a) all EPBs,(b) all combined authorities,(c) particular EPBs,(d) particular combined authorities,(e) particular descriptions of EPBs, or(f) particular descriptions of combined authorities.(4) Before making an order under subsection (1) or (2) the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) such representatives of EPBs or combined authorities,(b) such representatives of local government, and(c) such other persons (if any),as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to an order under subsection (1) or (2) which is made only for the purpose of amending an earlier such order—
(a) so as to extend the earlier order, or any provision of the earlier order, to a particular EPB or combined authority or to EPBs or combined authorities of a particular description, or(b) so that the earlier order, or any provision of the earlier order, ceases to apply to a particular EPB or combined authority or to EPBs or combined authorities of a particular description.(6) Power to make an order under this section includes—
(a) power to make different provision for different cases, circumstances or areas, and(b) power to make incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional or transitory provision or savings.”(2) For section 117(2) and (3) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (affirmative procedure applies to orders under Part 6 other than certain orders under section 116) substitute—
“(2) An order to which subsection (2A) applies may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order (whether alone or with other provisions) has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(2A) This subsection applies to an order under this Part other than—
(a) an order under section 113C(1) that is made only for the purpose mentioned in section 113C(5)(b),(b) an order under section 113C(2) that is made only for that purpose or for imposing conditions on the doing of things for a commercial purpose, or(c) an order under section 116 that amends or revokes provision contained in an instrument subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament. (3) A statutory instrument that—
(a) contains an order under this Part, and(b) is not subject to any requirement that a draft of the instrument be laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament,is subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament.””
“Further amendments
(1) In section 146A of the Local Government Act 1972 (application of provisions to certain joint and other authorities)—
(a) in subsection (1) for “or (1A)” substitute “, (1ZD) or (1ZE)”, and(b) after subsection (1ZC) (which is inserted by section 9 of this Act) insert—“(1ZD) An Integrated Transport Authority is not to be treated as a local authority for the purposes of section 111 above (but see section 102B of the Local Transport Act 2008).(1ZE) Neither an economic prosperity board, nor a combined authority, is to be treated as a local authority for the purposes of section 111 above (but see section 113A of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009).”(2) In section 93(7) of the Local Government Act 2003 (provisions that do not count as prohibitions on charging for the purposes of section 93(2)(b)) after paragraph (c) insert—
“(d) section 100(2) of the Local Transport Act 2008 (well-being powers of Integrated Transport Authorities and combined authorities),(e) section 102C(4) of that Act (Integrated Transport Authorities),(f) section 10B(4) of the Transport Act 1968 (Passenger Transport Executives), and(g) section 113B(4) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (economic prosperity boards and combined authorities).””
Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham
Amendment 119F and the other amendments in the group refer to the additional permitted governance arrangements contained in the schedule. The legislation as drafted allows the Secretary of State to make provision for changes in such arrangements. The thrust of these amendments is to ensure that the changes stem from proposals made by the individual authorities affected, rather than being initiated from Whitehall and the Secretary of State himself. The amendments go on to refer to the principles upon which such changes should be made. Clause 9BA(6) says that:
“The conditions are … that the operation by the authority of the proposed arrangements would be an improvement on the arrangements which the authority has in place for the discharge of its functions”.
That seems to me an unnecessarily narrow prescription. They ought to be, as the Bill goes on to say,
“likely to ensure that the decisions of the authority are taken in an efficient, transparent and accountable way”.
My amendment incorporates that phrase, but goes on to say that the arrangements would be appropriate for all local authorities, or for any particular local authority, to consider and—this is the important part of the amendment—that the arrangements are consistent with the principles of localism and representative local democracy, a phrase that, as far as I am aware, does not appear anywhere else in the Bill.
In our discussion at Second Reading and from time to time in Committee, noble Lords on all sides of your Lordships’ House stressed the importance of representative local democracy as a necessary part of any localism agenda. That should be reflected in the consideration of any Government’s arrangements. I do not think that it is necessary to confine any changes to where they would after all, in the view of the Secretary of State, represent an improvement. There is no particular need, in my judgment, for that. They should certainly not represent any lessening of the efficacy of those arrangements, but they could be different without necessarily representing an improvement, in the eyes of the Secretary of State, as long as they meet the criteria of transparency, efficiency and accountability and are consistent with the principles of localism and representative local democracy. That should be sufficient.
I hope that the Minister, if she is dealing with these amendments, will regard them as friendly rather than unfriendly. They are designed to reinforce what is said to be the thrust of the legislation but in a way that, first, places the initiative with the local authority rather than the Secretary of State for providing that the criteria are met, but secondly—again, I stress this—emphasises that the principles of representative local democracy should be met in any such change. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we debated both these amendments in Committee. We accept that most proposals for additional governance models will come from local authorities. That will be how the impact will go given their expertise as practitioners. However, Amendment 119F still fails to recognise that ideas and proposals about new governance models may also come from other sources. The amendment says that the Secretary of State cannot do anything without having a proposal put to him. We need to make it clear that those proposals could come not only from local government but from local government representatives, think tanks or research units. Therefore, they might not be sufficiently well formed for the Government to take them on board. Saying that the Secretary of State may implement something only after a suggestion has been put forward may be restrictive, although the noble Lord is also saying that the Secretary of State should not be able to dream up a form of governance and then try to implement it. That is not the sense of this legislation. I hear what the noble Lord says, but that is not the intention.
In any case, if the Secretary of State decided to do that, he would be forcing local authorities to do something that they may not want to do and that is not the intention behind these provisions. We are not going to force local authorities. They would not have to adopt arrangements set out in any regulations made under this provision. This is an empowering clause not a diktat clause.
In Amendment 119G, the conditions that the noble Lord suggests are, if I may put it politely, less useful for local authorities than the existing ones. It does not seem unreasonable that there should be an explicit requirement that any proposed new arrangements should be an improvement on what is already there. There are three areas of governance listed in the Bill and anything else would have to be an improvement on what is there. I believe that the existing conditions give clarity for local authorities that may be considering submitting a proposal and we would not want to change that.
Finally, I remind noble Lords that any regulations made under this provision would simply extend the range of choice of governance models available to local authorities. They would not have to adopt those arrangements. They would be one more in addition to that list of three if somebody can think of something remarkable to do.
I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beecham
I am grateful to the Minister although it is entirely unclear who would judge and on what basis whether the change was an improvement or not. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Charities Bill [HL]
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, it is a strange feeling to be moving a group of amendments that comprise the totality of the amendments to this 250-page Bill. But this is a consolidation Bill. As one who has served on the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, I know well enough that on consolidation one is not allowed to change substantive law. I emphasise that the amendments that I have tabled and the comments that I am about to make bear no ill reflection whatever on the Bill team or the parliamentary draftsman. Indeed, I have had the utmost co-operation from all of them.
However, with a Bill that affects the voluntary sector in particular, one must seek to make that measure as comprehensible as possible. I could not refrain from tabling a set of amendments to attempt to make the crucial definition clauses of the Bill fractionally more understandable to the lay reader. The last thing one wants in the world when legislating for the voluntary sector is to force it into the hands of lawyers who will do their best but who, I am afraid, are expensive beasts. I speak as one of 53 years duration. The amendments taken as a group effect no change but they see the definition of “charitable purpose” or “charitable purposes” brought into one clause, Clause 2, which will then enable Clause 11 to be removed from the Bill. In practical terms, that will be of considerable benefit.
Before explaining why, I should say to the Committee that I am aware that Section 73 of the Charities Act 2006 requires a review of the 2006 Act, which is about to commence, which will end with a report being placed before Parliament. Indeed, I was instrumental, with others, in getting that unusual provision written into the 2006 Act. But there is nothing in the Act to say that anything shall flow from the report. I produced this amendment determined that at least in the interim years—one could be talking about quite a few years, even an eternity, before any amendments are made to this Bill—the definition clause should be a little more understandable.
Why is it more understandable? I wish sometimes that one could annex to technical amendments such as this a copy of the clause they seek to amend, incorporating the amendments. The amendments seek to get rid of Clause 11, which defines “charitable purposes” or “charitable purpose” differently from the definition in Clause 2. Clause 1 defines “charity” in a way which is difficult to reconcile. It is reconcilable but only by dint of considerable legal subtlety. It is already difficult to reconcile Clause 1 with Clause 2. The last thing in the world one wants is for the unwary reader—that is to say he or she who does not plough all the way through the Bill—then to find that there is a different definition of “charitable purposes” in Clause 11. As I say, that in itself represents a significant practical improvement in the Bill because the definition of “charitable purpose” or “charitable purposes”—those two phrases are used in different places in the Bill—and the definition of “charity” itself are the linchpin definitions of the entire Bill.
I had hoped to simplify the Bill further. However, I received a communication from the Bill team which made clear that the extent of the use of the phrase “charitable purposes” or “charitable purpose” is unknown. The Committee may think it rather extraordinary that we have no place to which anyone, including the parliamentary draftsman, can go to be informed about all the uses of the phrase “charitable purposes” throughout our primary and secondary legislation. There is no such source of information. In the age of technical wizardry that defect could and should be resolved, not just for the benefit of the experts but for the many who will have to interpret this and many other statutory provisions in the future. As one of the letters that I received from the Bill team stated, there are what they call “known unknowns”—I like that phrase—which is another way of saying “We haven’t a clue”. The document continues:
“While we are able relatively easily to search the database of General Public Acts for references to ‘charitable purposes’, the same cannot be said of subordinate legislation (as defined for the purposes of clause 2), not all of which is stored in the available databases, or private Acts, hardly any of which are in the available databases”.
I have tabled my modest but, I think, significant amendment in the hope that the Government may say that they think it is an improvement but in the expectation that, given the complexity of the whole—I nearly used a Saxon word—business, they will need further time in order to clear the decks as regards simplifying these crucial clauses. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say in replying to these amendments. I am grateful for the Committee’s patience.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I rise briefly to support the spirit of what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has said because when people are setting up charities they often try to find ways around the complexity of registering a charity. There is an enormous number of charities and sometimes it is extremely difficult to be clear whether they truly are charities. I say that as a patron of several small charities from their outset. One often has a sense of when a “charitable purpose” really is a charitable purpose and when it is stretching the limits, but that has implications for donors and the Charity Commission. The reference to “known unknowns” is reasonable. In many aspects of life we know that new situations will arise but we do not know what they will be. The danger is that matters can be contested at a later stage. The noble Lord has thrown down a rather wonderful challenge to the Government. I look forward to hearing their response.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, this may be one of those rare occasions when I am pleased not to be the Minister answering the noble Lord’s questions. As the Minister knows, we welcome this consolidation. The comments that have been made highlight what the legislation seeks to achieve. The noble Lord raised similar issues at Second Reading. I have to confess that he lost me somewhat when he spoke in that debate. However, I have carefully read the points that he made. It strikes me that we are attempting to make the legislation more straightforward, less complex and easier but we are not making it easy. I noted that the noble Lord mentioned making the measure more understandable to the lay person. I am not sure that we are ever able to make such legislation more understandable to the lay person. This is very much a lawyer’s issue. My noble friend Lord Boateng has queried whether people need a lawyer to help them set up a charity. If the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will forgive my saying so, I fear that we have two lawyers and three opinions on this issue as it seems to comprise an argument between lawyers.
I confess that I do not understand the legal complexities which would allow me to make a distinction between “charitable purpose” or “charitable purposes”. I cannot see the difference between those two phrases. However, I fully understand the necessity to get definitions right so as to avoid long drawn out arguments in court. I have carefully read the report of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. We should be grateful to it for considering the points that we put to it. It has also considered the point that the noble Lord has made. All I can do is to seek advice on this from the Minister. I am sure that she has received legal advice on whether this is a justifiable concern. Is she able to share that legal advice with us? If there is an issue around the definition, how significant will that be in terms of interpretation? Her advice would be helpful in enabling the Committee to reach a conclusion on this matter and in reassuring us that the Bill does what it seeks to do and that the definition is satisfactory.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I start by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in this important but short debate. I welcome the opportunity to try to explain the Government’s position as clearly as I can.
I welcome the knowledge and expertise of my noble friend Lord Phillips in charity law and his assiduousness in scrutinising legislation that affects charities. I know that he has taken a very close interest in the consolidation Bill. Earlier this year he raised a number of points with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, the chairman of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. He has also since then discussed various points with the Bill team in considerable detail. As a result, we have been able to make some important drafting improvements at the Joint Committee stage and we are extremely grateful to my noble friend for that.
The amendments tabled by my noble friend concern the relationship between Clauses 2 and 11. I know that my noble friend's object here is to make further drafting improvements. However, the discussions we have engaged in with him have indicated that his concerns go deeper than that. As a result, we have already undertaken to address the underlying problem that he has raised. This can be done only outside the consolidation process. I shall explain that in a little more detail in a moment but perhaps I may just set the context for this discussion. Clauses 2 and 11 reproduce the existing law as it has stood since the passing of the Charities Act 2006. We are not aware of anyone having expressed concerns about these provisions at the time of the passing of the 2006 Act. Furthermore, at no point in the consultation process on the present Bill has anyone expressed any concerns about the relationship between Clauses 2 and 11. The draft Bill was the subject of full public consultation in 2009 and has the support of the charities sector and the Charity Commission.
I should explain that Clauses 2 and 11 contain two subtly different definitions of “charitable purpose”, one of a very general application and the other of a much more limited application. Two types of suggestion have been made about the relationship between these clauses. The first involves changing the law; the second aims simply to improve the drafting of the Bill. The suggestion between Second Reading and the Joint Committee proceedings was of the first type. It was suggested that instead of the two subtly different meanings of “charitable purpose” applying in different contexts, there should be one definition of “charitable purpose” applying across the board. Unfortunately, substituting a single definition of “charitable purpose” cannot be achieved without changing the law. It is not permissible within the constraints of the consolidation process for the Bill to change the law. So no amendments were tabled at Joint Committee to Clauses 2 or 11, and the Joint Committee agreed to the clauses as drafted.
The amendments that my noble friend has now tabled aim to improve the drafting of the Bill without changing the law. However, we are not convinced that this is the right response to the real issue that my noble friend has raised. The fundamental issue—it is one that we recognise—is that it is awkward to have two definitions of “charitable purpose” applying in different contexts. The amendments that the noble Lord has tabled do not remove this awkwardness; they merely present it differently. We think that the right thing to do is not to make drafting changes to the Bill, but instead to seek to address the underlying issue.
We recognise that it could be a desirable simplification to substitute the two definitions applying in different contexts by a single definition applying across the board. However, it is clear that this cannot be done through this Bill. I have therefore already suggested to my noble friend that it can be considered as part of the forthcoming review of the Charities Act 2006. It appears that there is a case for simplification here, and we believe that the review is the right place to explore thoroughly the legal changes that would be required to achieve this simplification.
I return to the amendments before us. The drafting of the consolidation Bill is a very technical business and the provisions have already been very clearly considered and given a clean bill of health by the Joint Committee. However, my noble friend has tabled what amount to detailed drafting points so I will explain why we resist these amendments.
I will begin by saying that we think that the way in which the definitions of “charity” and “charitable purpose” are structured in the Bill is an improvement on the current legislation. In particular, putting the 1993 Act definitions in Part 1 of the Bill next to the 2006 Act definitions makes them more visible to the reader. In the Government's view, my noble friend’s amendments would not improve this drafting. First, we think that the amendments would damage the logical structure of Part 1 of the Bill by taking a definition that belongs in Chapter 2 and putting it into Chapter 1 where it does not belong. I will explain that in a little more detail. As is clear from its title, Part 1 of the Bill is concerned with the definitions of “charity” and “charitable purpose”. Chapter 1 of Part 1 deals with definitions that apply generally—that is, in legislation generally and in documents, and in England and Wales as well as, for certain purposes, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Chapter 2 of Part 1 deals with definitions that have a much more limited application—that is, they apply only in England and Wales, and only to provisions deriving from the Charities Act 1993. The different scope of the two chapters is signalled by the chapter titles. Chapter 1 is headed “General” and Chapter 2 is headed “Special provision for this Act”. It is not a drafting improvement to interfere with this structure.
Furthermore, we think it is undesirable to confuse the picture for readers in Scotland and Northern Ireland by injecting into Chapter 1 a definition that concerns the interpretation of provisions that relate only to England and Wales. Chapter 1 affects the law of Scotland and Northern Ireland for certain purposes relating loosely to fiscal matters.
Finally, in our view the amendments would be inconsistent in that they would leave two alternative definitions of “charity” in Chapters 1 and 2. If the two alternative definitions of “charitable purpose” are brought together in the way suggested, it would seem illogical to leave the two definitions of “charity” in separate places.
I am keen that progress on this Bill is not unduly delayed. I therefore ask the noble Lord to accept the assurances that I have offered him. Of course, he will have a further opportunity to debate this matter when the 2006 Act comes under review later in the year. I am sure that my noble friend’s expertise would be very welcome at any further deliberations on the matters of concern that he has raised in his amendments. We are willing to ensure that the underlying issue to which he has helpfully drawn attention is addressed in its proper forum. On that basis, I invite him to withdraw his drafting amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her careful response. I have to say that some of the refinements in her reply will bear a little more scrutiny of Hansard on my part. She made the point about Part 1 and Chapter 1 applying to England and Wales generally, although to Scotland and Northern Ireland to some extent. That point is not apparent at all from the way in which Clause 11 is currently drafted. While I will of course withdraw the amendment tonight, as I told her I would, I would like to engage in further discussion on this issue in the hope that something can be done to improve things before we get to Report. I will just tell the House—because it is another measure of what a nonsense we have got our affairs into—that last year the Finance Act created an entirely new definition of “charitable purposes” with a schedule extending that definition that runs to eight pages. I am afraid that our legal system has burgeoned out of all sense and has become counterproductive. With that vindictive spirit, I withdraw my amendment.
Localism Bill
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hanham
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, in Committee, I gave a commitment to consider the noble Lord’s amendments aimed at removing the Secretary of State’s powers to make regulations prescribing rules and restrictions about the discharge of functions of local authority executives by area committees. I am delighted to say that today we are bringing forward amendments which achieve those aims.
Amendments 120 to 131 and 160 delete in their entirety the Secretary of State’s powers to make regulations in relation to area committees and remove unnecessary conditions, which previously applied to the creation of such committees, including the maximum area that a committee could cover. In future, councils will be free to set up whatever area committees they wish and give them whatever executive functions they consider appropriate without having to rely on regulations made by the Secretary of State. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this is a good deregulationary part of my work. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I very much welcome what my noble friend has said. I shall refer to this a little later when we come to the Amendment 155 group.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness’s acceptance of the concerns that were raised and their reflection in this group of amendments. If we could have similar co-operation over the rest of the Bill, we would be delighted—and surprised.
Baroness Hanham
“(iiia) by an area committee,”
“(aa) by an area committee,”
(a) by an area committee, or(b) ”
(a) by an area committee, or(b) ”
“(5A) Where by virtue of this section any functions may be discharged by an area committee, then, unless the senior executive member otherwise directs, the committee may arrange for the discharge of any of those functions by an officer of the authority.”
““senior executive member” means—(a) in the case of a mayor and cabinet executive, the elected mayor;(b) in the case of a leader and cabinet executive (England), the executive leader.”
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I gave a similar commitment in Committee to consider the amendments which aimed at removing overly prescriptive and complicated arrangements on necessary regulation-making powers in order to simplify and strengthen local government’s scrutiny arrangements. Having considered the issues carefully, including with the Centre for Public Scrutiny, I am pleased to bring forward amendments which achieve a number of these aims.
On the removal of unnecessary restrictions on referral of matters by non-committee members, Amendments 134 to 139 remove prescription about matters which may be referred to a scrutiny committee by councillors who are not members of the scrutiny committee. In future, these councillors will not be restricted to the referral of local government matters only. Instead, they may refer a wider range of matters to scrutiny committees for consideration, thus enhancing their role as advocates of their local communities.
In terms of referral of matters to the scrutiny committee, the amendments broaden the range of issues that can be brought before that committee by non-committee members. It will, of course, remain for the scrutiny committee to decide what course of action is appropriate following any referral, as is the case now.
With regard to local improvement targets and local area agreements, Amendments 140, 142 and 147 remove the link between local government scrutiny and local improvement targets in local area agreements. Partner authorities will be required to have regard to the reports and recommendations of scrutiny committees that relate to any of their functions exercised in relation to the committee’s area or residents of that area. This empowers local authorities to hold partner authorities to account for wider activities they undertake, thus ensuring that local people have a say on matters that affect them.
On the simplification of local government scrutiny arrangements, our remaining Amendments 132, 133, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 148, 149, 150 and 164 place the scrutiny committees of non-unitary district councils into an equivalent position to those of other authorities. They enable scrutiny committees in non-unitary district councils to hold partner authorities to account, and at the same time the amendments greatly simplify the scrutiny provisions and remove delegated powers of the Secretary of State.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that these amendments represent an improvement to the provisions, and will therefore be happy to accept them.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I confess that I find it difficult to keep up with the speed of the amendments, but I will try. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I have misunderstood something. I say again that I welcome the thrust of the amendments in this group. However, I am not clear about Amendment 133, which refers to page 215 of the Bill. It appears to delete a reference to scrutiny of crime and disorder matters. I may be wrong, but as I read it, the amendment takes out the obligation or possibility of an overview and scrutiny committee scrutinising the police. I may have that wrong: it does not sound right as I say it. However, looking at the drafting, I wonder whether the amendment has that effect. New Section 9F states:
“An overview and scrutiny committee of a local authority may not discharge any functions other than … its functions under this section and sections 9FA to 9FJ, … its functions under section 19 of the Police and Justice Act”.
I would like confirmation that it will still be possible to scrutinise such matters.
I presume that the passenger transport authorities that we have just referred to, with their extended powers, would potentially be subject to scrutiny as a local authority partner. If that could be confirmed, I would be delighted and would congratulate the Minister on this group of amendments.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am sure that there is a fantastic explanation for this, but I am bound to say that at the moment I do not have it to hand. I am sure that the intention is to ensure that scrutiny continues, because that is our whole purpose. If I get a note in the coming seconds, I will share it with the noble Lord. If I do not, I will write with the answer and apologise for not being able to respond in person.
Baroness Hanham
(i) the authority’s area, or(ii) the inhabitants of that area.”
(i) the relevant committee is a non-unitary district council committee, or(ii) ”
“non-unitary district council committee” means—
(a) an overview and scrutiny committee of a district council for a district in a county for which there is a county council, or(b) a sub-committee of such a committee,”
“relevant partner authority”, in relation to a relevant committee that is a non-unitary district council committee, means—
(a) the county council for the county concerned, or(b) any person (other than the district council concerned) who is a partner authority in relation to that county council for the purposes of Chapter 1 of Part 5 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, other than a chief officer of police.”
Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the amendment deals with matters affecting a more controversial element of the Bill: namely, the position relating to elected mayors. It deals with the power of the Secretary of State to make various regulations and prescriptions concerning the election of such mayors, to which new Section 9N in the schedule also relates. I note that the Electoral Commission has taken the view that:
“Elections for Mayor are often exciting local affairs, with colourful personalities clashing on issues relevant to their area”.
That is an interesting piece of publicity for the concept, which my noble friend Lord Adonis will undoubtedly confirm. However, there are some reservations, to put it mildly, about the strength of the argument behind it, which suggests that elected mayors are a superior form of local governance calculated to promote greater interest in local democracy and a higher turnout.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham
My Lords, I listened with interest to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I bring before the House an amendment that assumes that there will be a process for elected mayors in the foreseeable future. I was part of a cross-party community group from Birmingham that met the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government last Thursday. We found that our concerns were listened to favourably. They are reflected in the amendment that is before the House this evening. The city of Birmingham is expecting to have a vigorous debate leading up to a referendum in May 2012 on whether to have an elected mayor. As some noble Lords will know, Birmingham has a long tradition of vigorous civic leadership, not least in the past 20 years of the present arrangements. Now, in the largest local authority in the country, in a creative city of many faiths and cultures that trades in a global market, there is a desire for continued and even enhanced strong and vigorous governance.
In the event of a yes vote, Amendment 151C seeks to have an election for mayor as soon as possible after the referendum. There are two benefits of this that we put to the Secretary of State, which we think he heard favourably, especially when there are vital financial, social and cultural decisions to take. First, we seek to minimise the potential paralysis in leadership over many months between a referendum and an election for a mayor, and secondly—which should be of interest to all of us at this stage—we seek to keep the cost of any mayoral election to a minimum. I do not doubt that there are factors about other elections under consideration, but I ask the Minister to respond favourably to this amendment. If Birmingham and other cities in the country say yes to having a mayor, we expect the mayor to be in post without delay and at minimum cost.
Lord Adonis
I strongly support what the right reverend Prelate has just said. In my role as director of the Institute for Government, I joined the cross-party civic delegation from the city of Birmingham that met the Secretary of State last week and raised the issue that the right reverend Prelate has just described about what will happen after the referendum next May if there were to be a positive vote. The view strongly held in the city of Birmingham, and in other cities where the issue of an elected mayor is being debated at the moment, is that it is unacceptable for there to be a full year’s delay between a positive referendum result and the first election of a mayor to take charge of the city’s governance. Essentially, we would have a year of paralysis in which the existing administration would be a lame duck. My noble friend Lord Beecham holds strong views against mayors, but I imagine he will agree that it is not a good idea to leave the government of a great city in a state of limbo for a full 12 months.
The purpose of the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate, to which I put my name, is to encourage the Secretary of State to align the first mayoral election with any other election that may be taking place in those cities between May 2012 and May 2013, which is fully within the discretion that the Secretary of State has to make regulations specifying the date of the first election. Even if there were not to be an election in those cities earlier than May 2013, it may be that there is a case for the first election of the mayor to take place before that date.
The Institute for Government published a report a few weeks ago highlighting the paralysis that would follow a positive election result if no election for the mayor were to take place for a year. In that report, we suggested that the first election for the mayor should take place in September 2012. If there is to be an election for police commissioners across the country in November 2012—a matter to be debated by the House later this week—aligning the first mayoral election with the police commissioner election would make a great deal of sense. It may be that the will of the House and of Parliament will be to move the police commissioner election to a later date. Whatever the date of the first elections to take place in cities with a positive referendum result, the first elections after May 2012 should, by the will of the leaders of those cities, take place a great deal sooner than May 2013, and if it is possible to align them with other elections that would be the best course.
What we are looking for from the noble Baroness is a sympathetic response to the argument for an early mayoral election where there is a positive vote in the referendums next May and any encouragement that she can give to the concept of aligning the first mayoral election with any election that might take place sooner than May 2013. In particular, if police commissioner elections are to take place in autumn 2012, any words of encouragement she can give as to the willingness of the Government to bring forward regulations that would align the first mayoral elections with those police commissioner elections would be very well received in Birmingham and in the other cities where there may be a positive referendum result next May.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for raising these matters. I have an immediate answer to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, about whether the orders would come to Parliament: where there is a proposal for a referendum, that is an affirmative order in Parliament. I think I explained that in Committee. It is Parliament’s decision brought forward at the time of the secondary legislation. Mayors will not be forced on any cities, as I have said on many occasions, but cities will be obliged to take it into consideration in a referendum and those will all come to Parliament.
Amendment 151A seeks to take away the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations setting the date of elections for, and the terms of office of, elected mayors. As the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham have said, Amendment 151C seeks to provide that any first mayoral elections shall take place no later than the first date of elections in the area. As the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, explained, that would be any election that was likely to take place after a referendum on 15 November 2012.
As I have explained previously, the regulating power would allow for an earlier first election than May 2013. Such an approach would be in line with previous practice, where first elections for mayors have on occasion taken place in October, before reverting to the usual May cycle. I know the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, have had discussions with the Secretary of State about this. The most encouraging I can be is to say that the issue is well understood; no decisions have yet been taken on it but we are due to produce secondary legislation before the end of the year and decisions will be taken before then. I am sure the noble Lords will be involved in some of the discussions on that. I cannot give a firm commitment at the moment that that will happen but, as I say, there is a very clear understanding of the proposals made and the reasons and rationale behind them.
Those were not very long answers but they were not very long amendments. I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments in the light of my response.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her assurance that parliamentary approval will be required before designating any authority to have a referendum. However, I am surprised and disappointed that it should be thought necessary for the Secretary of State to prescribe a referendum when it is evident from the absence of any requisition by a mere 5 per cent of the electorate that there is any such interest from the local community to start with.
Moving on to the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate and supported by my noble friend, I find it surprising that it should be thought that paralysis would ensue if there was a delay of a year between the referendum and a subsequent mayoral election. It could even have been argued that it would have been better to have followed the precedent of the 1973 local government reorganisation, when a shadow authority was elected and did not actually take office for a year. That actually gave the incoming authority time, on new boundaries and all the rest of it, to assimilate the problems of the area and develop an appropriate response, changing structures and the like. To suggest that it is essential to move straight into the position where the nature of the authority changes during the year strikes me as illogical, potentially disruptive and damaging, and in fact onerous for the newly elected incumbent, should there be any newly elected incumbents to that position. He or she would be entering into office half way through the year, unable to do very much at all about the existing budget, and contending with structures that would be difficult to rearrange in a short time.
Moreover, in terms of cost, surely it would be less expensive to have an election coinciding with the normal municipal election in the following year. I quite take the point made by the noble Baroness that there have been some instances of mid-year referendums, but if one is looking at the issue of cost it is, I should have thought, clearer that there would be a cost saving to have them at the same time as the local election. Indeed, that point has been made for us, conveniently, in connection with the debate over the timing of the elections for police commissioners, if indeed we are to have those.
Lord Adonis
Is my noble friend aware that in only one of the cities in which referendums are going to be held next May will there be a municipal election in 2013? In all of the other cities there would need to be a special election held in May 2013 if the election of the mayor were to take place anyway. I assume that my noble friend does not think that paralysis is an issue. I do not understand the read-across with shadow authorities at all—a shadow authority has been created, whereas the mayor by definition has not been elected, so that point does not hold. I assume that my noble friend, in his antipathy to mayors, does not think that it is a good idea to delay by a full two years the interval between a positive referendum result and the first election of a mayor.
Lord Beecham
I am certainly tempted to think so, but I will resist the temptation. In any event, what would be the worst thing of all, I suspect, is the coincidence of a police commissioner election and a mayoral election. We would then have two elections which would be, and I quote again,
“exciting local affairs, with colourful personalities”,
with one running for mayor and one running for police commissioner, and, quite conceivably, on conflicting manifestos. I think that that would be an absolute recipe for confusion and the worst of all possible worlds. We will revert, no doubt in a couple of days, to the issue of the timing of any police commissioner elections, but if the current intention of the Government is to proceed in November, then I think that that makes the proposition advanced by the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend quite difficult and untenable. I hope that the Government will think again, or think further, about the proposition that has been put to them, and will in particular avoid that coincidence.
For myself, I think the shadow proposition would actually be better, but of course there is not an amendment to that effect, so I cannot very well move it. I think the worst of all possible worlds would be police commissioner elections and mayoral elections in however many authorities there will be—there are 11 authorities coming forward. So I hope that the Government will, on this occasion, prove unbending. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am giving prezzies all through this part of the Bill. I cannot believe it. It seems an unusual situation, which is why I am commenting. In Committee, my noble friends Lord Tope and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill tabled amendments aimed at removing any delay between the time a local authority resolves to change its governance arrangements and the implementation of that change. During the debate, I stated that I had some sympathy with the points raised by noble Lords, particularly about the time that has to elapse before changes in governance arrangements can be implemented.
Having taken this matter further, I am happy to tell noble Lords that Amendments 152 to 154 build on their amendments to deliver the desired effect. In essence, these amendments provide that, after a passing of a resolution to change governance arrangements, a local authority can make that change, in the case of moving to the mayoral model, three days after the election of the first mayor; in the case of moving from the mayoral model, three days after the end of the term of office of the serving mayor; and, in all other circumstances, including moving to the committee system, at the first annual meeting after the resolution or such other later annual meeting specified by the local authority itself in its resolution to change governance arrangements. Local authorities therefore will be able to resolve at any time to change their governance arrangements and implement those changes without any unnecessary delay and at a time that best suits their circumstances.
In Committee, there were clearly concerns that there was a hiatus between a proposal put forward for new governance and its being able to be implemented. It seemed quite a long time, so we have taken account of that and I hope the amendments make it clear that there need not be any delay. I beg to move.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I thank the Minister for expressing her sympathy for what we were saying so well tonight. We of course welcome these amendments. I had the distinct impression that because of this not being perhaps a major part of the Bill, the Government had not properly taken account of the effect that if those councils which wished to change their governance arrangements now, as soon as they are able to under this Bill, had whole council elections, as we have in London and a number of other parts of the country, they would be waiting until after 2014 to be able to make the changes. Those councils which had whole-council elections this year would have to wait another four years to do it. That made no sense so I am pleased that the Minister recognised that and I welcome these amendments.
The amendments will be particularly welcome in a number of councils—certainly ones in London that I know of—which have, in effect, already changed their governance arrangements but hold meetings of the executive after the committee meetings. The meeting of the executive lasts for five minutes and agrees with every decision just taken by the committee. That is the procedure they use in order to get around the system as it is at the moment. It would clearly be even more of a nonsense if that sort of thing were to carry on for another two or three years. I welcome these amendments very much and I know that they will be welcomed in a number of councils, including my own, which are intending to make these changes as soon as the law permits.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the ingenuity of the noble Lord’s colleagues defies description. I certainly welcome this sensible amendment. However, it is timely to say a word in favour of the leader and executive model and, in particular, to draw attention to the one part of the recent publication by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, with which I agree. In relation to elected mayors, the paper makes a strong point. I told him that I agreed with something he had written and he was surprised. The relevant part is the emphasis that he makes about the need for a strong and independent scrutiny function, with which I entirely agree under whatever system is operated—be it mayoral, leader and executive or a straight committee system.
There are those who are still in love with the old-style committee system; the notion that you have a collection of Socratic city elders engaged in philosophical dialogue about the affairs of state in a particular borough or authority. I am bound to say that that does not accord with my own experience, particularly after serving for many years as chairman of committees, leader of the council, and so on.
When I departed to the Siberian power station of the arts and recreation committee, having given up the leadership and any other executive position—by choice I may say; it was self-imposed exile—I discovered that as a back-bench member of the traditional committee system one’s influence was pretty limited. When you are in the chair you can move things on quite briskly: you have an agenda and you get it through. When you are a back-bench member you usually have a political group meeting beforehand. It may last about an hour and there are 12 or 15 of you, which gives an average of four or five minutes each. The point of the formal meeting is to get it over with as quickly as possible. In reality, very little of the purported scrutiny takes place in the traditional committee system nor is there very much influence over policy.
That was summarised for me most effectively one day—I hope your Lordships will forgive this brief anecdote. I had missed a committee meeting of the arts and recreation committee but went to the next one. I read the minutes, which said that a member had raised a question about birds eating the grass seed in the Leazes Park allotments. I thought to myself, “Has it really come to this?”. We had an £800 million budget, with goodness knows how many problems and opportunities to debate, and the most the member could think of to raise at a committee meeting was birds eating grass seed at an allotment. I do not say that that entirely characterises the committee system, but there is some danger of that happening.
The main thrust of my, perhaps somewhat tedious, observations is to recommend that, whatever the circumstances, there must be a strong and independently sourced scrutiny role, not only to hold the executive to account, because perhaps too much of scrutiny has been based on a retrospective look at the actions of an executive, but to look forward, and, as it should be, in an unwhipped forum, at policy, development and so on. That is not incompatible with a committee system, but in reality, in my experience, it rarely took place that way. It needs a push for strong scrutiny and I hope that irrespective of the provisions of the Bill, the Government will encourage authorities to maintain and enhance that scrutiny role, whatever type of authority they are and whatever model of governance they adopt. I certainly would not oppose these amendments to give councils the option to choose their own system.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, my noble friend, who I understand has executive responsibility for grass seed in the London Borough of Sutton, along with allotments and other matters, would have wanted to have come back to say that these amendments are not about the merits of any particular system, but about local decisions about what is appropriate for each local authority.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, would agree that scrutiny is a developing art rather than a science, and that the experience of different systems over the past 10 years has contributed to an extension of that expertise.
This is not much of an anecdote I am afraid, but my first experience of scrutiny was as a member of what we then called the performance review committee, which was formed largely to respond to what the Audit Commission had to say about what was going on in the authority. My goodness, things have moved a long way since then. I agree with the noble Lord that if scrutiny is to be good, it needs to be much more constructive than simply looking back and commenting on decisions and actions that have been taken.
I do not think that what underlies these amendments needs in any way threaten the development of scrutiny. Further, I should declare an interest as a member of the advisory board at the Centre for Public Scrutiny. It will be interesting to see how the art of scrutiny develops further under another mix of arrangements across authorities.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I was fascinated by the ruminations of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, on the committee system. He had some lovely anecdotes and we enjoyed them enormously. The fact is that whether or not the noble Lord likes the committee system, it is now going to be part of the governance arrangements that local councils can decide to use. The important aspect of the amendment is to ensure that there is no hiatus in any change of governance and that it can be implemented immediately. We all know what happens when there is a gap and you have to wait a long time to implement another stage.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Hamwee about scrutiny. Nothing in these arrangements would stop a local authority from having scrutiny committees. If it has a committee system, it can have a scrutiny system running alongside those arrangements. Nothing here would put those arrangements under threat. In broad terms, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, may have supported these amendments, although he did have a little beef, to which we all listened with great interest, about the committee system. I beg leave to—
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, perhaps we could reconsider government Amendment 152.
Baroness Hanham
“(3) Subject to subsection (2) and section 9MB(2), the local authority may take steps for the purposes of preparing for the change or implementing it (including steps relating to transitional arrangements).
(4) If the local authority is not currently operating a mayor and cabinet executive and the change does not provide for the local authority to operate a mayor and cabinet executive, a “relevant change time” for the purposes of subsection (2) is a time during—
(a) the first annual meeting of the local authority to be held after the resolution to make the change in governance arrangements is passed, or(b) a later annual meeting of the local authority specified in that resolution.(5) If the local authority is not currently operating a mayor and cabinet executive and the change provides for the local authority to operate a mayor and cabinet executive, a “relevant change time” for the purposes of subsection (2) is—
(a) a time during the third day after the day of the declaration of the result of the poll at the first election of the mayor, or(b) if a person is returned as the mayor at that first election without a poll being taken, a time during the third day after the day on which a poll would have been taken.(6) If the local authority is currently operating a mayor and cabinet executive and the change provides for the local authority to cease to operate a mayor and cabinet executive, a “relevant change time” for the purposes of subsection (2) is a time during the third day after”
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, noble Lords may recollect that on several occasions during the Committee stage I was moved to criticise and protest about the mass of detailed prescriptive measures in the Bill, with the prospect of more to come through the battery of regulations that are foreshadowed in the legislation. My main point can be stated very simply: at the centre of Part 1 is the welcome provision that gives local authorities a general power of competence. Whereas in the past they could do only what statute allowed them to do, now they will have the same competence as individuals. In other words, at a stroke local authorities can cast off the shackles of government control. Yet at almost every point in this Bill, in every part and schedule, there are pages and pages of directions going into the minutest detail of how local authorities must implement these provisions.
As I pondered this my mind went back to what is, I am afraid, another anecdote in the form of an old political joke. A communist orator was haranguing the crowd saying, “It’s the rich who have their dinners at the Ritz hotel and the poor have to go to Smokey Joe’s. But when the red revolution comes and you get your freedom, it will be the rich who will have to go to Smokey Joe’s and you’ll be able to eat your dinner in the Ritz”. The little man at the back put up his hand and said, “I’d rather go to Smokey Joe’s”. The orator said, “When the red revolution comes and you get your freedom, you’ll damn well do what you’re told”.
The local authorities associations have made it very clear that they dislike being told how to do things. They dislike being told how to write letters, how to conduct referendums, how to co-operate and much else besides. I voiced their dissatisfaction and I was not alone. In all parts of the House, noble Lords supported my protests, and at times I became quite heated.
My noble friend Lord Tope, who is very experienced in these matters, noted that there has been a culture in Whitehall whereby they feel they have a duty to tell local authorities how to carry out their functions. However, he also noted that the local authorities themselves have absorbed that culture to the extent that they now expect to be told how to do things. My noble friend on the Front Bench has already indicated some movement in this and we are very grateful.
Before the Recess, I sought out my right honourable friend Greg Clark, the Minister of State in charge of the Bill. He agreed to meet me with a deputation from the Local Government Association and London Councils. At that meeting, which happened a few days after the start of the Recess, we set out our concerns and provided him with a long list of detailed provisions, which we believed could be dropped without affecting the purposes of the Bill.
After discussion, the Minister agreed. He agreed that his officials and those of the associations should get together during the Recess with a view to agreeing what might be dropped. Last week I was sent a long letter from the department setting out the amendments whose purpose Ministers were minded to accept, others which they were reluctant to accept, and some where decisions still have to be made. It was not everything but it is a very good start. I expressed my pleasure both to the officials and to the Minister.
The House has already welcomed Amendments 120 to 131 removing the powers to make regulations in respect to area committees and conditions which apply to the creation of such committees. We have also just accepted Amendments 132 to 150, substantially simplifying the scrutiny provisions, and these certainly stemmed from the discussions.
I am told other amendments will be tabled about the frequency and conduct of referendums. We will also come to the amendments on the right to challenge, Amendments 197E to 197G, where there is to be guidance instead of statutory prescription. There are also amendments on the community right to buy, Amendments 203, 203B and 203C.
These are a very welcome start and there is the prospect of more to come, especially on planning. Some of my amendments in the group, led by Amendment 155, have been dealt with, and I warmly welcome the government amendments in the group.
I end by picking out two of my amendments—it would be tedious to go through the lot—that have not been accepted so far. They are Amendments 158 and 159 on referendums, and Amendment 204 on the duty to co-operate. On referendums, there are two distinct issues: first, when and in what circumstances a referendum should be held; and, secondly, how they should be conducted. On the first issue, it would seem sensible to deal with that on each occasion that it comes up in the Bill, because they may differ from case to case. On the second issue, however, it really is necessary to stop telling local authorities how to suck eggs. They have great experience in running referendums and they should be trusted to do that properly, not have to be told how to do it.
Amendment 204 refers to the duty to co-operate set out in Clause 98. I really do not believe that local authorities need to be told how to co-operate. They, after all, have been co-operating with each other for a very long time and it is an impertinence to have to spell out in the Bill how they are supposed to do it. They are well accustomed to doing it and they should be trusted. I hope that my noble friend may be able to comment on both the referendums and the duty to co-operate.
I referred at the beginning of my speech to the culture—perhaps it might be better called a mindset—whereby Whitehall feels that it has to tell local authorities how to conduct their functions, while the local authorities expect to be told. If the general power of competence is to mean anything in practice, that culture—that mindset—has to be changed. The best way to start changing it is to stop doing it. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, unless the Minister is about to move the government amendments—I was wondering whether she was going to do that—perhaps I should keep going.
Baroness Hanham
Perhaps I will move those amendments—that is, I will speak to them. I am constantly being reminded about that, and quite rightly too. They are Amendments 156, 157 and 162. In Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has reiterated, there are a number of provisions in Schedule 2 to the Bill which noble Lords considered were either overly prescriptive or unnecessary. While I have not been able to act on all of their concerns, Amendments 156 and 157 remove provisions in relation to the actions a local authority must take following a referendum about a change in governance model. I hope that that will be another of the deregulatory ways that we deal with today.
In doing so, these amendments put beyond any doubt that local authorities must act in accordance with the wishes of local people as expressed at a referendum. In light of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s comments we have also tabled Amendment 162, which provides that regulations made under Section 9MG in relation to the conduct of governance referendums will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I was intending to comment on only one of the noble Lord’s amendments. I agree very much with the thrust of his comments but I would simply take up with him whether at this point we should be dealing with Clause 98. I am concerned about applying the general points that he has made at this stage to a very contentious part of the Bill. As he said, Amendment 204 would delete the provision for statutory guidance about the duty to co-operate, which is, in full, a:
“Duty to co-operate in relation to planning of sustainable development”.
One would have had to be in a very faraway country to be unaware of how contentious “sustainable development” and its application have become—interestingly, led by the Daily Telegraph—over the last two or three weeks.
I find it difficult to make a judgment about the need or otherwise and the desirability or otherwise of statutory guidance without debating the substantive duty. I have always had a concern about legislation purporting to tell local authorities how to co-operate—I share that very much with my noble friend—but without discussing the whole substantive provision, I find it difficult to come to a view as to whether or not statutory guidance is desirable. It is very difficult to take this proposition along with the others and, as I say, I very much agree with the points that he has made where they arise in other parts of the Bill.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on this point. Your Lordships’ House should give the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, great thanks for the diligence with which he has pursued this issue right from the start of the Bill. He has been consistent in challenging the unnecessary powers that have littered the Bill and, going through the list before us tonight, I do not have any problem with the amendments, with the possible exception of Amendment 204. As the noble Baroness says, planning has become, almost overnight, incredibly contentious. We are not now going to reach the substantive provisions until October and I think that it would be better to view them in the round and as a whole. It would be quite difficult to see the lack of guidance somewhere in the system relating to the duty to co-operate. It is a departure and a new issue in planning. It is the replacement of regional planning. It is very important that we get it right.
I accept the noble Lord’s point that when an individual authority is going to consult it does not need guidance on that. Local authorities are well experienced in doing that, but this is guidance in the context of some new planning requirements and it would be premature to do away with the prospect of government having some guidance on the generality; not just bilateral consultations and relationships between authorities, but multilaterally and where the sub-region fits. The guidance that might flow from this could be really helpful in that regard.
I do not wish to detract from the fantastic job the noble Lord has done in leading the charge on these issues. That is the only issue I take with the list that is before us.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, on his numerous amendments, particularly those he has moved this evening, with the possible exception—I agree with my noble friend Lord McKenzie—of Amendment 204. It is not that I wish to see detailed prescription about how the duty to co-operate should be exercised. My concern has been about what will happen in the event that local authorities do not co-operate. I have voiced that concern on previous occasions. There are cases where there are difficulties on land allocation for housing and that kind of issue where there needs to be some mechanism to resolve a dispute or to be available when co-operation is not forthcoming. That apart, I certainly endorse the noble Lord’s view about the highly detailed prescription around referendums. Indeed, one could go further. I notice in new Section 9MC, for example, that regulations include,
“the manner in which a petition is to be presented to a local authority”.
That is presumably on one knee, held up on a cushion or something. It is bizarre. There is far too much of all that.
I also cannot understand how anyone can believe that a change of governance in the town hall is going to excite the local electorate. It is just arguable that the mayoral referendum might, although as I indicated, turnouts would not suggest a huge demand. But if an authority chose to go from a committee system to a leader and executive system, I do not think that that would be much argued about and discussed in heated fashion in the ward that I represent, the one represented by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, or frankly anywhere.
This whole referendum process, which we will debate in a different context later on, is going too far. It may be that the Secretary of State now fancies himself as Napoleon III—possibly not. But it is too easy a device to resort to. God help us if we have a series of referendums about this at great cost with very little participation. It is the wrong mechanism. Councils should be trusted in ordinary circumstances—I take the point about a change to the mayoral system—to come to their own conclusions about the form of governance. It is not a matter about which the electorate is in the least concerned. If people were, they could exercise their views at the ballot box in the ordinary way.
I am very much in sympathy with the noble Lord’s amendments and when we return to referendums in a different context later I hope that there will be some cross-party support. I agree with my noble friend Lord McKenzie that we need to look again at the issue of the duty to co-operate, which is in a different category.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, again we are having a major discussion on the amount of regulation in the Bill and the amount that we can try to remove as time goes on. My noble friend Lord Jenkin has been very clear all the way through that he thinks that there is too much prescription within the legislation. Sometimes I have agreed with him as in the area committees on which we have removed all the regulation today and sometimes we believe that there is a rationale for that amount of detail in the Bill. Some of what I will say falls along those lines. Where we have been able to take parts out as in my previous amendments we have done so, but there are still areas where—I hate to disagree with my noble friend Lord Jenkin—we are not quite on the same track.
I will briefly go through the amendments that my noble friend has tabled and give my reasons why we may not be able to accept them. Amendment 155 deletes new Sections 9MD and 9ME from Schedule 2 to the Bill. These new sections replicate the safeguards which the previous Government sought to establish and which this House approved, so I hope that we will have support from noble Lords opposite. They enable the Secretary of State to ensure that local people can have their say on governance arrangements if needed—for example, in cases where referendums have not been held when required or where unreasonable arrangements or timeframes are being proposed.
It could be argued that these powers are not necessary given the provisions in new Section 9N, but we do not believe that to be the case. Orders under that new section can require only a mayoral referendum and not referendums on any other form of governance—unlike the provisions in new Sections 9MD and 9ME.
Amendments 158 and 159 would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to make regulations about the conduct of governance referendums. As I have tried to explain, I have listened carefully during the course of our proceedings to concerns about the amount of delegated powers, but I am afraid that I am not going to be able to agree with the amendments. As with many provisions in Schedule 2 to the Bill, the power in new Section 9MG to make provision about the conduct of local governance referendums replicates an existing power in the Local Government Act 2000. Regulations were last made under the 2000 Act in 2007. Our broad intention is to replicate these regulations when bringing forward new secondary legislation under this provision in the Bill. The current regulations cover all aspects of organising and conducting polls at governance referendums, including the opening hours of polling stations and the content of ballot papers, ensuring polls are held in accordance with the practices for an election.
Given the importance of the referendum’s subject matter and the fact that the result will be binding on the council concerned, I think that not only are these regulations needed but that the level of detail about the procedure to be followed is appropriate. It is vital for local people to be assured that robust, fair, open and consistent arrangements are put in place for governance referendums in order for them to feel that their vote will count.
Should noble Lords accept our Amendment 162, regulations made under new Section 9MG will be subject to affirmative resolution procedure. Accordingly, I hope that noble Lords will have the opportunity to debate and consider the content of the regulations before they are made.
Amendment 159A seeks to delete the Secretary of State’s power in new Section 9N to make an order requiring specified local authorities to hold a mayoral referendum. This power is central to delivering the coalition agreement commitment to create directly elected mayors in the 12 largest cities in England, subject to confirmatory referendums. The power in new Section 9N to provide for mayoral referendums in our largest cities does just that, and nothing more. It will allow for local people to make their choice at a referendum, and in those cities where there are votes in favour of the mayoral model, for the city to be governed by an elected mayor.
Amendment 204 would remove the requirement—the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, touched on this—for bodies subject to the duty to co-operate to,
“have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State about how the duty is to be complied with”.
The duty to co-operate signals a significant change in the way that strategic planning will happen. There are conflicting views on whether the duty to co-operate will be overly prescriptive—the point my noble friend Lord Jenkin was making—or too flexible. Indeed, we have been criticised by some in the House for the lack of prescription in our approach to strategic planning and have debated amendments to define the outputs, process and boundaries to be used by local councils. We consider that strategic planning needs to be a flexible process that allows councils to decide how best to serve their local communities, businesses and interested parties and we continue to reject prescriptive approaches. A duty to co-operate is intended to drive a culture change and new spirit of partnership working in the ways that councils and other public bodies work on strategic planning matters. It will be vital that councils and their partners rise to the challenge. Any guidance issued will be light touch rather than prescriptive, will focus on ensuring the efficient introduction of new policies and will be produced in consultation. In the light of the explanation I have given, I hope that my noble friend will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, when I tabled these amendments the purpose was to have a debate of exactly the kind which we have just had. I am sorry that it has come fairly late in today’s proceedings but I am immensely grateful to those in all parts of the House who have recognised that there is an issue here which had to be addressed—and it is being addressed. Noble Lords have said kind things about me but Greg Clark responded immensely positively to the approach which I made. Officials in the department and in the local authority associations have worked very hard to do this.
As regards what amendments should go into the group, I tabled a lot of the amendments and asked the Government Whips Office to put them all together so that we could have a debate. Of course, we will come back to some of these issues at a later stage. I think both the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and my noble friend have indicated that there are issues to which we shall need to come back. As I understand our rules, when we get to Amendment 204, it is perfectly possible for anybody to move it and speak to it. The fact that it has appeared in an earlier group is not an absolute bar. However, in the light of the publication of the framework planning policy paper, we may well look at some of these issues. As the noble Lord has said, that will be in October on the last two days of our Report proceedings.
I take the point that some of these amendments may well merit considerably longer debate than we have had today. However, I think that the purpose of this debate has been served. I think that Ministers in my noble friend’s department have recognised that the Bill’s drafting has gone through the other place apparently without much being said about this. We started the argument in Committee here and it has now been accepted that this is not the appropriate way for the Government to treat local authorities these days, particularly in the light of the general power of competence. Nevertheless, there will be other opportunities to come back to some of these issues, and I hope that those opportunities will be taken. I cannot say that the Bill is going to get any shorter, because in the course of the proceedings of the last two days in Committee we have added a great deal to it, but those measures have been welcomed in all parts of the House.
I hope that we have now started the process of trying to dismantle this mindset of local authorities having to be told how to do their job. They are responsible, elected bodies, and if they are going to have a general power of competence, let them get on with it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
(a) for “regulations made under section 18” substitute “section 9E(2)(b)(iiia), (3)(aa), (4)(a) or (5)(a)”, and(b) after “Act 2000” insert “or under regulations made under section 18 of that Act”.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Baroness Hanham
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
“Timetables for changing English district councils’ electoral schemes
(1) The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 is amended as follows.
(2) Omit the following provisions (which provide that councils may pass resolutions to change their electoral schemes only in certain permitted periods)—
(a) section 33(4), (6) and (7) (district councils changing to whole-council elections),(b) section 38(4), (6) and (7) (non-metropolitan district councils reverting to elections by halves), and(c) section 40(4), (6) and (7) (district councils reverting to elections by thirds).(3) In section 33 (resolution for whole-council elections: requirements) after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) The resolution must specify the year for the first ordinary elections of the council at which all councillors are to be elected.
(3B) In the case of a district council for a district in a county for which there is a county council, the year specified under subsection (3A) may not be a county-council-elections year; and here “county-council-elections year” means 2013 and every fourth year afterwards.”
(4) In section 34(2) (years in which whole-council elections to a district council are to be held if scheme under section 34 applies) for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute—
“(a) the year specified under section 33(3A) in the resolution, and(b) every fourth year afterwards.”(5) In section 34 (scheme for whole-council elections) after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) Ordinary elections of councillors of the council under the previous electoral scheme are to be held in accordance with that scheme in any year that—
(a) is earlier than the year specified under section 33(3A) in the resolution for whole-council elections, and(b) is a year in which, under the previous electoral scheme, ordinary elections of councillors of the council are due to be held.(4B) In subsection (4A) “the previous electoral scheme” means the scheme for the ordinary elections of councillors of the council that applied to it immediately before it passed the resolution for whole-council elections.”
(6) After section 31 insert—
“31A Minimum period between resolutions to change electoral schemes
If a council passes a resolution under section 32, 37 or 39 (“the earlier resolution”) it may not pass another resolution under any of those sections before the end of five years beginning with the day on which the earlier resolution is passed.”(7) In section 57 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (requests for review of single-member electoral areas by councils subject to a scheme for whole-council elections) after subsection (4) (meaning of “subject to a scheme for whole-council elections”) insert—
“(4A) A district council is also “subject to a scheme for whole-council elections” for those purposes if—
(a) section 34 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (scheme for whole-council elections) applies to the council, but(b) by virtue of subsection (4A) of that section (temporary continuation of previous electoral scheme), not all the members of the council are to be elected in a year in which ordinary elections of members of the council are to be held.””
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we have already removed restrictions which applied to local authorities when they are deciding to change their governance arrangements. We have debated those this evening. Amendment 165 seeks to remove further prescription and restrictions imposed by the previous Government on local authorities in relation to changing their scheme of elections. Amendment 165 inserts a new clause into the Bill that removes in their entirety the current rules that stipulate that district councils may only resolve to change their scheme of elections during permitted periods. Permitted periods would last just over six months and occur only every four years.
We believe that local authorities should be free to make such decisions at a time that is right for them and their local communities, not during a time period dictated to them by central government. Accordingly, this amendment provides that in the future district councils in England that wish to change their scheme of elections will be able to resolve to do so at any time and will be able to specify the date on which they will hold their first whole council elections. In order to prevent local authorities from repeatedly changing their electoral schemes, and the uncertainty and disruption this may bring, Amendment 165 provides that, once a local authority has resolved to change its scheme of elections, it may not make another such resolution for a period of five years.
The current position, where district councils in two-tier areas are prevented from holding elections in the same year as the county council—that is in the fallow year—is also maintained. This is to ensure that there is clarity among local people about the role and functions of different tiers of local government in their area and to avoid voter confusion. In an area where there is no county council, no such restrictions on the date of the first whole-council election will apply. The decision will be entirely for the council concerned. Amendment 244 makes consequential amendments to the 2007 Act.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“( ) The provisions of this section are without prejudice to the general obligation of a decision-maker to maintain an open mind in considering the issues relevant to the decision.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 165B. The purpose of Amendment 165A is to clarify whether the provisions of Clause 14 change the basic position that, in exercising discretion in making decisions, a councillor must not have a closed mind. This is especially relevant to, but not limited to, matters of planning. It is understood that the purpose of Clause 14 is to seek to clarify the position of councillors who, despite guidance from the Standards Board—which will now disappear—have considered themselves constrained in offering views on matters for fear of invalidating a decision or themselves being subject to challenge.
There has been a series of legal decisions which have sought to draw the line between legitimate predisposition and unlawful predetermination. The courts have accepted that councillors are likely to have, and indeed are entitled to have, a disposition in favour of a particular decision. An open mind is not an empty mind; it is ajar. Contrast that predisposition with circumstances where a person has closed their mind to all considerations other than an already held view—predetermination. The courts have recognised two types of predetermination: actual predetermination and apparent predetermination. The latter, apparent predetermination, is where a fair-minded and well informed observer, looking objectively at all circumstances, considers that there is a real risk that one or more of the decision-makers has refused even to consider a relevant argument. These matters have previously been commented on also by the Standards Board for England, including how the code might be impacted. Obviously, this all falls by the wayside subject to the outcomes of deliberations that we may have on this issue in due course.
When we debated this in Committee, we took it that Clause 14 was not intended to change the law and that decision-makers remain required to maintain an open mind in considering views relevant to a decision. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that that is the Government’s position. This is what Amendment 165A seeks to put on the face of the Bill. Assuming we are at one on this issue, what is the position on apparent predetermination? It would seem that Clause 14 changes the law because it precludes a fair-minded, well informed observer from looking objectively at all the circumstances. So can the Minister say what type of evidence would be taken into account when determining whether a person had a closed mind?
We do not oppose provisions which seek to enshrine in primary legislation the protections for councillors associated with predisposition—if the noble Lord, Lord Newton, were here, I would say that we accept the Lady Newton test in that regard—and we remain unconvinced that in doing so the Government have not opened the door to undermining the protections of probity long afforded by the concept of predetermination. Of course, this is happening when the Standards Board for England is disappearing from the scene.
In view of the uncertainty created by what is happening, Amendment 16 simply calls for the Secretary of State to review the consequences of this clause and to report to Parliament within three years. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 165A. I share the concerns that have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton. This is not the ideal time of day to discuss the intricacies of local government law, but there are three points that I want to make.
First, existing case law makes it very clear, and rightly so, that in the context of local government, a predisposition to decide an issue in a particular way is lawful. There is nothing unlawful in a councillor saying to constituents that he or she agrees with or disagrees with a planning proposal, and is minded to support it, or indeed oppose it, in the planning committee, provided that the councillor adds that he cannot commit himself and that he must consider all the points that are raised before he decides how to vote.
What is unlawful is for the councillor to have or give the appearance of having a closed mind. That is predetermination of the matter, such that he or she will not listen to the arguments that are advanced in favour of or against the planning or other proposal put before the council. The Court of Appeal set out these basic principles very clearly indeed, in 2008, in the case of the Queen on the application of Lewis v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council [2009], Volume 1 of the Weekly Law Reports, 83.
Lord Justice Rix stated at paragraph 94 to 96—and the other two judges adopted the same approach—that local councillors who are deciding a planning matter, or any other matter, are not required to be impartial in the sense required of a judge. The law as it is recognises that local councillors have political allegiances, that they have politics, and that their politics involve the adoption of policies. There is nothing wrong with that, and it is highly desirable that it remain the case, so long as there is no closing of the mind before the planning or other committee decision and the vote. The law strikes the right balance.
Secondly, although I think the law has the balance correct at the moment, I have no objection to legislation setting out this position and clarifying the matter, removing any doubt. However, it is vital that the legislation must get the balance right. My concern is that Clause 14 as currently drafted does not make it clear that although predisposition is permissible—indeed, may be desirable—predetermination is not permissible. Clause 14(2) is too broadly drafted.
Suppose the councillor says publicly, a month before a controversial planning application is considered by the planning committee, “I am going to vote against the proposal for the bail hostel. I was elected on a platform to oppose this planning development, and I am simply not interested in the arguments that may be advanced in favour of this proposal.” That would be a clear case of predetermination. Clause 14(2) would appear to make such a statement irrelevant in law. If we enact this legislation in this current form, such statements would be said to be, for the purposes of Clause 14(2)(a), something previously done by the decision-maker which,
“directly or indirectly indicated what view the decision-maker took, or would or might take, in relation to a matter”.
I hope that Clause 14 is not intended to exclude reliance in court on such a statement as evidence of impermissible predetermination. If it were intended to have that effect, it would be a substantial change in existing law and would be very much a change for the worse, because it would allow councillors to predetermine issues.
My third point, therefore, is that Clause 14 needs revision to tighten the language and avoid the ambiguity that I have indicated. There are various ways in which this could be done. One is by Amendment 165A. I hope very much that the Minister—I think that it is the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who will be responding—will tell the House that he will take this matter away and will, with his officials, give further consideration to this important question before Third Reading.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the word that I stumbled over when I first read Clause 14(2) was “just”. Not justice, which of course is important, but “just because”, which is not the sort of language that one normally sees in legislation. However, since the noble Lord has spoken, and having heard what he said, which I found extremely helpful, the word that now concerns me is “might”. Clause 14(2)(a) refers to a view that a decision-maker,
“took, or would or might take”.
How does “might” stand in the context of the distinction between predisposition and predetermination? I am far more confused than I was 10 minutes ago.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord McKenzie—especially the second amendment in the group. We are entering difficult territory, as outlined clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. At the very least, given the potential difficulties that might arise from a change, there ought to be a proper, evidence-based review, and three years should be sufficient for that. There are clear dangers in the way that the clause is drafted, and we cannot overlook the political background to its production. Its provenance lies in political debate, with those on one side claiming that it is improper to prevent councillors campaigning on issues and then voting on them. Of course, that is perfectly legitimate in the context of any council policy such as education, social care or whatever: but not in a situation that is quasi-judicial, which is how planning and licensing decisions should be taken.
I am afraid that the rather loose terminology deployed on political platforms colours one’s view of the potential impact of the proposal in Clause 14. It also raises the possibility of undue pressure being applied to elected members who will no longer have the defence that, “I must not indicate how I am going to vote because I am obliged to look at all sides of the case”. That might be regarded as being swept away. I am not saying that it is the intention of the clause to sweep it away, but that inference might be drawn by those seeking to solicit the support of members. One must not assume that that solicitation will always be on the part of electors. It may be on the part of those on the other side of the proposal: namely, the developers. It is invidious to place members in that position. They need the protection of the kind of approach that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has enunciated.
I hope that the Minister will look again at this, particularly at Amendment 165A, and whether that can be deployed to mitigate the impact of Clause 14. In any event, however, I hope he would accept, or just consider accepting, Amendment 165B, which would allow the situation to be reviewed in this rather delicate area on the basis of evidence rather than surmise. We are looking, at this late hour, for some commitment to think again and talk again about this in order to avoid potential future difficulties for elected members and officers of the council as well. It would also provide clarity for public applicants and objectors alike.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Nobody will deny that this is a complex area. Previous position and predetermination can meld into a situation where drafting legislation can be difficult. I want to reassure noble Lords on what Clause 14 is about and what it is not about. The provision in the Bill does not have any effect on the legal effects of a local authority member being predetermined. The legal position is, and will remain, that a local authority member making a decision should have an open mind. Whatever he or she may have said about the way they were going to vote or whatever campaigns there were, we are in practical politics and we know that people will campaign on issues. The clear point of focus of any legislation and the law, currently and as a result of Clause 14, is that the decision should be made with an open mind.
I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is one of the most eminent lawyers in the House, and I say that knowing there are many eminent lawyers in this House. However, I hope he will agree—I think he does, along with the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie—that the courts have been very sensible in recognising that politicians hold views and there is nothing wrong with them holding views. The way we drafted these positions in Clause 14 is to make it clear to those less well versed in the law—and that is certainly true of the majority of us—that politicians are free to talk to the public about issues and free to campaign on important issues. It will ensure that, at the end of the day, prior indications of an opinion will not be treated as evidence of predetermination.
Perhaps I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that the only evidence that can be presented to show that a person does not have an open mind is that which exists at the point of the decision-making process. Therefore, prior comments, commitments and pledges do not matter as long as the local authority member clearly listens to the evidence and makes his decision. It may accord with his prejudice or his predisposition, but any evidence that he has a closed mind can only be made at the point when he makes that decision and not at any point prior to that.
Lord Pannick
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Do I understand him to be saying that any prior statement is irrelevant to the question of whether the councillor had an open mind at the time of decision-making? If that is what the Minister is saying, the example that I gave in my contribution to this debate would be irrelevant even though, surely, it would be highly material to the question of whether at the time of the decision the councillor had an open mind.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The test is that the decision-making process is key and the councillor demonstrates the ability to listen to the argument and to vote accordingly at the time of the decision-making. That is the current position in law. There is no suggestion that because somebody has campaigned on an issue they should not be free. Indeed, I think the House would acknowledge that people who have campaigned on issues should be free, as long as they demonstrate at the point at which the decision is being made that they have been prepared to consider opposing arguments. The fact that they have voted in accordance with their previous position does not necessarily mean that they predetermined the decision. That is precisely what this clause is designed to make clear.
I hope noble Lords will understand that this is a genuine attempt to provide clarification on a difficult area. To the extent that Amendment 165B has been tabled to suggest that this should be subject to review, it is unnecessary because, as we stated in our published impact assessment for this provision, there will be a post-implementation review to ascertain its impact. It will provide all the information that noble Lords have been seeking through presenting Amendment 165B. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lord Beecham for their support on this amendment. I am sorry if collectively—it is probably my fault—we have confused the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
I do not think the Minister’s response has moved us forward on this issue. If anything, I think it has moved us backwards. We accept that these are complex issues and that drafting legislation is difficult. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that he thought that the courts have hitherto got the balance about right. If the Minister thinks through the logic of what he has just said, if you can judge whether somebody had a closed mind only at the point of taking a decision, and if you have to leave aside and close your mind to all the previous evidence, even though any reasonable person might say that in particular circumstances it was abundantly clear that an individual had closed his mind, could that not leave the process open to massive abuse, because all somebody who wishes to thwart or support a decision needs to do is to behave sensibly and appropriately on the day at the point of the decision-making, even though he might have made his position absolutely clear before that? I am not a lawyer, although the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, certainly is, but it seems to me that the position he put in his example—that Clause 14(2) means that you have to exclude all that evidence when it comes to court, if that is where it arrives, and the Minister said that you do—must constitute a change in the law as it is at the moment. I do not think that the Government are in the right place. We are not trying to be difficult. This is not a party political issue, and I understand the Minister trying to get it right for councillors so that they are free of the fear that they may have been subject to to date, but I simply do not think that the Government are right. We are obviously not going to press Amendment 165A tonight, but I urge that we have the opportunity to have some discussion with officials between now and Third Reading—and I would welcome the input of other noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—with the right to bring it back if necessary. There is a risk that we are changing the law.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Of course we are always happy to discuss matters further, but I wanted to make the Government’s position quite clear. The clarification in Clause 14 is designed to make clear that there is a point at which predetermination can be adjudged, and that is the point at which a decision is made. To present any other points as being the point at which predetermination exists obviously becomes extremely complicated because you get involved with statements that have been made before the decision was presented before the member concerned.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I understand exactly that it is at the point at which the decision is made that people’s minds ultimately become closed, but that is where some judgment must be made. The issue is whether in making that judgment you ignore everything that has gone before. That is the point that we are struggling to understand.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I suggest to the noble Lord that the words which had initially confused me—making the decision “just because” of these factors—in fact answer his point. I think that those words “just because” mean that they are a consideration but they are not the only consideration. They are part of all the criteria that should be assessed when judging whether or not a mind has been closed. I can see that we are not going to take it further today. I just wanted to put that into the arena as well and assure the noble Lord that it was not he who confused me.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the noble Baroness but I do not think it helps us. If somebody who has done something said something, just because they have said that, if the provision requires you to not focus on that, not to take that into account in making a decision, you can count that decision only once and this excludes it. Perhaps we ought to see whether we can make some progress on this outside of these deliberations, but I really do not believe that the Government are in the right place on this.
Lord Pannick
Does the noble Lord accept that the Minister is undoubtedly right that the question of whether or not the councillor has a closed mind must be assessed as at the date when the council takes the decision? My concern—I ask whether it is his concern—is that it appears from the Minister’s observations that he is suggesting that anything that the councillor says at an earlier date, however extreme it may be, is irrelevant to the question of whether the councillor had a closed mind as at the date of the council decision. That seems to be the issue.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Yes, I am grateful to the noble Lord. That is exactly my concern and I honestly do not think we have had clarification on that. Perhaps we can take this forward by other means. With the leave of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.